|
The USA’s arms exports grew by 21 per cent between 2015–19 and 2020–24, and its share of global arms exports went from 35 per cent to 43 per cent,  The report was published by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) on Monday, December 1, 2025. It states that the world's 100 largest arms-producing companies saw a 5.9% increase in revenue from arms and military services in the previous year (2024), reaching a record $679 billion. Key Details from the Report
0 Comments
Many experts predict that any formal case brought against Kelly would be quickly dismissed  Legal experts largely agree that the
Pentagon is unlikely to succeed in punishing Sen. Mark Kelly over the "illegal orders" video, citing significant constitutional and legal hurdles. The investigation was initiated after President Trump's social media posts accused Kelly and other lawmakers of sedition. Key arguments from legal experts include:
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has confirmed an investigation is underway, with potential outcomes including a recall to active duty for court-martial proceedings or administrative measures. However, the consensus among legal scholars is that such efforts face long odds in the U.S. judicial system. Kelly has dismissed the inquiry as political bullying, stating it will not deter him from his congressional duties Plaintiffs have shown that the IRS committed multiple violations of Internal Revenue Code Section 6103(i)(2)  A federal judge has issued a preliminary injunction blocking the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) from sharing confidential taxpayer address information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) for use in civil immigration enforcement. U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly ruled on November 21, 2025, that the data-sharing agreement was unlawful because it violated federal law protecting taxpayer confidentiality and procedures. The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by civil rights groups, including the Center for Taxpayer Rights.
Key details of the ruling:
 Yes, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has abruptly withdrawn a proposed rule that would have mandated asbestos testing in talc-containing cosmetics. The rule, required by the 2022 Modernization of Cosmetics Regulation Act (MoCRA), aimed to establish standardized testing methods for detecting asbestos, a known carcinogen, in talc products. The FDA stated it needs to ensure any required test method effectively detects asbestos and noted comments suggested the rule would have "unintended consequences" for other products, including some drugs. Consumer safety advocates and environmental groups, including More Perfect Union and the Environmental Working Group (EWG), have strongly criticized the decision, calling it "reckless and dangerous". Critics argue the withdrawal removes essential consumer protections and forces reliance on the "honor system" for companies to test their products. The FDA intends to issue a new proposed rule that offers a "more comprehensive approach" to reducing asbestos exposure and identifying less costly alternatives. The withdrawal notice is scheduled to be officially published in the Federal Register on November 28, 2025 And before anyone shrugs—let’s be extremely clear about what asbestos is. It’s not controversial.
It’s not “under review.” It’s not something scientists are still debating. It’s a deadly substance linked to:
We have known this for decades. Corporations have known this for decades. Our government has known this for decades. So why would the FDA suddenly drop a rule requiring testing? We all know the answer - because mega corporations & their billionaire owners that make these products, do not want to pay for the testing. And the politicians who depend on corporate donors don’t want to upset the companies. So instead of strengthening protections, we’re removing them, and we’re expected to believe that’s normal. This is how deregulation actually works. It’s not always a press conference or an executive order. It’s a rule disappearing quietly. It’s a guideline being “reconsidered.” It’s an agency suddenly deciding safety is optional. Then, a few years later—after the damage is already done—someone publishes a study showing increased cancer rates in young women who used a certain powder or foundation. And everyone acts shocked. “How could this happen?” So what do we do? We support organizations and journalists exposing corporate influence inside federal agencies. We stop pretending consumer safety is a luxury. And we stop letting politicians use “regulation” as a dirty word while corporations walk away with record profits and zero accountability. Because the job of government is not to protect corporate margins. It’s to protect human beings. And right now, that could not be further from the truth. A group of 17 transgender Air Force and Space Force members recently sued the U.S. government after their previously approved early retirement benefits were revoked as part of the Trump administration's transgender military ban  The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims in November 2025, is ongoing, and no outcome has been reached yet. Key Details of the Lawsuit
It is just the latest in a series of legal challenges to the Trump administration’s policies that have sought to push transgender troops out of the military since the early days of his second term. The U.S. Supreme Court in May, however, allowed the ban on trans troops to be enforced while legal challenges proceed.
According to GLAD Law, one of the advocacy groups that helped bring the lawsuit, service members affected by the policy will now face a loss of up to $2 million owed for their service over the course of their lifetimes in addition to the loss of health insurance benefits. Michael Haley, a staff attorney with the group, said the revocation of the early retirement benefits was part of “the general cruelty in attacking transgender people.” He noted that many of the plaintiffs had received orders allowing their retirements and that some had even begun the process of getting out of the military. Logan Ireland, a master sergeant in the Air Force with 15 years of service that includes a deployment to Afghanistan, joined the lawsuit after having his early retirement denied. He told The Associated Press that “the military taught me to lead and fight, not retreat." "Stripping away my retirement sends the message that those values only apply on the battlefield, not when a service member needs them most,” he added. “These are folks who are going to move on with their lives, have received the OK to do so, and then have that taken away from them once again," Haley said. The Pentagon did not immediately respond to comment but has a longstanding policy of not commenting on ongoing litigation. President Donald Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have targeted diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in what they say is an effort to make the military more lethal. Pentagon officials say 4,240 troops have been diagnosed with gender dysphoria, which the military is using as an identifier of being transgender. The Air Force has been unique in implementing policies that have gone beyond just separating troops from military service. In addition to revoking retirement benefits, the service moved in August to deny transgender members of the Air Force the chance to argue before a board of their peers for the right to continue serving. The Pentagon rolled out a similar, military-wide version of that policy less than two weeks ago. Supreme Court Sees Amicus Brief Surge From Former Federal Judges in Trump Cases  A growing number of former federal judges have filed multiple amicus briefs in U.S. Supreme Court cases involving Donald Trump, particularly in cases concerning the scope of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies. This surge in participation is seen as a response to perceived threats to the rule of law and the judiciary's independence.
