Lawfare Daily: The Trials of the Trump Administration, September 11

What it claims

Claims

1. 1TrueAn Afghan legal permanent resident was deported less than 2 months after a case was filed in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court.Multiple sources report that Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident, was deported to Afghanistan after her case was brought before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court, with removal on Aug. 25 about six weeks after the July 15 filing. The claim's less-than-two-months timeline is therefore supported, and the claim matches the post's wording without adding details.5 sources →
2. 2TrueA judge allowed the Pentagon to fire Stars and Stripes journalists.Multiple reliable outlets report that U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden ruled on September 4, 2026 that the Pentagon could proceed with firing three Stars and Stripes journalists by denying their bid to block the firings while their lawsuit continues. The claim matches the extracted passage, and the later-dated sources do not dispute it.4 sources →
3. 3MixedSpirits are not sold in Virginia and North Carolina.Read literally, the claim is contradicted: Virginia ABC and North Carolina's control system sell spirits in both states through state-run stores. Read as the post likely intended, that private retailers such as Total Wine cannot sell spirits there, the sources support it, since spirits move only through state wholesale and retail channels; the sources do not name Total Wine directly. Post-date status is unchanged, as the control-state structure appears in sources from 2025 and 2026.5 sources →

   ▶ 0:51

4. 4TrueThe Alien Terrorist Removal Court was created in 1996.Multiple tier1 and primary sources (AP, Reuters, FJC, CRS, and a 1996-dated law review piece) state the Alien Terrorist Removal Court was established by Congress in 1996 as part of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, so the claim's core assertion is supported. The extraction faithfully reflects the passage's statement that the court was created in 1996; no source contradicts it.4 sources →

   ▶ 3:21

5. 5TrueThe Justice Department filed its first case in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court approximately two months before September 11, 2026.The DOJ's first ATRC application was filed July 15, 2026, about 58 days before September 11, 2026, which fits 'approximately two months before.' The DOJ press release and CBS News both give the July 15 filing date, and the post's 'about two months ago' is consistent with this timing. The claim does not depart from the passage.4 sources →

   ▶ 3:33

6. 6TrueThe first case in the Alien Terrorist Removal Court involved a woman accused of conspiring with her son and son-in-law to commit a mass shooting on Election Day 2024.Multiple tier1 and primary sources (DOJ, DHS, Reuters, AP, The Hill) confirm that Nazira Haji Zada was the first case before the Alien Terrorist Removal Court and that she was accused of supporting her son and son-in-law's ISIS-inspired mass shooting plot on Election Day 2024. The claim's wording matches the post's account; the claim departs only slightly in calling the plot a conspiracy among the three, which the DOJ and DHS statements describe as her supporting the family's plot.8 sources →

   ▶ 3:54

7. 7MixedAn Afghan legal permanent resident conceded that she was an honest citizen and that she supported ISIS.Sources support the part of the claim that she conceded to supporting ISIS: DOJ and multiple outlets report she conceded being an 'alien terrorist' and was the matriarch of a supported ISIS-inspired plot. They contradict the 'honest citizen' element, since she was a lawful permanent resident, not a citizen, and the concession was to alien-terrorist status, not honesty. The passage itself is a garbled transcription, and the claim faithfully reproduces it.8 sources →

   ▶ 4:46

8. 8TrueThe attorneys for the Afghan legal permanent resident are members of the Federal Defender's Office out of DC.Multiple sources confirm that Nazira Haji Zada's lawyers were federal public defenders: CNN names Matthew Farley as a federal public defender, DW names Farley and Mary Manning Petras as her public defenders, and the DOJ release says her lawyers were two federal public defenders. None sources the 'out of DC' office location, and her Texas residence makes it unconfirmed rather than contradicted, so the verdict rests on the confirmed core.5 sources →

   ▶ 5:09

9. 9TrueThe Alien Terrorist Removal Court judge ordered the Afghan legal permanent resident to be deported to Afghanistan.Multiple tier1 sources, including a DHS primary statement, confirm that ATRC Chief Judge Joan Ericksen issued a removal order on August 20, 2026 for Nazira Haji Zada, a lawful permanent resident, and that she was deported to Afghanistan. The post's 'the judge' refers to this ATRC judge in the same case, so the extraction is faithful.8 sources →

