American and European companies in the nuclear energy supply chain have become increasingly vulnerable to a possible supply shock in the uranium market amid fierce resource competition from China and Russia and the planned surge in nuclear power generation to meet electricity demand.
As many countries are now looking to nuclear power to cut emissions and reliance on imports of oil and gas, and meet the growing power demand from AI and data centers, they would need more uranium supply.
But China and Russia have moved to secure supply from African countries and are buying the key nuclear fuel from Kazakhstan, which is the biggest producer of uranium in the world and prefers to keep its sales diversified.
Not all in the nuclear power industry and the energy companies in the West have realized that competition for uranium supply is leading to a supply crunch, industry executives have told the Financial Times.
“We’re on a depletion curve that I don’t think many customers have realised,” Cory Kos, vice-president of investor relations at Cameco, the biggest western supplier based in Canada, told FT.
Amid plans for expansion of nuclear power generation in many countries, including in the United States, uranium demand is set to surge in the coming years and decades, while Western companies are seeing increased competition from China and Russia for supply.
“Russia and China are rapidly expanding their offtake of mined uranium from international partners, uranium enrichment capabilities, and nuclear infrastructure,” Gracelin Baskaran and Meredith Schwartz with the Washington D.C.-based Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) wrote in a report earlier this month.
“To strengthen uranium and nuclear fuel supply chains, the United States must work with allies, implement conducive trade and tariff policies, and invest in both domestic enrichment capacity and uranium ore production abroad,” they noted.
As Statista’s Katharina Buchholz reports, by far the most popular sport among those betting was football, with more than half of those active in sports betting putting their money on a football match.
Basketball, baseball and soccer followed not that far behind, at 38 percent for basketball and 25 percent for the other two sports.
Russia seeks to keep a reduced military presence in Syria, a key objective for President Vladimir Putin after the ousting of his previous ally, former president Bashar al-Assad, Bloomberg reports Monday.
According to sources familiar with the matter, Putin is close to a deal with the new self-appointed Syrian President, Ahmad al-Sharaa (Jolani), which would allow the Russian military to maintain some staff and equipment in the country.
The sources speaking with Bloomberg requested anonymity as they were not authorized to comment publicly. One of the sources claims Russia hopes to keep the same naval and air bases it used in Syria before Assad’s government fell on December 8 to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), the former Al-Qaeda affiliate in Syria.
The Russian naval base in Tartous on the Syrian coast is its only port in the Mediterranean. Russia’s Syrian air base is currently located in Hmeimim.
Sharaa and Putin spoke over the phone for the first time on February 12, suggesting that the negotiations are moving in a positive direction, Bloomberg reported.
Putin told Sharaa he was ready to provide aid to help Syria’s economy, which has been devastated in recent years due to US-imposed sanctions.
Russia recently sent a shipment of newly printed Syrian pounds to the country to alleviate a cash shortage that is hindering economic activity. The currency had been printed in Russia on behalf of Syria’s central bank before Assad’s fall.
As head of HTS, Sharaa led the insurgency against the Syrian government that began in 2011 with US, Israeli, Turkish, and Gulf backing.
Putin ordered Russia’s air force to intervene in 2015 to prevent Sharaa and HTS (then known as the Nusra Front) from capturing Damascus and imposing extremist religious rule on the diverse country.
When HTS launched a lightning offensive in November to topple the Syrian government, Assad and his family were evacuated to Moscow.
Reports this week claimed Syria’s new government asked Russia for Bashar Assad’s extradition in return for Moscow keeping its military bases in the country: https://t.co/aSZ6zbPper
President Putin also spoke with US President Donald Trump last week. Negotiations over the war between Russia and Ukraine are set to begin soon. The US has provided strong backing to Ukraine, causing the war to drag on for three years.
Russia could assist with the fight against ISIS, which is active in Syria’s east, the anonymous sources told Bloomberg. If Russia is able to maintain an air and naval base in the country, it could help the Syrian president counterbalance Turkiye’s strong influence on Damascus, one of them said.
Macron’s Emergency Ukraine Summit A Gathering Of ‘Warmongers’: Hungary
French President Emmanuel Macron’s informal emergency meeting Monday in Paris with the leaders of Germany, Britain, Italy, Poland, Spain, the Netherlands and Denmark, and NATO’s secretary general and EU figures – is a scramble prompted by Europe and Ukraine being cut out of Saudi-hosted negotiations between the US and Russia to end the three-year long Ukraine war.
