<....The court wholly rejected that argument in a footnote:

The Court can dismiss the delay in filing argument right off the bat. The Communiqué was issued on March 27, the RIFs occurred on April 1, and the States filed this case on May 5, 2025. It was completely reasonable for the States to wait until the harms, described in the nearly 70 declarations, were realized. The Court disagrees with the Defendants' statement that "the delay further undermines their claims that they are suffering irreparable harm."

The Trump administration also complained the states were trying to launch a so-called "programmatic attack" on the political goals and prerogatives of the newly-led HHS. This kind of complaint argues, essentially, that a plaintiff is attacking how the government evolves as it carries out its business.

Again, the judge rejected the government's defense.

"This Court is not persuaded by the Defendants' argument that the States are launching a programmatic challenge because the States are indeed challenging the discrete March 27 Communiqué," the order goes on. "It is this action that ushered in sweeping terminations and administrative leaves that essentially eviscerated many of the public health programs on which the States rely. Contrary to the Defendants' assertions, the record does not indicate that the States are seeking 'wholesale improvement' of a program."

Notably, Dubose found Kennedy's termination effort wholly unlawful.

From the order, at length:

Here, the Court finds that the Communiqué contravenes congressional directives and statutory law. The States have presented copious clear examples in which Congress has appropriated funds to the federal programs and outlined how those funds are to be used. The Defendants, on the other hand, have yet to proffer any evidence demonstrating that the planned terminations would not decimate the Congressionally created sub-agencies or inhibit them from fulfilling their mandates. The catastrophic effects documented by the States illuminate that reality. In the Court's view, the States have substantiated that HHS is already unable to fulfill many of its statutory functions in light of the Communiqué. Given that the Communiqué is for all intent and purpose dismantling critical, statutorily mandated functions of the Agency, this Court finds that it is contrary to law.

"The Defendants' efforts to portray the Communiqué and its whiplash as a matter of agency discretion despite the snub of Congressional mandates is without merit," the order continues. "An examination of the relevant statutes supports the conclusion that Congress never meant to confer HHS the power to self-destruct. The Defendants here have failed to submit any evidence that HHS can meet its Congressional orders without applying the federal appropriations and employing the essential staff and experts who run its programs.">

Whaddaya think, <fredpigshit>, you contemptible whore?

<Several provisions of President Donald Trump’s executive order on elections have run into obstacles in court. But others are quietly moving ahead, at least for now, with big potential implications for state and local election officials and the voting systems they rely on.

In Montgomery County, Ohio, for example, residents can choose to mark their ballots either by hand, or using a ballot-marking device that prints out a paper ballot with a summary of their choices, alongside a machine-readable code reflecting those choices. Voters can verify their selections before submitting their ballots into a tabulator, which scans the code and records the votes.

At least 85% of voters in a typical election choose the option that relies on the machine-readable codes, Jeff Rezabek, the county elections director, estimated.

So Rezabek is closely watching what happens with a provision in the executive order that calls for mostly banning the use of such codes (except where required for disability access), and what it would mean for the millions of dollars’ worth of already-certified voting equipment he can’t easily or quickly replace.

Experts consider systems with a voter-verifiable paper record to be the gold standard for election security. But some critics have argued that when these systems use a code for faster counting, voters have no way of knowing whether the code accurately reflect their choices, even though the results can be checked later.

The executive order instructs the U.S. Election Assistance Commission to work the barcode ban into a revision of the Voluntary Voting System Guidelines, the certification standards that most states rely on for their voting equipment. And the multistep process of altering the standards is already beginning.

An initial step is set for July 2, when the U.S. EAC has called a meeting of its Technical Guidelines Development Committee, a group of mainly election officials and technical experts.

The EAC’s meeting notice says the technical committee, which currently has several vacancies, will consider a draft of updated guidelines at that meeting.

EAC Chairman Donald Palmer, in an emailed response to questions from Votebeat, said there have “been security concerns expressed by the Executive Branch, state legislatures, and stakeholders on both sides of the aisle” about the use of barcodes and QR codes, and the July 2 meeting is a required step in the EAC’s regular update process.