   ▶ 6:20

10. 10TrueThe removal order for the Afghan legal permanent resident was issued on August 20, 2026, or several days after that.Multiple sources, including the DHS primary statement and AP, Reuters and Bloomberg Law, state that the Alien Terrorist Removal Court's removal order for Nazira Haji Zada was signed on August 20, 2026. The claim's 'August 20, or several days after' framing is satisfied by the Aug. 20 date, and the extraction faithfully reflects the passage's hedged wording.5 sources →

    ▶ 7:37

11. 11TrueJoe diGenova resigned from prosecuting the grand conspiracy case.Multiple tier1 and tier2 sources (AP, The Hill, CBS, NBC, ABC, NYT via Inquirer) report that Joe diGenova resigned on September 10, 2026 from the Justice Department role leading the 'grand conspiracy' investigation, and diGenova himself confirmed it. The extraction's 'Joe De Genova' spelling is a minor variant of the same person, and the claim faithfully matches the passage.7 sources →

    ▶ 11:17

12. 12TrueJoe diGenova stated publicly that he could bring indictments in the grand conspiracy case within a month of his appointment.A news8000 report says diGenova took over the probe in April 'vowing that he could bring charges in 30 days,' and it also describes an April 2 podcast appearance where he pressed for faster indictments. No source contradicts this, but it rests on one report, and the AP and other sources only say he decried the lack of progress before taking over.6 sources →

    ▶ 11:22

13. 13TrueJoe diGenova brought zero indictments during his time prosecuting the grand conspiracy case.Multiple sources, including AP and NBC News, report that diGenova left the grand conspiracy investigation after roughly five months without bringing a single indictment or charging anyone. The claim matches the passage's point and departs from it only in wording, not substance.5 sources →

    ▶ 11:31

14. 14TrueJoe diGenova served as a prosecutor on the grand conspiracy case for approximately five months.Multiple sources agree diGenova led the grand conspiracy probe from his April 2026 appointment until his resignation around September 10, roughly five months later. The claim matches the post's own estimate of about five months, and the post's wording is faithfully extracted.5 sources →

    ▶ 11:38

15. 15MixedJoe diGenova told the New York Post that he resigned because he lacked evidence to bring indictments.diGenova did tell the New York Post that "if you want indictments where there's no evidence, you have an ethical problem," but no source has him saying he resigned because he lacked evidence. He declined to explain his resignation to AP and later said his comments were taken out of context and that there is plenty of evidence in the cases, which cuts against the claimed reason.5 sources →

    ▶ 11:59

16. 16TrueThe Justice Department sent prosecutors from Washington D.C. to Florida to assist Joe DiGenova with the grand conspiracy case.Multiple reporting sources say Main Justice sent Washington-based DOJ prosecutors to South Florida to help Joe diGenova run the grand conspiracy investigation. The claim matches the passage's point that DC prosecutors were sent 'to help him.' The post's 'sidelined' remark is not part of this claim.4 sources →

    ▶ 15:33

17. 17TrueA Justice Department official stated that the department provided Joe DiGenova with all available resources, including sending personnel from Washington D.C. to assist him.Sources support the core of the claim: NBC reports diGenova was given a team of Justice Department lawyers from Washington, and two DOJ officials disputed claims he was denied resources. The 'all available resources' wording is the official's characterization and is not confirmed, since diGenova pressed for more lawyers and was redirected to an FBI SCIF.4 sources →

    ▶ 16:10

18. 18OpinionBenjamin Wittes says the grand conspiracy case is baseless and delusional.A judgement, not a statement of fact. It has no true or false answer.