President Zelensky in desperation is meanwhile urging for Europe to swiftly nominate a representative for the negotiations, one of his top advisers was cite in a fresh Bloombergreport as saying.
“It should be a quickly made decision,” Ihor Zhovkva, the deputy head of Zelenskiy’s office, said. “I hope right after the Paris meeting. We should act, not reflect.”
The US-Russia talks are expected to begin Tuesday, likely making any effort to insert a top European official into the mix to represent Kiev’s perspective too-little, too late.
Hungary has of course been a rare European voice of dissent this whole time, firmly standing in Trump’s corner in efforts to achieve a rapid peace.
Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto is Kazakhstan Monday, where he suggested the emergency Paris summit is really about thwarting peace and prolonging the war by a bunch of ‘warmongers’.
Szijjarto’s comments were picked up and translated by Russia’s RT. He said of the conference called by Macron as Europe scrambles to get a voice…
“We trust that the American-Russian negotiations will be successful, and we hope that this will lead to peace in Ukraine as soon as possible… However, we must also see that in Europe, those who do not want peace are organizing,” he said.
“Those who have been constantly adding fuel to the fire for the past three years are gathering in Paris today,” Szijjarto added, characterizing the participants as “war-mongering countries that have followed a misguided strategy.”
Indeed, speaking of which, tiny NATO country Denmark has really been hyping the possibilities of late:
If Moscow perceives NATO as weak, Russia could be ready to wage a “large-scale war” in Europe within five years, the Danish Defense Intelligence Service (DDIS) has said.
“Russia is likely to be more willing to use military force in a regional war against one or more European NATO countries if it perceives NATO as militarily weakened or politically divided,” states the report, which was released Tuesday.
“This is particularly true if Russia assesses that the U.S. cannot or will not support the European NATO countries in a war with Russia,” it continues, emphasizing that Russia is ramping up its military capabilities to prepare for a possible war against NATO.
And on Monday Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen followed this by saying Denmark and European allies must ramp up military preparedness, and claimed there are no signs that Moscow actually wants peace.
Von der Leyen on Monday: “We need a surge in defense in Europe.”
Today in Paris we reaffirmed that Ukraine deserves peace through strength.
Peace respectful of its independance, sovereignty, territorial integrity, with strong security guarantees.
Europe carries its full share of the military assistance to Ukraine.
All of this is also happening under lingering Trump threats, past and present, that if NATO allies don’t pay there way they’ll be left on their own. Trump even said in 2024 that he might “encourage” Russia to attack any NATO member country which fails to meet its defense spending obligations.
The CEO of German securities marketplace Deutsche Börse, Stephan Leithner, is calling for financial reforms in the European Union, including establishing a permanent digital euro to strengthen the region’s financial autonomy.
In a policy paper published on Feb. 15, Leithner outlined a 10-step strategy to transform the EU’s Capital Markets Union (CMU) into a Savings and Investments Union (SIU), with a central bank digital currency (CBDC) at its core.
Leithner sees the launch of a permanent CBDC as a key element of the EU’s digital agenda and as a crucial component of its financial strategy.
Using the digital euro as a strategic asset
Speaking about the EU’s policy framework and broader approach toward digital thought leadership, the Deutsche Börse CEO said that the European Central Bank (ECB) and national central banks must work together to ensure that the digital euro enriches the region’s capital markets ecosystem.
“The ECB’s joint approach with national central banks around a central bank digital currency will facilitate exploration of the most suitable solutions and truly enrich the EU’s capital markets ecosystem,” he said.
He also highlighted the need for technological developments around “cash on ledger” or “programmable payments” systems to ensure seamless interconnection between the EU’s permanent CBDC and existing payment systems and services.
Leithner said that a CBDC would improve efficiency in financial transactions and strengthen the EU’s economic autonomy.
Minimizing the influence of US dollar on Europe
Leithner added that combining various key regulatory frameworks in the EU, such as Markets in Crypto-Assets Regulation (MiCA), the AI Act and the Digital Operational Resilience Act (DORA), “would enable the euro to gain competitive edge at global level.”
While Leithner sees a permanent digital euro as a critical tool for enhancing the EU’s financial stability, competitiveness and innovation, the policy paper did not elaborate on the technical implementation or regulatory framework.
In January, banking giant Standard Chartered announced plans to establish a new Luxembourg entity offering crypto and digital asset custody services.
Standard Chartered’s crypto offering in the EU will be limited to Bitcoin and Ether, with more assets coming later in 2025, the bank’s head of digital assets, Waqar Chaudry, told Cointelegraph.
