DHS has secured the return of the $59 million that FEMA employees sent to New York City for illegal aliens housing and other expenses. The media said it was sent legally from a FEMA offshoot. Guess Not!
Surprisingly, they didn’t get away with it, but President Trump does have a new ally in New York City.
DHS says it has clawed back the full $59 million FEMA gave to NYC for migrant hotels, which led to the firings of several individuals involved.
DHS spokesperson told Fox News:
“Secretary Noem has clawed back the full payment that FEMA deep state activists unilaterally gave to NYC migrant hotels. There will not be a single penny spent that goes against the interest and safety of the American people.”
The spokesperson said FEMA was “funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations and was used to house Laken Riley’s killer.”
The media claimed the money wasn’t going to a luxury hotel but the Roosevelt Hotel was a luxury hotel. However, word has it that the illegal aliens are destroying it.
More from DHS spokesperson @TriciaOhio:
“FEMA was funding the Roosevelt Hotel that serves as a Tren de Aragua base of operations & was used to house Laken Riley’s killer.”https://t.co/7ezQDfGEvQ— Bill Melugin (@BillMelugin_) February 12, 2025
Additionally, Donald Trump does have some authority to freeze or limit certain federal funding. It’s a small win, and it’s unclear what this affects.
A federal judge has ruled that President Trump possesses the authority to freeze or limit certain federal funding. pic.twitter.com/9ro4VqRT5H
— The Global Beacon (@globalbeaconn) February 12, 2025
You can comment on the article after the ads and subscribe to the Daily Newsletter here if you would like a quick view of the articles of the day and any late news:
Excerpts from SCOTUS opinion on Mississippi v. Johnson.
whether, in any case, the President of the United States may be required, by the process of this court, to perform a purely ministerial act under a positive law, or may be held amenable, in any case otherwise than by impeachment for crime.
The single point which requires consideration is this: can the President be restrained by injunction from carrying into effect an act of Congress alleged to be unconstitutional?
It is true that, in the instance before us, the interposition of the court is not sought to enforce action by the Executive under constitutional legislation, but to restrain such action under legislation alleged to be unconstitutional. But we are unable to perceive that this circumstance takes the case out of the general principles which forbid judicial interference with the exercise of Executive discretion.
The Congress is the legislative department of the government; the President is the executive department. Neither can be restrained in its action by the judicial department, though the acts of both, when performed, are, in proper cases, subject to its cognizance.