ListNook

HippyDM May 9, 2026 +482

We have a great system, huh? He gets to do whatever he wants, and then a year later, when it's far too late to prevent the massive damage, a judge decides it was illegal all along.

482

LumberBitch May 9, 2026 +177

And that's the best case scenario. Worst case, the supreme Court just says go nuts and f*** you I don't have to explain myself

177

tarion_914 May 9, 2026 +41

"Official act"

41

LumberBitch May 9, 2026 +20

They can officially kiss my act

20

max123246 May 10, 2026 +1

No it's far worse. They set precedent that means all lower courts must respect their decision for all future court cases

1

the_last_0ne May 9, 2026 +57

I mean, the guys who set the system up did a decent job. You can't make a system that will survive bad actors, because they care nothing for the system in the first place. The last resort was supposed to be voters. Voters should have prevented this. Instead we have 1/3 of the country who couldnt care less what happens as long as brown people get shafted, and another 1/3 who didnt care enough about it to bother to vote. And that goes for nearly every election in the past 50 years.

57

babygorgeou May 10, 2026 +7

There are also a lot of people who vote and don’t even know what they’re voting for. Then this party ensures more ignorance by decimating public schools. It’s already so bad I don’t see how there’s any hope of turning back w an even less educated next generation. How do we stop this?

7

NewManufacturer4252 May 10, 2026 +2

My personal opinion, voting should be mandatory with a 3 day vacation. Parties in the streets and bbg. Throw in a tax break

2

TheBigCore May 10, 2026 +3

"It's easier to beg forgiveness than to ask permission." - Grace Hopper

3

modsiw_agnarr May 10, 2026 +2

Grace Hopper

2

margotsaidso May 10, 2026 +3

It shows how critical easy nationwide injunctions were to checking the executive branch even if it was somewhat abusable.

3

babygorgeou May 10, 2026 +3

Besides that it’s the lack of consequences that really gets me. How is it possible? What’s the point of even involving a court if it does nothing to stop it from happening, or happening again, at the very least

3

punkasstubabitch May 9, 2026 +1450

That's great. In the meantime, countless organizations and people around the world have undergone irreparable harm.

1450

RenoRiley1 May 9, 2026 +615

Over a half a million people are already estimated to have starved to death due to cutting USAID. This regime has committed crimes against humanity.

615

kingtacticool May 9, 2026 +289

The USAID cuts are projected to cost over 13 million lives. Twice the number of jews killed in the holocaust

289

speculatrix May 9, 2026 +123

Trump did want to have the highest numbers of any premier/president/emperor in history.

123

speculatrix May 9, 2026 +57

That total hasn't been reached yet but the trump administration hasn't succeeded in completely stopping everything.. I found this https://www.cgdev.org/blog/update-lives-lost-usaid-cuts *For FY2026, the administration has suggested further severe cuts that could lead to considerably greater mortality in line with our estimates above, but it appears Congress may largely preserve health and humanitarian funding*

57

kingtacticool May 9, 2026 +31

Amd I've got this from 2 days ago https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/world/trump-administration-usaid-global-health-funding-intl

31

speculatrix May 9, 2026 +18

Oh man, Trump is speed running his own holocaust pogrom.

18

Ojntoast May 10, 2026 +5

He sees this as an accomplishment that he will engrave on the walls of his ballroom

5

trackday21 May 9, 2026 -33

How do you estimate that? Like all those humans have no agency and can only survive on USAID? How is that remotely possible to determine?

-33

kingtacticool May 9, 2026 +22

Its actually 14 million https://www.npr.org/sections/goats-and-soda/2025/07/01/nx-s1-5452513/trump-usaid-foreign-aid-deaths https://newsroom.ucla.edu/stories/USAID-cuts-global-impact-14-million-deaths https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/usaid-cuts-lead-14-million-deaths-five-years-researchers-say-rcna216095

22

trackday21 May 10, 2026 -19

So all three of these links are based on just the same one study. "multiple sources agreeing" is just them talking about one another, agreeing on one study. You added three links like that's somehow more substantial evidence- it is not. That study presents highly uncertain counterfactual modeling in a way that may overstate confidence, causality, and precision. Peer-reviewed though it is and I DO think people will suffer from withdrawing USAID - saying it is estimated to be 14 mil is wildly speculative. Without the Marshall plan Europe would have collapsed and millions more would have died... right? idk maybe

-19

kingtacticool May 10, 2026 +21

https://www.bu.edu/sph/news/articles/2025/us-funding-cuts-could-result-in-nearly-9-million-child-tuberculosis-cases-1-5-million-child-deaths/ https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/usaid-shutdown-has-led-to-hundreds-of-thousands-of-deaths/ And this is from two days ago about a further 2 billion being clawed back from USAID https://www.cnn.com/2026/05/07/world/trump-administration-usaid-global-health-funding-intl These cuts are going to lead to millions of deaths. How many million? Does it really matter? This is unconscionable

21

trackday21 May 10, 2026 -23

You're not listening

-23

kingtacticool May 10, 2026 +12

Without the Marshall plan millions more people would have died, yes. Europe's ability to care for the tens of millions of refugees after the war was minimal. Germany was a wasteland incapable of feeding its own broken people. Yes. The Marshall plan saved millions of people over a long enough timeline. Undoubtedly. USAID *has* saved 93 million people since its introduction in 1961. 75 years. That means *at minimum* 1.24 million people a year are dying without its programs. Considering the HIV/AIDS prevention and mitigation programs and the malaria programs that have been shuttered that number is likely higher and will grow the longer it is gone.