European Officials Say ‘Nyet’ To Nobel For Trump If He Secures Ukraine Peace
At the Munich Security Conference this weekend Polish Foreign Minister and Anne Applebaum’s husband – Radosław Sikorski – rejected Trump’s peace plan for Ukraine, mocking what he said is an unfair deal, before it has even gotten off the ground.
Sikorski declared during a panel discuss, “I would tell him [Trump] that we Europeans control the Nobel Peace Prize. If you want to earn it, the peace has to be fair.”
BREAKING: Polish globalist Sikorski now threatens they will deny Trump the Nobel Peace Prize even if he ends the Ukraine War pic.twitter.com/9b90KRMTNz
The top Polish diplomat was commenting on President Trump’s last Wednesday 90-minute phone call with Putin, and said: “I think the call was a mistake.”
Apparently world leaders are not supposed to conduct diplomacy to stop the killing in Ukraine, which is of course how peace after a three-year long war could be achieved. “I argued against an early summit,” Sikorski continued, in an apparent reference to efforts to get Trump and Putin face-to-face in a peace summit. “It vindicates Putin and lowers morale in Ukraine.”
“Therefore, the credibility of the United States depends on how this war ends – not just the Trump administration, but the United States.”
Sikorski then began talking Western ‘grand strategy’ (so much for Ukrainians suffering needlessly as the war is furthered?), saying next that “I would tell him that if you allow Putin to vassalise Ukraine, that will send a message to China that you can recover what you regard as a renegade province, and that would have direct consequences for US grand strategy, for the US system of alliances, and possibly for the future of Taiwan.”
He then drew laughter and applause by the audience by mentioning the Nobel Peace Prize. “I would tell him that we Europeans control the Nobel Peace Prize [so] if you want to earn it the peace has to be fair,” he asserted.
European officials are seething over what they see as Trump bypassing Zelensky in talks. After all, last Wednesday Trump held his Putin call first, after which a shorter call with the Ukrainian leader was held. Zelensky has reiterated that Ukraine won’t acknowledge any dealmaking without its direct input and agreement.
As for the Nobel, the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize was awarded to President Barack Obama which the committee said was for his “extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples.” He had not actually done anything, but was merely the first Black American president.
Later in his presidency, Obama led the US-NATO intervention in Libya, which was widely understood to be at its heart a regime change operation, leading to the brutal murder of the longtime Libyan leader in a ditch outside of Sirte. Obama had also kick-started the US policy of assisting the Saudis and UAE in a ruthless bombing campaign over Yemen using heavy American weaponry. It led to a half-decade long war in Yemen, targeting the Houthis, a conflict which set up the current Red Sea conflict.
Obama had also at one point ordered the drone assassination of 16-year old US citizen from Colorado, Abdulrahman Al-Awlaki (and without any due process whatsoever) – son of Al Qaeda linked cleric Anwar al Awlaki…
This is how Obama’s Press Secretary Robert Gibbs responded to questioning on the murder of the 16 year old US citizen Abdulrahman al-Awlaki in a drone strike ordered by Obama: “I ‘d suggest that you should have had a far more responsible father”. pic.twitter.com/Hp408VX08P
We don’t actually know what concrete ‘peace’ Obama ever brought to the world, and yet already the Europeans are saying nyet to even the possibility of a Nobel for Trump should he oversee the end a tragic war which has killed hundreds of thousand, and has threatened the security of Europe.
Politicians in Europe are using the JD Vance and Trump external enemy excuse to disguise the existential problem of a system that is crumbling. The statist nightmare built around what politicians call “welfare state” has proven to be a subterfuge to multiply bureaucracy and create a dependent subclass.
The welfare state was never sustainable but was created as an affordable luxury that rich economies could finance with strong economic growth and a solid productive sector. However, European governments overlooked the necessity of fostering economic growth and productivity to finance the welfare state.
Furthermore, as left-wing populism permeated all segments of the European political landscape, politicians started to include more and more so-called “rights,” which became entitlement costs and subsidies, in a trend that led Europe to forget to create wealth and focus entirely on extractive and confiscatory policies.
We have seen a gradual destruction of the productive sector, asphyxiated by constantly raising taxes and bureaucratic and regulatory limitations, while government budgets expanded without control.
The economy of the European Union operates on an inverted economic model. It puts entitlement spending as its pillar, instead of seeing that the welfare state is, at best, a consequence of wealth creation, not a cause. Without a thriving private sector, there is no welfare. Politicians should understand that you cannot provide citizens with social programs if the productive economy is weakened by political design.
