#act blue

ActBlue is widely considered one of the pillars of the Democratic Party’s digital ecosystem.

April 24, 2025, 11:43 AM EDT / Updated April 24, 2025, 6:16 PM EDT

By Garrett Haake, Daniel Arkin and Nnamdi Egwuonwu

President Donald Trump signed an executive memorandum Thursday aimed at investigating ActBlue, the leading Democratic fundraising platform.

The memorandum directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to “investigate allegations regarding the unlawful use of online fundraising platforms to make 'straw' or 'dummy' contributions or foreign contributions to political candidates and committees, and to take appropriate action to enforce the law."

It specifically names ActBlue as an online fundraising platform being used "to improperly influence American elections."

A White House document accompanying the memo also suggested that ActBlue accepts donations in which donors evade federal limitations by breaking their contributions down into smaller ones and attributing them to numerous people.

From radical left terrorists to unknown swatters targeting journalists, political figures, companies, social media platforms and conservatives.

The People of America call for these actions to be rightly labeled as domestic terrorism and for perpetrators to be arrested and given appropriately harsh sentences.

Connections have previously been made of protestors and rioters paid by Actblue, a Soros funded organization.

But these acts have risen to the next level, including arson, murder, and attempted murder via swatting.

The FBI has also been called upon to investigate and prosecute immediately.

The deepstate seems to be trembling, while the radical brainwashed left are being triggered into violent acts.

It's a good idea to listen to the information from those that the deep state is attempting to silence.

A judical tide overwhelms Trump.

April 25, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

The plague of fantasy orders signed by Trump in his first 100 days in office has collided with reality. Reality is winning—big time. On Thursday, Trump's executive orders were overwhelmed by a rising tide of judicial decisions.

Trump's executive orders should be viewed as a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. Although we should treat the orders as serious statements of Trump's intent, we must also recognize that they violate the Constitution and laws of the US at every level.

Executive orders CANNOT

-Amend, suspend, or ignore the Constitution; -Supersede statutes enacted by Congress; -Cancel or impound congressional appropriations; -Shutter agencies created by statute; -Use mass layoffs to incapacitate agencies established by Congress; or -Overrule judicial decisions.

Because every executive order signed by Trump violates (at least) one of the above prohibitions, federal judges have enjoined the implementation of Trump’s orders at a scalding pace. Bewildered Trump supporters complain that no president has ever encountered such widespread judicial constraint. Trump's supporters ignore the obvious explanation—that no other president has acted in such a lawless manner.

One hundred days into Trump's second term, the courts have emerged as an essential bulwark in the defense of democracy. It is, of course, their duty to do so, but it could have been otherwise. Even the Supreme Court has dipped its toe into the emerging tide of opposition to Trump. We can only hope that the justices will read the winds and tides to help navigate our nation back to the safe harbor of the rule of law.

Let’s take a look at some of the judicial decisions issued on Thursday that are slowing or reversing Trump's efforts to overturn the Constitution and circumvent the rule of law.

Multiple court decisions halt the implementation of Trump's executive orders.

Republicans are attempting to push the SAVE Act through the Senate. The SAVE Act would require proof of citizenship for newly registering or re-registering voters. Trump understands that the SAVE Act will be blocked in the Senate by the filibuster rule, so he issued an executive order attempting to implement the SAVE Act by presidential fiat.

On Thursday, a federal judge told Trump that the president has no role in federal elections. See Democracy Docket, Judge Halts Trump’s Anti-Voting Executive Order.

The case was brought by the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC) against the Trump administration. The Complaint is here: LULAC v. Executive Office of President.

On Wednesday, the US district judge overseeing the case, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, issued an order blocking implementation of Trump's executive order. In her ruling, Judge Kollar-Kotelly noted that the president has no constitutional or statutory role in the administration of elections:

Our Constitution entrusts Congress and the States—not the President—with the authority to regulate federal elections. Consistent with that allocation of power, Congress is currently debating legislation that would effect many of the changes the President purports to order. See SAVE Act, H.R. 22, 119th Cong. (2025). And no statutory delegation of authority to the Executive Branch permits the President to short-circuit Congress’s deliberative process by executive order.