    ▶ 17:33

19. 19TrueJoe DiGenova resigned from his position.Multiple independent reliable outlets (AP, Reuters, The Hill, CBS News, NBC News) report that Joe diGenova resigned from his Justice Department post leading the 'grand conspiracy' investigation on September 10, 2026, and diGenova himself confirmed 'I did in fact resign.' The claim is a faithful paraphrase of the passage, which takes the resignation as given, and the post's 'Degennova' spelling is the same person.6 sources →

    ▶ 19:00

20. 20TrueJoe diGenova resigned from his position five months after being appointed.Multiple reliable sources (Reuters, AP, Politico, ABC) report that Joe diGenova resigned on September 10, 2026, about five months after he joined the Justice Department in April. The post's own words, 'five months later, he resigns,' match the claim; the post's 'because there's nothing' explanation is not part of the extracted claim and is not graded.7 sources →

    ▶ 22:00

21. 21TrueJudge Trevor McFadden declined to prevent the Department of Defense from firing Stars and Stripes journalists and the publication's publisher.Multiple tier-1 and tier-2 sources (AP, Reuters, NBC, CNN) report that Judge Trevor McFadden denied the request to block the Pentagon from firing Stars and Stripes staff, including publisher Max Lederer, editor-in-chief Erik Slavin and reporter Lara Korte. The post said 'a pair' of journalists, but sources say three; the claim itself does not state a number, so this does not defeat it.6 sources →

    ▶ 24:32

22. 22TrueStars and Stripes is funded by the Defense Department.Multiple tier1 and tier2 sources state that Stars and Stripes receives funding from the Defense Department, with reporting that roughly half its budget (about $15 million of $29 million) comes from taxpayer/Pentagon funds as of August 2026, consistent with the claim as of 2026-09-14. The claim faithfully paraphrases the passage; the 'partly' qualifier is absent but no source contradicts the core assertion that DoD funds the paper.5 sources →

    ▶ 25:22

23. 23TruePete Hegseth made a regulatory change repealing editorial independence that Stars and Stripes previously had.Multiple sources report that the Pentagon under Hegseth removed the federal regulation that had guaranteed Stars and Stripes' editorial independence in January 2026, and an August 2026 instruction narrowed the paper's independence. The main sources are unrated opinion and Newsweek pieces, and the tier1/tier2 wire and PBS reports describe the broader Pentagon overhaul without spelling out the repeal. The claim's "when Trump came into office" framing from the passage was dropped in extraction and is not graded.7 sources →

    ▶ 25:41

24. 24MixedThe editor-in-chief and two reporters for Stars and Stripes were terminated after giving comments on CBS News regarding editorial independence.The core of the claim holds: Stars and Stripes editor-in-chief Erik Slavin, publisher Max Lederer and reporter Lara Korte received termination notices after comments in a CBS News interview about editorial independence. However, the claim's description of 'two reporters' is contradicted, because the second terminated person besides Korte was publisher Lederer, not a reporter. The claim also repeats the passage's error, so it does not depart from the post.7 sources →

    ▶ 26:01

25. 25TrueJudge McFadden determined that the Stars and Stripes employees were acting within their official capacity when they gave the CBS News interview.Judge McFadden's 24-page preliminary-injunction ruling found that the journalists' CBS interview remarks suggested they spoke as part of their official duties, not as private citizens, and reporting describes this as a ruling. The claim's core holds. Sources describe the finding as preliminary ('suggest', 'unlikely to succeed') and some say the focus was on two employees, but the claim's 'all of these people' matches the post's own wording.5 sources →

    ▶ 27:46

26. 26TrueTim Bakken, a civilian West Point law professor, sued over policies related to Trump's executive orders regarding academic teaching at military academies.The claim is supported: Tim Bakken, a civilian West Point law professor, sued in September 2025 over West Point policies tied to Trump's executive order on military academy curricula and faculty speech. Courts later enjoined the policies (a May 2026 preliminary injunction, made permanent later), and the claim's paraphrase of the passage's wording matches the sources.5 sources →

    ▶ 29:46

27. 27MixedA permanent injunction was entered by stipulation in the case of Tim Bakken against the government during the week of September 14, 2026.The sources support that a permanent injunction was entered in Tim Bakken's case by the government's agreement rather than contested litigation, but they date the entry to September 8, 2026, the week before September 14, not the week of September 14. The claim's timing departs from the record, and the passage's "this week" resolves to the September 14 posting date.Minor detail. The sources confirm the claim; only a minor detail differs, such as a name's spelling, a title's wording or a rounding.7 sources →

    ▶ 31:05

28. 28TrueMail-in ballots for the 2026 elections have already been sent out to voters.As of 2026-09-14, the claim that mail-in ballots for the 2026 elections had already gone out is supported. A September 12 USA Today report says midterm ballots were already being mailed, with 20 states sending mail-in ballots in the next week or having already started, and North Carolina began mail voting on September 4. Later sources (October) confirm mailing had broadly occurred, and the extraction faithfully matches the post's wording.5 sources →

    ▶ 34:16

29. 29PredictionThe Supreme Court will refuse to stay the injunction against the Postal Service mail-in ballot rule.Can't be checked yet.