In the latest Eurostat estimates, the ratio of social insurance pension entitlements to GDP was between 200% and 400% in European economies. Unfunded financial commitments are so large they will only be paid in a massively weakened currency if the current economic policies continue.
France is the prime example of this “upside down” approach to the economy. Putting entitlement spending at the forefront of economic policies has led to decades of stagnation, high debt and deficit, and social discontent. Taxpayers are tired, and recipients of entitlements are relegated to a dependent subclass.
The trick is the following: Government spending soars, and everything spent is justified under the banner of “social spending”.
Deficit and debt rise, so the government increases taxes to balance the budget.
If the economy grows, spending grows faster, and if the economy enters recession, the government spends even more to “protect” citizens. Thus, taxes rise even faster.
The constant process of expropriation of productive wealth becomes a burden on growth, investment, and productivity. Furthermore, more taxes generate lower incremental revenues and a demotivated business and workforce community that finds it impossible to thrive alongside the burden of bureaucracy and taxation.
Macron says that Europe is “underleveraged.”. The statement is incorrect, of course, but it is even less believable when we look at all the unfunded commitments.
Europe needs to abandon the current high taxes and bureaucracy and cut unnecessary spending so the pension and healthcare systems remain viable. This means slashing budgets and eliminating political spending. However, no political party wants to do it because thousands of their members depend on government jobs. The situation is so desperate that European nations cannot even increase the much-needed defense budget despite acknowledging the urgency of improving investment in security.
Europe’s welfare state became the welfare of the state at the expense of its businesses and taxpayers. The European Union has human capital, great businesspeople, and entrepreneurs. However, it is being destroyed from the inside by a political class that would rather see high inflation and a weaker currency than reduce its grip on the economy.
One of our current cultural mantras is “you do you” – putting your personal desires over the greater good of others and society. In other words, living selfishly instead of selflessly.
The manifestation of such a philosophy and its implications for our society is particularly acute when it comes to the institutions of marriage and family.
As the late James Q. Wilson, former professor of government at Harvard University, wrote in his book, “The Marriage Problem”: “It is not money, but the family that is the foundation of public life. As it has become weaker, every structure built upon that foundation has become weaker.”
I pondered this after I read last month about the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) releasing troubling new numbers regarding current fertility rates in the United States.
While numerous articles have been written about the “birth dearth” over the past few years and its implications for our future, this report clearly illustrates that what was once a matter of concern is rapidly becoming a full-blown crisis as the CBO forecasts significantly lower population growth over the next three decades.
Writing in the Wall Street Journal, Paul Kiernan states:
“As a result of these changes, deaths are expected to exceed births in 2033, seven years earlier than the nonpartisan agency projected a year ago.”
The report shows the population receiving Social Security will grow from its current total of 342 million to 383 million by 2054. The current ratio of people aged 25–64 compared to those over 65 is 2.9-1. By 2054, it will be 2.2-1.
While better health care has resulted in longer life expectancies, thus increasing this ratio, the nation’s current population growth rate is 0.2 percent, with much of that driven by immigration rather than births. In fact, the CBO projects that the fertility rate will be approximately 1.70 percent, below the replacement level of 2.1.
So, while people living longer is one contributing factor, it is just that: one factor. There are more and greater factors in play. Perhaps the most important one is this: Americans are not getting married or forming families, or if they are, it happens later in a woman’s prime childbearing years.
For instance, in 1970, married couples made up 71 percent of all American households. By 2022, that percentage had decreased to just 47 percent. In 1962, 90 percent of all 30-year-olds were married, with that percentage dropping to 51 percent in 2019.
Dr. Peter H. Schuck, professor emeritus at Yale Law School, perhaps put it best when he wrote in his book, “One Nation Undecided: Clear Thinking About Five Hard Issues That Divide Us”:
“The family is the essential core of any society, and the steady decline of two-parent households is probably the single most consequential social trend of the half-century.”
Decisions not to get married or have children are often driven by choices to pursue so-called “personal fulfillment,” such as money, travel, and a career.
Last year, the Pew Research Center reported that 57 percent of adults under 50 who say they’re unlikely to ever have kids say a major reason is they just don’t want to; 31 percent of those ages 50 and older without kids cite this as a reason they never had them.
The implications are ominous—the rapidly growing aging population that becomes dependent upon younger generations for their care will be like old Mother Hubbard, who goes to the cupboard and finds nothing more than a bone.