Judge Kollar-Kotelly’s order is here: Memorandum Opinion | LULAC v. EOP | 4/24/25.

The 119-page opinion rests on a simple but powerful point: The Constitution grants power to regulate to the states and to Congress. Trump's bloviating executive orders are propaganda, nothing more.

To a similar effect, a trio of decisions held that Trump's executive order prohibiting public schools from teaching or using “DEI” is unconstitutional. A “Dear Colleague” letter sent to schools across the nation threatened to cut off federal funding to schools that taught or utilized “DEI” in their curricula or operations. See CNN Politics, Department of Education policy targeting DEI and other race-related school programs is likely unconstitutional, judge rules.

Three US District Court judges, two of whom were appointed by Trump, wrote in three separate cases that the “Dear Colleagues” letter sent by the Department of Education to schools across the nation (a) constituted “viewpoint discrimination” under the First Amendment, (b) violated the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee, or (c) violated the Administrative Procedures Act.

The three orders are set forth below:

Order | NEA v. Department of Education (D. N.H.)

Oral Ruling | NAACP v. Department of Education (D. D.C.)

Memorandum Opinion | American Federation of Teachers v Department of Education | (D. MD).

The judges relied on three different judicial approaches in enjoining the implementation of the threats in the Dear Colleague letter. The various judicial approaches are explained by the legal theories asserted and remedies sought by the plaintiffs.

The fact that three jurists arrived at the same conclusion via three legal pathways underscores the breathtaking substantive illegality and procedural impropriety of the administration’s ham-fisted tactics. Trump's executive orders are performative in nature, unmoored from presidential authority and constraints set forth in the Constitution.

In another loss for Trump, a federal judge in the Northern District of California ruled that Trump's executive order that attempted to defund “sanctuary cities” is unconstitutional. See Order Granting Injunction | San Francisco v. Trump (N.D. Cal.).

US District Judge William H. Orrick issued an emergency order preventing implementation of an executive order that withheld federal funds from so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Judge Orrick issued an identical injunction against a similar order issued by Trump in 2017. Judge Orrick noted that his ruling in the 2017 case was upheld by the Ninth Circuit.

There were other legal developments (all bad for Trump), but losing five cases in a day is likely a record for any president in US history. You have to work hard to be so wrong that you lose cases at their inception, when the burden of proof is stacked against the plaintiffs.

Pressure mounts for law firms to resist Trump's hostile takeover attempt

There were several significant developments in the efforts to oppose Trump's assault on the independence and integrity of the legal profession. First, Lawyers Defending American Democracy (LDAD), published a statement calling on lawyers at top law firms to end their silence in the face of Trump's hostile takeover attempt. See LDAD, Elite Lawyers Must End Their Silence and Unite to Protect the Justice System.

Although 21 major firms have chosen to take a public stand against the administration’s assault on the legal profession, 170 of the 200 largest firms have remained silent. LDAD has called upon those 170 law firms to speak out and declare their fealty to the rule of law.

LDAD published an open letter to those 170 firms, warning them of the consequences of capitulating to Trump.

LDAD writes,

Your firm will forever be redefined. Your rival firms will point to you as a portrait of cowardice and ask how any client could trust you after succumbing to powerful interests without a fight. You will forever be joined with a small group of the most privileged firms in this country who betrayed the principles that lawyers and clients must be free to choose one another; that all people appearing in our courts are entitled to the best advocacy their counsel can offer; and that the rule of law requires lawyers and their firms to stand up for it, even when it is not in their own personal or financial interest. Reputations take decades to build and only one fateful decision to destroy.