    ▶ 35:00

30. 30TrueThe First Circuit Court of Appeals declined to stay the injunction against the Postal Service rule regarding mail-in ballots.Multiple tier1 and primary sources (Reuters, Supreme Court docket letter, California AG press release, CBS News) confirm the First Circuit on September 10, 2026 denied the Trump administration's request to stay the preliminary injunction blocking the USPS mail-in ballot rule. The claim's posted date of September 14 is consistent with the event (the post said 'this week'), and the extraction faithfully reflects the passage.5 sources →

    ▶ 35:14

31. 31TrueThe First Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Postal Service rule was likely a regulation of the manner, time, place, and manner of holding elections, which is assigned to states and Congress, not an executive agency.The First Circuit's stay denial (per the court's own opinion and CBS/Volokh excerpts of it) states the district court concluded, and the panel agreed, that the USPS Final Rule is likely a regulation of the manner of holding elections for members of Congress, which the Elections Clause assigns to states and Congress, not to an executive agency like the Postal Service acting without congressional authorization. The claim's wording ('likely', 'manner, time, place, and manner' phrasing is a minor paraphrase of the same clause) matches the record; the post's own description is consistent with this, and the claim does not add anything beyond the passage.7 sources →

    ▶ 35:45

32. 32MixedThree Secretaries of State from South Dakota, Kansas, and Georgia filed amicus briefs in the litigation regarding the Postal Service rule.Sources support that Secretaries of State from South Dakota, Kansas, and Georgia joined amicus briefs in the USPS mail-ballot litigation, but they show more than three Secretaries of State signing on (Kentucky, North Dakota, New Hampshire, and Utah officials are also named), so the count of 'three' is understated. The claim's wording and the post's own 'three' both understate the record.Minor detail. The sources confirm the claim; only a minor detail differs, such as a name's spelling, a title's wording or a rounding.6 sources →

    ▶ 37:55

33. 33TrueThe portal for submitting lists of people eligible to vote by mail is not currently operational.As of 2026-09-14, the Federal Ballot Mail Portal for submitting voter lists was not operational. ABC7 (Sept 3) reported the portal apparently still inactive, and the USPS statement (dated Sept 1) said the portal was still being finalized and would soon be made available, while AP (Sept 28) reported work on it had stopped after the Supreme Court ruling. The sources bracket the claim date but do not report the status on Sept 14 exactly, so confidence is moderate. The claim matches the passage's wording and is not an extraction addition.5 sources →

    ▶ 38:16

34. 34Can’t tellHarriet Dillon sent letters to state election officials declaring them under investigation and demanding they preserve 2024 election records.Sources confirm DOJ sent letters in September 2026 to officials in 29 states and D.C. telling them to preserve 2024 election records, and one letter told Utah's Lt. Gov. she was "under investigation". None of the sources names Harmeet Dhillon (the post's "Harriet Dillon") as the signer of those preservation letters, and the post's own referent points to her, so the actor element is unaddressed and the claim's generalization to all recipients goes beyond the one documented "under investigation" letter.7 sources →

    ▶ 40:13

35. 35TrueThe Department of Justice has sued approximately 30 states for not complying with requests for unredacted state voter rolls.The claim matches the post's wording and is supported: DOJ's own February 2026 release put its nationwide total at 29 states plus DC, and later reporting (The Atlantic, October 2026) cites 30 states plus DC, with Bloomberg Law counting 31 district court suits against states and DC by July 2026. The lawsuits concern refusals to hand over unredacted voter rolls, so 'approximately 30 states' is accurate as of the 2026-09-14 posting date.6 sources →