“With this review, the EAC is being responsive to election officials’ needs and the evolving security demands of our elections,” he said. “Gathering feedback from our boards and the public is a chance for the community to provide its essential input on those changes.”

Building voting systems to new standards, testing them in federally accredited laboratories, and certifying them takes a long time. The last set of revised guidelines, VVSG 2.0, were adopted in 2021, but no systems certified under those guidelines have yet hit the market, though some are going through the process now.

It isn’t clear what the EAC will do if the technical committee declines to endorse revised guidelines on the barcodes. But election officials know the general public isn’t closely following the federal rule-making process, and may not understand that equipment certified under the previous guidelines can be used securely and produce accurate results. They are worried that the executive order has already sown public doubt about the integrity of voting equipment.

“It doesn’t entirely matter what happens through the standards process because voters are not going to hear that part,” said Amy Cohen, executive director of the National Association of State Election Directors. “Voters are hearing the president said this, and so that optics challenge is going to be very difficult for elections in 2025 and beyond.”

State lawmakers, too, could also try to act on their own to carry out the president’s priorities, regardless of what happens with the executive order. That could prove expensive for local jurisdictions. Rezabek said Ohio state lawmakers recently considered legislation that would require localities to use election equipment certified to VVSG 2.0, which would require buying new machines.

“Then we’re in trouble because one, I have no funding,” he said. And even if he did, he said, “the manufacturer doesn’t have it to give to us.”

Rezabek, a former Republican state lawmaker, worked with Ohio’s election officials association to address their concerns and lobby state legislators against that. They haven’t adopted such a requirement — yet....>

<....Election officials in other states are also worried. In Texas, state Elections Director Christina Adkins told county election officials on a call this month that her office has been “in discussions,” with the EAC, which she said “understands the impact of any decisions they make in this area.”

“I want to make it very clear, though, that we are bound to the federal certifications,” Adkins said. “Our state law requires that, so any changes to the federal certifications would generally apply to Texas systems as well.”

Some counties are already moving to replace equipment because of the executive order. In Williamson County, Texas, commissioners voted to spend more than $1 million to replace their current voting system, which relies on barcodes, with equipment that does not, according to local news reports.

Los Angeles County, the nation’s largest voting jurisdiction, uses customized voting equipment, and publicly posts a key to deciphering its QR code, to reassure the public that the codes can be checked to verify that they accurately reflect voters’ choices.

Election officials have been “assessing the impact” of having to modify or replace more than 31,000 ballot marking devices that are valued at more than $141 million, county elections chief Dean Logan wrote in court filings connected to one of the lawsuits challenging the executive order.

Money is just one consideration.

“Even if the EAC goes forward, changes these standards, and tries to apply them to existing voting systems, the time frame for making that kind of significant change to a voting system … that is usually a multiple year process to do that,” Logan said in an interview with Votebeat. “So part of what is not well-constructed in that order is understanding the timeline.”>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Magar, Thomas P"]
[Black "Kalisch, Tom"]
[ECO "A57"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Bg5 c5 3.Nc3 cxd4 4.Qxd4 Nc6 5.Qh4 e6 6.e4 Be7 7.O-O-O d6 8.f4 Qc7 9.Nf3 a6 10.Qe1 O-O 11.Kb1 Rd8 12.Rg1 b5 13.Bd3 Bb7 14.g4 Nd7 15.Nd5 exd5 16.exd5 Nce5 17.Nxe5 Nxe5 18.Bxe7 Qxe7 19.fxe5 dxe5 20.Be4 Rd6 21.Rg3 Rad8 22.Rgd3 g6 23.Qe3 f6 24.a4 Qc7 25.axb5 axb5 26.Rc3 Qd7 27.Qf3 b4 28.Rb3 Qa4 29.c4 Rc8 30.Rc1 Ra6 1/2-1/2>