A coalition of law students has joined the effort to stiffen the backbones of leaders at elite law firms. The leaders of the effort are asking current law students to refrain from working for law firms that have capitulated to Trump. See Law Student Firm Pledge.

The Law Student Firm Pledge reads, in part,

Our democracy is under attack, and it is time for lawyers to choose sides. As the future of the legal profession, who have committed to defending the rule of law, we cannot stand for capitulation to tyranny. [¶] The response from too many firms has been either silence or collaboration, with some of the most powerful law firms in the world committing to the elimination of diversity programs and openly agreeing to set amounts of money in pro bono work to support Trump's lawless agenda.

We, the undersigned, refuse to work for any firm that gives in to Trump administration demands regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion or the types of cases handled by the firm.

In another courageous action, a law firm in Tennessee has served public notice of its withdrawal from the Tennessee Bar Association (TBA) because of the TBA’s silence in the face of Trump's lawlessness. See Memphis Flyer, Memphis Law Firm Leaves Tennessee Bar Association for Its Silence on Trump.

The law firm, Donati Law, announced its resignation from the TBA in a letter that stated, in part, as follows:

It is with great sadness that we feel obligated to leave the TBA due to its refusal to take a stand consistent with the ideals of the Rule of Law and an independent judiciary in the face of extreme threats from the executive branch.

Kudos to Donati Law for serving as examples for other law firms.

Finally, fourteen Democratic representatives in the US House have sent letters to the Capitulating Law Firms asking for voluntary responses to pointed questions. See 4/24/25 Letters to Brad Karp (Paul Weiss) et al.

The letters make the point that the agreements may have violated multiple federal and state anti-bribery statutes as well as ethics rules of the New York and D.C. bar associations. Ouch, double ouch, and triple ouch!

Each of the firms that received the above letter must have notified its malpractice carrier of a potential claim, loss, or alleged illegal act. And insurers for large law firms are busily drafting exclusions from insurance coverage for future “deals” with the Trump administration.

It is truly breathtaking that a handful of the largest, most sophisticated firms in the nation have placed themselves in such jeopardy to protect marginal profitability. What were they thinking?

Trump's corruption on full display—and Republicans shrug their shoulders.

Republicans pursued the “Hunter Biden laptop” with unrelenting zeal because they believed that it might somehow show that Joe Biden attempted to profit from holding the office of the Vice President.

Donald Trump is openly auctioning off dinners with the President and VIP tours of the White House, and Republicans are nowhere to be found. To be clear, Trump is not selling access to the president for his campaign coffers or those of other Republicans. Trump is funneling the money into his personal bank account.

Here’s the scam: Trump has started a cryptocurrency. He owns the initial “coin” of the currency. Subsequent purchasers of the cryptocurrency are purchasing the coin directly from Trump. Trump is offering White House dinners and tours to those who make the largest purchases of Trump's cryptocurrency. See Mother Jones, Trump Crypto Coin Buyers Offered VIP Tour of White House.

At the very moment that Trump is selling access to the Office of the Presidency to the highest bidder, he has directed Attorney General Pam Bondi to begin an investigation of ActBlue, the major Democratic fundraising arm. See Democracy Docket, Trump Orders Probe Against Democratic Fundraising Platform ActBlue.

Trump falsely claims that ActBlue has illegally accepted contributions from foreign donors. But as explained in Democracy Docket, ActBlue discovered attempted contributions by foreign donors and blocked them:

The president left out the fact that ActBlue took actions in response to those detections. It caught and rejected fraudulent donations . . . [and] banned contributions made from foreign IP addresses using domestic prepaid cards, according to House Republicans.

As noted above, Trump's executive orders are a mixture of propaganda and photo opportunities. The investigation ordered by Trump in Thursday’s executive order is duplicative of existing congressional investigations into fundraising by ActBlue—investigations that have yet to discover any illegal conduct by ActBlue.

Carl Higbie on irregular FEC donations: Act Blue... "When I tell you Democrats are a machine, this is the kind of stuff I'm talking about."