Key Cases and Amicus Filings Former judges have weighed in on several significant cases:
Significance of the Surge The involvement of former federal judges as amici curiae ("friends of the court") is a relatively new phenomenon in its current frequency. Signatories often include judges appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, adding a bipartisan dimension to their arguments. Retired U.S. District Judge Shira Scheindlin noted that this unprecedented level of participation is driven by a desire to speak on behalf of the judiciary amid attacks from the Trump administration on sitting judges. While the persuasive weight of these briefs is a subject of debate, some Supreme Court justices have occasionally referenced arguments from former judges in past opinions. The lawsuit originated from an effort by hard-line activists to enforce ideological criteria and block candidates deemed insufficiently loyal to President Trump.  A Georgia judge has issued a scathing ruling that permanently struck down an attempt by the Catoosa County Republican Party to impose "mysterious" ideological loyalty tests on candidates seeking to run as Republicans for local office. Ruling Details
Background The lawsuit originated from an effort by hard-line activists to enforce ideological criteria and block candidates deemed insufficiently loyal to President Trump. The Catoosa GOP tried to block four county commission candidates, including three incumbents. This decision is seen as a significant setback for far-right factions seeking to control Republican candidacies in Georgia and reinforces that state law governs ballot access. The justices agreed to hear a challenge to Mississippi’s law, a case that could upend similar measures in dozens of states before the 2026 election.  The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a major challenge to mail-in ballot laws, specifically a case from Mississippi that will determine if states can count ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if postmarked by that date.
Key Details of the Case
“Rather than attempting to invoke a religious exemption for herself, Davis instead exercised the full authority of the Rowan County Clerk’s office to enact an official policy of denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples, one every office employee had to follow,”  The Supreme Court on Monday declined to hear the appeal from Kim Davis, the former Kentucky court clerk who sought to overturn the landmark 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. The refusal to hear the case means the ruling in Obergefell remains the law of the land and a lower-court order for Davis to pay a same-sex couple a substantial sum in damages stands. The justices did not provide any comment or explanation for the denial, and no dissents from the decision were publicly noted. Key Details
I remember when this first happened and wrote about it. Mike Huckabee went to Kentucky to support Kim Davis. Also there to support her was Founder of the Oathkeepers Stewart Rhodes. Stewart had just advocated in Ferguson, MO and Chattanooga, TN revealing himself as a racist and a supporter of radical government attempts to instill religion into government. A stance that is nothing new to Huckabee. It was a horrible display of a bias that continues to seep into our government in my experience view.
“I felt like I had the right to do what I did,” Thompson told Tribal Business News. “It is a medicine, and it's part of our treaty to be able to harvest and utilize it as a medicine.”  The case that could reshape how Public Law 280 applies to cannabis rights is State of Minnesota v. Todd Jeremy Thompson. Todd Thompson, a member of the White Earth Band of Ojibwe, was charged in Mahnomen County with first-degree possession of cannabis with intent to sell after state agents and tribal police raided his smoke shop, Asema Tobacco and Pipe, in August 2023. The legal arguments in the case center on:
The outcome of the case, which had oral arguments in the Minnesota Court of Appeals in November 2025, could set a significant precedent for how state cannabis laws interact with tribal sovereignty and jurisdiction under Public Law 280 in states that have legalized marijuana In 1953, Congress enacted Public Law 83-280 (67 Stat. 588) to grant certain states criminal jurisdiction over American Indians on reservations and to allow civil litigation that had come under tribal or federal court jurisdiction to be handled by state courts. However, the law did not grant states regulatory power over tribes or lands held in trust by the United States; federally guaranteed tribal hunting, trapping, and fishing rights; basic tribal governmental functions such as enrollment and domestic relations; nor the power to impose state taxes. These states also may not regulate matters such as environmental control, land use, gambling, and licenses on federal Indian reservations.
The states required by Public Law 280 to assume civil and criminal jurisdiction over federal Indian lands were Alaska (except the Metlakatla Indian Community on the Annette Island Reserve, which maintains criminal jurisdiction), California, Minnesota (except the Red Lake Reservation), Nebraska, Oregon (except the Warm Springs Reservation), and Wisconsin. In addition, the federal government gave up all special criminal jurisdiction in these states over Indian offenders and victims. The states that elected to assume full or partial jurisdiction were Arizona (1967), Florida (1961), Idaho (1963, subject to tribal consent), Iowa (1967), Montana (1963), Nevada (1955), North Dakota (1963, subject to tribal consent), South Dakota (1957-1961), Utah (1971), and Washington (1957-1963). Subsequent acts of Congress, court decisions, and state actions to retrocede jurisdiction back to the Federal Government have muted some of the effects of the 1953 law, and strengthened the tribes’ jurisdiction over civil and criminal matters on their reservations. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.