    ▶ 41:04

36. 36TrueThe Department of Justice has lost 22 court cases regarding requests for state voter rolls, including district court and court of appeals decisions.The claim matches the record as of the posting date: NBC reported on Aug. 16, 2026 that DOJ had lost 22 voter-roll cases, and The Atlantic (Oct. 15) reports DOJ had since lost 26 district court cases plus a Sixth Circuit appeals loss in June, consistent with 'district courts and one court of appeals decision.' The count has since risen, but the claim is graded as of when it was posted.3 sources →

    ▶ 41:18

37. 37TrueThe Civil Rights Act of 1960 requires election officials to preserve election-related materials for 22 months following a federal election.Multiple primary and tier1 sources, including the statute text itself (Sec. 301 of the Civil Rights Act of 1960), the DOJ, CRS, and the EAC, confirm that election officials must retain and preserve federal election records for 22 months following a federal election. The claim faithfully reflects the post's passage, which makes the same assertion, so it is graded normally.5 sources →

    ▶ 42:15

38. 38TrueThe Trump administration has filed a case with the Supreme Court regarding the SAVE database and its use in elections.The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on September 8, 2026, to lift a lower-court order blocking use of the SAVE database, before the claim was posted on September 14. The Supreme Court granted that request on September 25, so the claim's core is supported. The filing was an emergency application in an existing lawsuit rather than a new case, a minor framing point that does not change the verdict.6 sources →

    ▶ 45:41

39. 39TrueThe Systematic Alien Verification and Entitlements (SAVE) program was established by Congress in 1986 to help states verify the immigration status of individuals seeking state benefits.Sources agree that Congress created the SAVE program in 1986 through the Immigration Reform and Control Act, to help agencies, including states, verify immigration status for public benefit eligibility. The operational program was set up by INS in 1987, a detail that does not contradict the claim's 1986 congressional origin.6 sources →

    ▶ 46:39

40. 40TrueApproximately 27 states have used the SAVE program to verify immigration status for election purposes.The claim matches the primary USCIS fact sheet, which says election agencies from over 27 states are registered to use SAVE for voter verification, and AP reports at least 25 states had used it to check voter rolls since April 2025. Other sources give nearby figures (26 states with agreements as of November 2025, 29 states registered as of early 2026), so the count depends on whether one measures registration, agreements, or actual use. The passage's 'about 27' is faithful to the claim, and the post dates to September 2026, when the USCIS figure applies.5 sources →

    ▶ 47:53

41. 41TrueIn March 2025, President Trump issued an executive order requiring the Social Security Administration to provide databases to the Department of Homeland Security to modify the SAVE program.The claim is supported: the Supreme Court opinion, the D.C. Circuit order, and the White House fact sheet all report that Trump's March 2025 executive order (EO 14248) directed SSA to make its databases, including its Social Security Number verification service and Death Master File, available to DHS for verifying voter citizenship, and that a modified SAVE followed. The sources do not support the post's detail that the order was an express 'requirement', and a Senate letter cites the order as 14284 rather than 14248, a peripheral discrepancy that does not affect the verdict.6 sources →

    ▶ 49:00

42. 42TrueThe League of Women Voters and the Electronic Privacy Information Center sued over the creation of the SAVE system.Multiple sources confirm that the League of Women Voters and EPIC sued the Trump administration over the overhauled SAVE system, including a federal court opinion captioned League of Women Voters v. DHS and a Supreme Court per curiam order in DHS v. League of Women Voters. The claim's wording ('over the creation of the SAVE system') is a fair paraphrase of the post, which says SAVE was created and then the two groups sued; sources describe the suit as challenging the modified SAVE overhaul and the data consolidation behind it.5 sources →

    ▶ 49:30

43. 43TrueJudge Sukhnanan denied a preliminary injunction in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.The claim matches the post's own statement that Judge Sooknanan denied a preliminary injunction. The clearinghouse docket for League of Women Voters v. DHS, a suit over the SAVE system, shows her denying the motion for a preliminary injunction and stay on November 17, 2025. The claim omits timing, and the post notes she later ruled for the plaintiffs in June 2026, which does not contradict the denial.3 sources →