1.Nf3 d5 2.g3 c5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.O-O Nc6 5.c4 e6 6.cxd5 exd5 7.d4 Be7 8.Nc3 O-O 9.Bg5 cxd4 10.Nxd4 h6 11.Be3 Bg4 12.h3 Be6 13.Rc1 Qd7 14.Kh2 Rac8 15.Qa4 Rfd8 16.Rfd1 a6 17.Nxc6 Rxc6 18.Bd4 b5 19.Qb3 Rdc8 20.Bxf6 Bxf6 21.Bxd5 Qa7 22.e3 Bxd5 23.Rxd5 Rc4 24.Rcd1 Bxc3 25.bxc3 Rxc3 26.Rd8+ Kh7 27.Qb1+ g6 28.R1d7 R8c7 29.Qd1 Rxd7 30.Rxd7 Rc7 31.Rd8 Qc5 32.Qf3 Qc6 33.Qf4 Rd7 34.Re8 Kg7 35.e4 Rd6 36.Qe5+ Rf6 37.Kg2 Qc2 38.Qd4 Qe2 39.Qc5 Qf3+ 40.Kg1 Qd1+ 41.Kh2 Qd6 42.Qe3 Qb6 43.Qxb6 1/2-1/2>

<[Event "Master/Expert Invitational"] [Site "Peterborough NH"]
[Date "2000.10.01"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Terrie, Henry L"]
[Black "Montgomery, Parker"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "E92"]
[WhiteElo "2200"]
[BlackElo "2007"]

<A decade ago, Donald Trump descended the golden escalator at Trump Tower in New York City and ignited a political movement that has reshaped American politics. In a memorable turn of phrase, Trump promised supporters of his 2016 presidential campaign that “we are going to make our country great again.”

Since then, the Make America Great Again movement has dominated the U.S. political conversation, reshaped the Republican Party and become a lucrative brand adorning hats, T-shirts and bumper stickers.

When asked what MAGA means to him, Trump, in a 2017 interview with The Washington Post said, “To me, it meant jobs. It meant industry, and meant military strength. It meant taking care of our veterans. It meant so much.”

But Democratic leaders have a different interpretation of the slogan.

Former President Bill Clinton in 2016 said of MAGA: “That message where ‘I’ll give you America great again’ is if you’re a white Southerner, you know exactly what it means, don’t you? What it means is ‘I’ll give you an economy you had 50 years ago, and I’ll move you back up on the social totem pole and other people down.”

While MAGA is ubiquitous, little is known about what it means to the American public. Ten years on, what do Americans think when they hear or read this phrase?

Based on the analysis of Americans’ explanations of what “Make America Great Again” means to them, we found evidence suggesting that the public’s views of MAGA mirror the perspectives offered by both Trump and Clinton.

Republicans interpret this phrase as a call for the renewal of the U.S. economy and military might, as well as a return to “traditional” values, especially those relating to gender roles and gender identities. Democrats, we found, view MAGA as a call for a return to white supremacy and growing authoritarianism.

What MAGA means

We are political scientists who use public opinion polls to study the role of partisanship in American politics. To better understand American views about MAGA, in April 2025 we asked 1,000 respondents in a nationally representative online survey to briefly write what “Make America Great Again” meant to them.

The survey question was open-ended, allowing respondents to define this phrase in any way they saw fit. We used AI-based thematic analysis and qualitative reading of the responses to better understand how Democrats and Republicans define the slogan.

For our AI-based thematic analysis, we instructed ChatGPT to provide three overarching themes most touched upon by Democratic and Republican respondents. This approach follows recent research demonstrating that, when properly instructed, ChatGPT reliably identifies broad themes in collections of texts.

Republican interpretation of MAGA

Our analysis shows that Republicans view the slogan as representing the “American dream.” In part, MAGA is about restoring the nation’s pride and economic strength. Reflecting these themes, one Republican respondent wrote that MAGA means “encouraging manufacturers to hire Americans and strengthen the economy. Making the USA self-sufficient as it once was.”

MAGA is also closely related among Republicans with an “America First” policy. This is partly about having a strong military – a common theme among Republican respondents – and “making America the superpower” again, one respondent wrote.