12

GoarSpewerofSecrets May 11, 2026 -2

While cutting USAID is a massive blow to soft power of the US, it also isn't a crime against humanity to choose how to spend your people's monies.

-2

BallinCock May 11, 2026

Is your IQ as high as your body mass divided by ten?

0

GoarSpewerofSecrets May 11, 2026

USAID is a good thing, yes, even if it's dressed up propaganda. It's how things work for big dogs, even the Romans paid out treasure to keep their territories in line. We luckily never got to the place where it would be one of the nails in our coffin for spending, unlike the Soviets. Trump managed to cause the opposite, though. It still isn't a crime. Other than one against the people of the United States by robbing us of our generational wealth in soft power.

0

BallinCock May 11, 2026 +1

Mr President: if you are going to line your deep pockets with my hard earned money—that you tax a disproportionately high percentage of relative to people who make unspeakably more money than me—you can rest assured you are morally bankrupt. There is no doubt. Whether you call it a crime means nothing. Call it what you want. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s behavior fit for an astoundingly reprehensible husk of a human being.

1

trackday21 May 9, 2026 -17

What are you estimating, the number or that they starved?

-17

MrBrawn May 9, 2026 +43

Harm is the point.

43

JohnBrownSurvivor May 10, 2026 +13

That was the only real goal anyway. He might eventually replace them with something else, once he figures out a grift he can run.

13

Ditka85 May 11, 2026 +2

This has always been the plan. Do something that negatively affects a race/country/demographic, and by the time the courts get around to it, the damage has been done and the harm that was intended has occurred.

2

Kind_Advisor_35 May 9, 2026 +253

DOGE alone was enough grounds to charge Trump with impeachment because it trampled all over Congress's constitutional power of the purse. DOGE was the first of many actions by the second Trump administration that showed a complete disregard of the law. No other administration has lost this many court cases on constitutional grounds. Enough is enough. No matter how bad the gerrymandering gets, turn out to vote against Republicans in November. The new maps do not account for unprecedented turnout and Republican voters turning on what the party has become. It's not about individual issues, it's about law and order. There will be none at the highest levels until the Trump administration is at minimum severely handicapped in Congress.

253

bigredthesnorer May 9, 2026 +28

Well said.

28

DrusTheAxe May 10, 2026 -5

Now tell me where’s enough grounds to convict Trump Until enough Congresscritters find their balls and honor their oath impeachment is just edging without release

-5

Mythranite86 May 9, 2026 +27

Now do something about it please

27

hoppyandbitter May 9, 2026 +20

The most unsurprising part of this is that DOGE and the Trump admin claimed they were blameless because ChatGPT was the one doing all the work

20

failingmyself May 9, 2026 +1

[ Removed by Listnook ]

1

subsignalparadigm May 9, 2026 +67

Everything this regime does is unconstitutional.

67

BrimstoneMainliner May 9, 2026 +28

They don’t give a f*** about the constitution

28

PleaseHelpFlorida May 9, 2026 +9

The party that literally walks around carrying a Constitution in their pockets.

9

AdjNounNumbers May 9, 2026 +5

They do the same with the Bible, yet have read and understood neither. They're both just documents to hold up to appeal to the uneducated that want to justify their hatred and bigotry when wielded by those hungry for power and wealth

5

RMRdesign May 9, 2026 +23

I mean doesn’t this all come down to Trump having unchecked powers? Sure DODGE did the dirty work, but Trump could have just written something out and canceled what he wanted. It’s all bullshit and someday hopefully he’ll answer for his crimes.

23

Big-D-TX May 9, 2026 +9

Elon did what he wanted, gaining information and destroying valuable information.

9

jupiterkansas May 9, 2026 +30

So what? The grants were cancelled and nobody will be punished.

30

Phillies2002 May 9, 2026 +17

If you click on the article you're responding to, the grants weren't canceled. This ruling stopped the grants from being canceled.

17

Mutant-Cat May 9, 2026 +28

It's worth noting the Trump admin has ignored a separate judge's ruling telling them to restore funding to a variety of [UC Berkeley research grants.](https://apnews.com/article/trump-uc-berkeley-research-grants-a95e3df65d9d6d26e947e381dd150cc6)

28

Trumperdammerung May 10, 2026 +3

No, that's not what the article says at all.