    ▶ 50:41

44. 44TrueIn June 2026, Judge Sukhnanan ruled for the plaintiffs in the lawsuit against the SAVE system.Multiple tier1 and tier2 sources report that U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan ruled on June 22, 2026 for the League of Women Voters and other advocacy plaintiffs, blocking the revamped SAVE system. The post's 'Sukhnanan' is a spelling variant of the same judge, and the later Supreme Court stay in September-October does not change the June ruling the claim describes.6 sources →

    ▶ 50:49

45. 45TrueThe DC Circuit panel that ruled on the SAVE system stay consisted of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Robert Wilkins, and Judge Greg Katzis.The stay panel was Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Robert Wilkins, and Judge Gregory Katsas, who dissented; the claim's 'Greg Katzis' is a misspelling of Katsas, not a different judge, and the post's own 'Katzes' is the same garbled name. The claim is supported by the Supreme Court per curiam and Reuters, and the spelling variant does not change who is meant.4 sources →

    ▶ 52:55

46. 46TrueThe DC Circuit ruled two-to-one against the government's request for a stay in the SAVE system case.The D.C. Circuit's September 4, 2026 order denying the government's emergency stay in the SAVE case was a 2-1 decision, with Judge Katsas dissenting, as shown by the court's own order and Reuters. The claim departs from the passage only in its extra wording about 'the stay', which the post's surrounding context supports.4 sources →

    ▶ 53:08

47. 47MixedFlorida brought a case in the Northern District of Florida against the Department of Homeland Security in late October 2026 regarding the SAVE system.The case exists: Florida sued DHS in the Northern District of Florida over the SAVE system, and that case is well documented. But the claim dates the filing to late October 2026, while the sources show it was filed October 16, 2024. The post itself refers to the 2024 election, so the 2026 year was added during extraction and is contradicted by the record.5 sources →

    ▶ 54:56

48. 48Can’t tellJudge Sukhman Nanen issued an order in November 2026 indicating she was taking the plaintiffs' arguments seriously in a case involving the SAVE system.The claim departs from the passage: the post says "in November" while describing events of the 2024 election cycle, not November 2026, so the extraction added the year. None of the sources mention Judge Sukhman Nanen or an order by her in a Florida SAVE case; the SAVE rulings they cover were by Judge Sparkle Sooknanan in D.C. and the Supreme Court, so they neither confirm nor refute the claim.6 sources →

    ▶ 55:24

49. 49MixedThe government and Florida settled their case in the Northern District of Florida in November 2026, with Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa joining as parties.The sources confirm the core event: Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa settled their case against DHS in the Northern District of Florida, and the settlement was reached on November 28, 2025, not November 2026. The passage itself says only "in November" in a narrative set after the 2024 election, so the 2026 year was added by the extraction, and the claim departs from the passage on that point.5 sources →

    ▶ 55:46

50. 50TrueJudge T. Kent Wetherell II issued an injunction requiring the Department of Homeland Security to provide Modified SAVE to Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and Iowa.Multiple sources, including Reuters, report that U.S. District Judge T. Kent Wetherell II, a Trump appointee in Pensacola, ordered DHS to restore Modified SAVE access for Florida, Ohio, Iowa and Indiana in a July 2026 ruling enforcing a settlement agreement. Sources describe this as an enforcement order rather than an 'injunction,' a label difference that does not change the substance.6 sources →

    ▶ 56:27

51. 51TrueJudge Chutkin ordered the administration to provide 48 hours' notice before doing any work on the Great Triumphal Arch.Multiple sources confirm that Judge Tanya Chutkan ordered the administration on September 4, 2026 to give 48 hours' notice before work at the arch site, and the order was still in effect on September 14 (a September 18 report says she refused to dissolve it). The sources add that the order exempts archaeological information-gathering, so the notice requirement covers 'other' work rather than literally every activity; that qualifier does not overturn the claim's core. The claim's spelling 'Chutkin' matches the judge named in the sources.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:01:43

52. 52TrueIn the case Lemon versus Trump, Judge Chutkin previously issued a consent agreement requiring 14 days' notice before moving forward with the Great Triumphal Arch.Sources show that in Lemon v. Trump, after a hearing, the government committed to at least fourteen days' notice before starting arch construction, and a consent order was entered on April 8, 2026. The claim's wording departs only slightly from the passage ("Great Triumphal Arch" versus "triumphal arch"), and a later 48-hour notice minute order concerns a different stage of the litigation, not the earlier consent arrangement.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:04:33