Republicans also wrote that putting America first means emphasizing strict enforcement of immigration laws against “illegals” and cutting off foreign aid. For example, one Republican respondent said that MAGA meant “stopping illegals at the border, ending freebies for illegals, adding more police and building a strong military.”....>

<....Finally, Republicans see the slogan as calling for a return to “traditional” values. They expressed a strong desire to reverse cultural shifts that Republican respondents perceive as a threat.

As one Republican put it, MAGA “means going back to where men would join the military, women were home raising healthy minded children and it was easy to be successful, the crime rate was extremely low and it used to be safe for kids to hang out on the streets with other kids and even walk themselves places.”

Another Republican made the connection between MAGA and traditional gender roles even more explicit, highlighting the link between MAGA and opposition to transgender rights: “MAGA people know there are only 2 sexes and a man can never be a woman. If you believe otherwise you are destroying AMERICA.”

Democratic MAGA views

Democrats have a very different understanding of the MAGA slogan. Many Democrats view MAGA as a white supremacist movement designed to protect the status of white people and undermine the civil rights of marginalized groups.

One Democrat argued that “‘Make America Great Again’ is a standard borne by people who’ve seen a decrease in the potency of their privilege (see: cisgendered white men) and wish to see their privilege restored or strengthened. In essence, it’s a chant for all racist, fascist and otherwise bigoted actors to unite under.”

Another Democrat wrote that MAGA was a call to “take us backwards as a society in regards to women’s, minority’s, and LGBTQ people’s rights … It would take us to a time when only White men ruled.”

Democrats also view MAGA as a form of nostalgia for a heavily mythologized past. Many Democratic respondents described the past longed for by Republicans as a “myth” or “fairytale.” Others argued that this mythologized past, though appealing on the surface, was repressive for many Americans.

One Democrat said that MAGA meant “returning America to a fantasy version of the past with the goal of advancing the success of white, straight, wealthy men by any means necessary and almost always to the detriment of other segments of the population.”

Finally, many Democrats interpret the slogan as reflecting an authoritarian cult of personality. In this vein, a Democratic respondent said of MAGA, “It’s a call to arms for MAGA cult members, who believe that Trump and the Republicans party will somehow improve their lives by targeting people and policies they don’t like, even when it is against their best interests and any rational thought process.”

While some Republicans expressed racist, xenophobic or anti-trans sentiments in their understanding of MAGA, some Democrats revealed outright condescension toward MAGA believers.

“The MAGA’s are brainwashed, idiotic members of society who know nothing more than to follow the lead of an idiotic president who has the vocabulary of a 3rd grader,” one Democrat wrote. “It is nonsense idiots parrot,” another respondent said.

In all, in the 10 years since Donald Trump burst onto the political scene, much has been written about the conflicting visions of past, present and future at the heart of America’s partisan divisions.

With the Trump administration’s proclaimed commitment to return the U.S. to its “golden age” and a strong resistance to his efforts, only time will tell which vision of America will prevail.>

<[Event "19th World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1991.07.??"]
[EventDate "1991"]
[Round "6"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Peckford, William"]
[Black "Zlotnikov, Mikhail"]
[ECO "E96"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.f4 g6 2.Nf3 Bg7 3.g3 d6 4.Bg2 e5 5.d3 Ne7 6.Nc3 O-O 7.O-O c6 8.Kh1 h6 9.fxe5 dxe5 10.e4 Be6 11.Be3 Nd7 12.Qd2 Kh7 13.Ne2 Qc7 14.c3 Rad8 15.d4 f5 16.Nh4 Nf6 17.Qc2 Nxe4 18.g4 Nd6 19.dxe5 Nc4 20.Bc1 Nxe5 21.Nd4 Rxd4 22.cxd4 Nxg4 23.Bf4 Qd7 24.h3 Nf6 25.Nf3 Ne4 26.Rad1 Nd5 27.Qc1 Nxf4 28.Qxf4 Bxa2 29.Ne5 Qe6 30.Bxe4 fxe4 31.Qg3 Rxf1+ 32.Rxf1 c5 33.Rg1 g5 34.h4 cxd4 35.Ng4 h5 36.Nh2 g4 37.Qf4 Bd5 38.Rc1 e3+ 39.Kg1 d3 40.Qg5 Qe5 0-1>