According to Pew, even those who have chosen not to marry or have children worry about what their lives will be like as they age, without children or younger generations to provide the financial and familial support they will need. In addition, this will only increase government dependence for the elderly.
But there are also other societal considerations beyond caring for an aging population. Across the nation, we are already seeing schools beginning to close because of decreased enrollment (down 5.5 percent by 2031). Businesses are having a much harder time finding young, skilled, able-bodied workers, and when there are less children it will likely mean a continued drop in fertility rates as there will be even fewer young adults getting married and having children in the future.
It is a death spiral as the lack of marriages and children continues to weaken our nation’s foundation. You can only remove so many bricks, in this case families and children, before the entire building comes tumbling down.
What is the solution? We need to become a society that once again emphasizes the importance of marriage and children, putting sacrifice over personal ambition and family over autonomy. Without such a reversal from our current societal philosophy of “you do you” and a return to these values, our birth dearth will become our societal death.
* * *
Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Epoch Times or ZeroHedge.
US Special Forces Deploy To Mexico For “Training” Mission Following Spy Plane SIGINT Operations
After two weeks of US Air Force RC-135V/W Rivet Joint reconnaissance aircraft conducting multiple signals intelligence (SIGINT) operations along the US-Mexico border and in international waters off southern Baja California—areas controlled by heavily armed drug cartels—the Mexican Senate Commission has approved the deployment of US Special Forces operators to the country for “training missions.”
SOFREP’s Guy D. McCardle reports that the Mexican Senate Commission has already approved the US Army’s 7th Special Forces Group (Airborne) Green Berets to conduct training exercises at a naval facility in Campeche, a Mexican port city on the Gulf of Mexico.
As of Monday, the exercise is underway and will last through the end of March in conjunction with the Mexican Navy’s Infantería de Marina.
The training will take place at the Luis Carpizo naval facility in Campeche from February 17 to March 30, 2025. It has been officially approved by the Mexican Senate’s Naval Ministry Commission and will be conducted under the supervision of the Mexican Defense Ministry (SEDENA). This ensures that while the training benefits from US military expertise, it remains aligned with Mexico’s national defense priorities. -SOFREP
“It’s important to say the Green Berets’ role is going to be just that: Training,” Scott Stewart, vice president of intelligence for international security consultant TorchStone Global, told NewsNation, adding, “It’s not like they’re sending in the SEALs, the Delta (Force) or the (Army) Rangers. It’s not like we are seeing the deployment of combat troops or combat aircraft.”
Stewart suggested that the Mexican government likely permitted the USAF spy planes near cartel-controlled areas to collect SIGINT for law enforcement agencies.
“That may be an attempt to increase signals intelligence – that plane is a vacuum, it sucks up all communications – but I think it would be intelligence to pass to the Mexican marines and not necessarily in preparation for a US airstrike or something,” he noted.
Beyond training, this partnership comes as President Trump recently designated Mexican cartels as “foreign terrorist organizations.”
When reporters asked Trump earlier this month whether he would consider deploying Special Forces operators to Mexico, he responded, “Could happen” and added, “Stranger things have happened.”
ABC News asked Trump administration Border Czar Tom Homan a few weeks ago whether the US military could get involved if cartels strike. Homan replied, “Yes, and we expect them to,” adding that US troops “need to protect themselves.”
Pres. Trump’s “border czar” Tom Homan says the U.S. military could get involved in a conflict with the Mexican cartels.
At the start of the month, in what appeared to be the shortest trade war in history, Mexico and Canada each committed 10,000 troops to their respective borders, while the US reinforced its southern border with thousands of soldiers in the last three weeks.
BREAKING: Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth just confirmed that the United States could now conduct special operations against Mexican cartels now that President Trump has declared them foreign terrorist organizations.
Dismantling Mexican drug cartels could be a very messy operation, which is why the Trump administration fortified the border with the military. The challenge, however, is that if US Special Forces operators kill cartel leaders, retaliatory attacks by cartel members could occur at Mexican beach resorts or, worse, on the streets of US cities.
This move could mark the beginning of a broader deployment of US Special Forces in Mexico, aimed at dismantling drug cartels responsible for the drug death catastrophe of 100,000 Americans per year. Beyond military action, there is also the possibility that the Trump administration could launch financial hybrid warfare—applying pressure on Mexican banks to disrupt cartel operations. Additionally, Beijing may soon face more pressure from Trump in its role in subsidizing fentanyl precursor exports to Mexico.