53. 53TrueIn April 2026, Judge Chutkan issued a consent agreement in the Lemon versus Trump case requiring 14 days' notice before proceeding with construction.The sources support the claim: in April 2026 Judge Chutkan entered a consent order under which the government agreed to give 14 days' notice before starting construction on the Trump arch. The post's 'last April' refers to April 2026, and the judge's name spelling in the post is a minor variant.7 sources →

    ▶ 1:04:33

54. 54TrueThe government planned to perform four archaeological excavation pits, each eight feet by 16 feet, at the Memorial Circle site.The sources support the claim: a sworn declaration from NPS regional director Jennifer Nersesian, as reported by ENR and other outlets, describes four test pits at Memorial Circle, each about 8 by 16 feet, as of September 2026. The claim dropped the 'unspecified depth' detail from the post, which is a faithful paraphrase. Later NPS and environmental documents describe different work (nine borings, and no further archaeological investigation warranted), but those postdate the September 14 claim and do not contradict the plan as it stood then.8 sources →

    ▶ 1:06:14

55. 55TrueJudge Chutkan issued an order requiring 48 hours' notice before the government conducts any work beyond preliminary archaeological excavation.The September 4, 2026 minute order in Lemmon v. Trump requires the government to give the court 48 hours' notice before engaging in any activity on Memorial Circle other than on-site archaeological information gathering, which matches the claim's core. The order was still in place on October 30, so the state of affairs on the claim's date of 2026-09-14 is confirmed. The extraction faithfully paraphrases the post.7 sources →

    ▶ 1:06:26

56. 56Can’t tellOn September 7, 2026, a car accident occurred at the memorial site, and the government claimed it could not remove debris due to the court's 48-hour notice order.None of the provided sources covers the September 7, 2026 car accident at the memorial site, the government's debris-removal claim, or Judge Chutkin's 48-hour notice order, so the claim cannot be graded in either direction. The extraction faithfully reflects the post's wording, so the claim does not depart from the passage.8 sources →

    ▶ 1:07:12

57. 57TrueThe National Park Service cut down trees on and around the East Potomac golf course.Multiple reliable outlets (AP, Washington Post, NBC, CNN, The Atlantic) report that National Park Service crews cut down hundreds of trees on and around the East Potomac golf course, with the largest wave on October 10, 2026. The dispute is over why the trees were removed, not whether the National Park Service cut them down, and the claim's wording matches the passage faithfully.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:10:30

58. 58TrueThe Supreme Court previously ruled that a mail-in voting case was not ripe for review.The Supreme Court's August 24, 2026 emergency-docket ruling in Trump v. California (the mail-in voting executive order case) held that the challenge was not ripe because the Postal Service had not yet issued a final rule, which matches the claim and predates the September 14 post. The claim's wording is a close paraphrase of the post, and the post's reference to the case is resolved by the sources.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:12:02

59. 59TrueJudge Reyes requested that the government inform the court before cutting down more than 10 trees in East Potomac Park.NewsNation reports that Judge Reyes told DOJ lawyers in May that they must give advance notice of plans to cut more than 10 trees, which matches the claim's core. That source says the notice went to the preservation group rather than the court, a detail the claim does not match exactly, and only one source directly addresses the 10-tree threshold.4 sources →

    ▶ 1:16:11

60. 60MixedThe government reported cutting down 150 trees in East Potomac Park, of which 77 were invasive and 77 were dead, dying, or hazardous.The 150-tree total and the 77 invasive count match the government's court statements, but the dead, dying, or hazardous count was 73, not 77, so the 77-77 split is wrong. One CNN report repeats 77 for that category, but the attorney's statement as reported by NBC, Yahoo, City Cast DC, and DC News Now gives 73. The 77+77 breakdown in the claim is the poster's own arithmetic from the hearing and does not add up to 150.7 sources →