3

HippyDM May 9, 2026 +7

Doesn't matter. Hundreds of thousands have already died due to the lack of food, and many of the groups that got that food to people are gone. The damage is done.

7

Phillies2002 May 9, 2026 +19

Are we talking about the same humanities grants here? The humanities grants in the article we're talking about? I'm open to the concept that hundreds of thousands of artists and writers have starved to death due to a temporary delay in grant funding, but that seems pessimistic for this particular case

19

skwerrel May 9, 2026 +19

I suspect our friend here misread it as "humanitarian" though I could be wrong, and perhaps they just don't understand the difference

19

Little_Noodles May 10, 2026

I think they’re confused about the nature of the grants, but I don’t think they’re wrong. If you’re a small to medium sized organization and these grants funded a meaningful part of your operations, having that reliable funding stream disrupted really is a problem. Like, if the best case scenario is that all the originally granted funds were just temporarily partially in limbo, that’s still going to account for a lot of sleepless nights, a lot of scrambling, and a significant shift to figuring out what nct funding year looks like

0

godspareme May 9, 2026 +10

Where's the running tally of the amount of unconstitutional acts committed by Trump? Has it broken 100 for this term alone yet?

10

SigmaK78 May 9, 2026 +7

If anyone thinks Trump is going to stop doing what he wants to do, regardless of who gets hurt, because a court says so, I have a slightly used bridge to sell you.

7

PTBAFC24601 May 9, 2026 +3

And? With the current administration, does this ruling matter at all? “Nothing to see here. Keep moving.”

3

sooojew May 10, 2026 +3

Little baby trumpy is found to be doing 10-20 illegal things everyday. Doesn’t mean a thing if nothing is done and no one held the slightest bit accountable.

3

thegamenerd May 10, 2026 +6

"I'll take 'No shit Sherlock' for $200 Alex" The power of the purse is a congressional power, not executive. So we gonna actually impeach him for it or is the House gonna keep sitting on their hands and "praying for a better tomorrow"? EDIT for context: [For those unaware a democrat rep literally offered "prayers for the administration to stop" about trump threatening to end Iran overnight](https://bsky.app/profile/gluesenkampperez.house.gov/post/3miwqyato2c2y) rather than sponsor the articles of impeachment that were going through the chamber at that time.

6

FourWildJokers May 9, 2026 +6

EVERYTHING this child f***** is doing is unconstitutional.

6

draivaden May 10, 2026 +2

Its nice to knowSOME of the wheels of state are still functioning as normal

2

chefjayprez May 10, 2026 +2

His whole presidency is unconstitutional, happy 250 America.

2

jquas21 May 10, 2026 +2

About everything he does is and yet this scotus backs him again and again. The whole system needs new leadership for the people and by the people. Not for special interest, Trump vanity projects or from the corporation a not trying to expand our middle class.

2

Independent-Towel-47 May 9, 2026 +1

If there’s anything Trump has shown it’s that the judiciary is the weakest branch

1

LOC_damn May 10, 2026 +1

I thought that said human rights. And I wasn’t shocked. 😭

1

TuckerCarlsonsOhface May 11, 2026 +1

And who enforces such rulings again, DOJ? Cool, cool…

1

ricosmith1986 May 9, 2026 -1

How many times is he allowed to wantonly and deliberately violate the constitution with no consequences?

-1

hyper_espace May 10, 2026 +1

The congress can remove Trump. Anything else could be deemed a coup.

1

Kind_Advisor_35 May 10, 2026 +1

As long as Congress lets him. Since the Republicans refuse to hold him accountable, as many as possible need to be voted out in November. Blatant disregard of the law should draw bipartisan opposition, but unfortunately it's not.

1

TheBigCore May 10, 2026 +1

Like Trump cares what the courts think?

1

fjf1085 May 10, 2026 -1

Now hold him responsible personally financially for those unconstitutional acts.

-1

trackday21 May 9, 2026 -2

If this is truly a crime against humanity of unprecedented proportion where are the stories about benevolent peoples extending a helping hand? Europe? Asia? A hurricane can create an outpouring of aid in a few hours - wth is this?

-2

ginrumryeale May 10, 2026

Thanks for the slow af ruling.

0

SelfDepricator May 9, 2026 -1

He'll appeal to the supreme Court who will overturn the decision. Meanwhile he'll continue to not fund humanitarian grants because everyone is too chicken shit to stop him. Shit is so fucked it's depressing

-1

EuphoricCrashOut May 9, 2026 -6

So they did an illegal thing. When do they get arrested? If they don't get arrested, I don't give a f***. It's not illegal then.

-6

Judge rules Trump administration's cancellation of humanities grants was unconstitutional

💬 Send a Message

75 Comments