The Trump administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Feb. 16 to allow it to fire the head of an agency that protects whistleblowers after lower courts said it could not.
Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger, who heads the U.S. Office of Special Counsel, argues he may only be terminated for misconduct during his fixed-term appointment. Dellinger said a brief emailed notice he received Feb. 7 informed him he was being fired and did not explain why. New administrations routinely fire government officials without providing a reason.
Nominated by President Joe Biden, Dellinger was confirmed 49-47 for a five-year term by the U.S. Senate on Feb. 27, 2024.
The office describes itself as “an independent federal investigative and prosecutorial agency” whose “primary mission is to safeguard the merit system by protecting federal employees and applicants from prohibited personnel practices (PPPs), especially reprisal for whistleblowing.”
The Office of Special Counsel also enforces the Hatch Act, which prevents federal employees from engaging in partisan political activity, and safeguards the employment-related rights of military service members.
As the first appeal to the Supreme Court lodged by the new administration that took power on Jan. 20, the new emergency application in the case of Bessent v. Dellinger has not yet been docketed by the nation’s highest court, which means it does not yet appear in the court’s searchable online database. It may be docketed, or officially accepted for filing, on Feb. 18, the first business day after the Feb. 17 federal holiday.
The application says the government has a “very high” likelihood of succeeding on the merits. The Constitution “empowers the President to remove, at will, the single head of an agency, such as the Special Counsel,” the filing reads.
Federal district courts, like the one that temporarily blocked the removal of Dellinger, do not have the authority “to reinstate principal officers,” according to the filing.
The lower court has “erred in ways that threaten the separation of powers,” the document said, referring to a constitutional doctrine that divides the government into three branches to prevent any single branch from accumulating too much power.
The case goes back to Feb. 10, when Dellinger sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. He argued he “has a clear entitlement to remain in his office” for his full five-year term and that the president may remove him only for “inefficiency, neglect, or malfeasance in office.”
He said his tenure was guaranteed by Supreme Court precedents, including Humphrey’s Executor v. United States (1935).
Separately, the Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris informed Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) in a Feb. 12 letter that the government is seeking to overturn the 80-year-old ruling stating that some federal officials may only be fired for cause. “The Department [DOJ] has concluded that those tenure protections are unconstitutional,” she wrote in the letter.
On Feb. 10, Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson issued a temporary administrative stay through Feb. 13 blocking Dellinger’s termination. The next day, the government appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The circuit court denied the appeal on Feb. 12, saying it lacked jurisdiction, meaning it did not have legal authority to hear the case.
On Feb. 12, Jackson issued a temporary restraining order allowing Dellinger to remain in his position and forbidding the government from denying him “access to the resources or materials of that office” and from recognizing “the authority of any other person as Special Counsel.”
The government failed to justify “the President’s hasty, unexplained action, or … the immediate ejection of the Senate-confirmed Special Counsel while the legal issue is subject to calm and thorough deliberation,” she wrote.
On Feb. 13, the government appealed that order to the D.C. Circuit. On Feb. 15, the circuit court denied the appeal in a 2-1 opinion.
The D.C. Circuit’s majority opinion states that even though a temporary restraining order “ordinarily is not an appealable order,” the government requested a hearing on it because it said the order “works an extraordinary harm.”
“The relief requested by the government is a sharp departure from established procedures that balance and protect the interests of litigants, and ensure the orderly consideration of cases before the district court and this court.”
Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas dissented. He wrote that the president “is immune from injunctions directing the performance of his official duties, and Article II of the Constitution grants him the power to remove agency heads.”
Meanwhile, despite the Supreme Court appeal, the case remains pending before Judge Jackson.
On Feb. 15, Judge Jackson ordered Dellinger to file a reply to the government’s opposition to the restraining order by Feb. 20. The government is required to explain why it believes the court should dismiss Dellinger’s lawsuit in a filing that is due Feb. 21. The court will hold a hearing on Feb. 26 regarding Dellinger’s request to upgrade the temporary restraining order to a preliminary injunction.
The Trump administration has met a series of legal challenges to its policies. Several lower courts have granted temporary restraining orders preventing the administration from taking various actions, such as ending birthright citizenship for children born to noncitizens on U.S. soil, and blocking funding for some medical procedures for transgender-identifying minors.
The Epoch Times reached out for comment to the DOJ and Dellinger’s attorneys at Hecker Fink in Washington. No replies were received by publication time.