    ▶ 1:16:26

61. 61MixedThere are approximately 3,800 trees in East Potomac Park.The only source giving a total tree count for East Potomac Park is NBC's report of a Justice Department attorney's court statement that the park has 3,800 trees, which supports the claim. The NPS page, however, gives roughly 3,800 cherry trees within the park, a different measure, so the figure depends on whether it counts all trees or cherry trees only. The claim departs from nothing in the post, and the 2026-09-14 date fits the 2026-09-03 statement.4 sources →

    ▶ 1:16:37

62. 62TrueThe government filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court to review the disqualification of Segal Chata as the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada.Multiple sources, including a Reuters wire report and a CourtListener docket entry, confirm the Solicitor General filed a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court on September 8-9, 2026 to overturn the Ninth Circuit's ruling disqualifying Sigal Chattah (spelled 'Segal Chata' in the claim) from serving as Nevada's top federal prosecutor. The claim's name spelling is a transcription error for the same person, and the 'would-be' or acting-role framing is a minor imprecision that does not change the core assertion.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:18:42

63. 63TrueSegal Chata was found to have violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act in her appointment as U.S. Attorney for the District of Nevada.The Ninth Circuit ruled on August 17, 2026 that the DOJ violated the Federal Vacancies Reform Act when it designated Sigal Chattah as first assistant to install her as acting U.S. Attorney for Nevada, and Judge David Campbell reached a similar ruling in 2025. The claim's name, 'Segal Chata', is a transcription of Sigal Chattah, and 'Acting' is a more precise title than 'U.S. Attorney', which does not change the finding.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:19:02

64. 64TrueThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the government's practice of appointing first assistants to serve as U.S. Attorneys to circumvent Senate confirmation violates the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.The Second Circuit's August 21, 2026 decision (In re Grand Jury Subpoenas to the Office of the NY AG, No. 26-156) held that John Sarcone was not lawfully serving as acting U.S. Attorney because the FVRA permits only a first assistant in place when the vacancy arises to become acting officer, and that the general delegation of U.S. Attorney duties was an unlawful circumvention of the FVRA's exclusivity provision. The claim's core assertion matches the ruling; the post's 'two weeks ago' timing is consistent with an August 21 decision relative to the September 11 episode.7 sources →

    ▶ 1:20:51

65. 65Can’t tellThe Department of Justice will not seek en banc review of the Second Circuit's ruling regarding the appointment of U.S. Attorneys and will instead file a cert petition with the Supreme Court before October 5th.No source reports a DOJ statement that it would forgo en banc review of the Second Circuit Sarcone ruling or file a cert petition by October 5. An August 2026 source says DOJ 'might' request en banc review, and a September 25 Second Circuit order denied rehearing en banc in a case (25-3141) whose link to Sarcone is not stated, so the sources neither confirm nor refute the claim as of 2026-09-14. The only cert petition in the sources (filed September 8) concerns the Ninth Circuit's Chattah ruling, not the Second Circuit ruling. The claim tracks the post's wording faithfully, so it is not an extraction addition.4 sources →

    ▶ 1:21:04

66. 66TrueTodd Blanch provided a written statement in August confirming that the Department of Justice's fund for J6 defendants was terminated.Acting AG Todd Blanche (spelled 'Blanch' in the claim) issued a written order on August 2, 2026 rescinding the $1.8 billion 'Anti-Weaponization Fund', which AP and Reuters report and which Blanche framed as confirming the fund would not move forward. The claim departs from the passage only in the spelling of the name, and the sources support the claim's core assertion.9 sources →

    ▶ 1:23:57

67. 67TrueThe Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration's immigration detention policy in a two-to-one decision.Multiple reliable sources, including AP and Reuters, report that the Fourth Circuit rejected the Trump administration's mandatory immigration detention policy in a 2-1 decision on September 10, 2026. The claim matches the passage's wording and the sources' core facts.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:25:34

68. 68TrueThe Supreme Court has scheduled three certiorari petitions regarding the Trump administration's immigration detention policy for conference on September 28th.As of 2026-09-14, three certiorari petitions on the mandatory immigration detention question were set for the September 28, 2026 conference: Rhoney v. Barbosa da Cunha (2nd Cir.), Putra v. Lopez-Campos (6th Cir.), and Buenrostro-Mendez v. Blanche (5th Cir.). The claim matches the post's own wording, and the later grant of Rhoney on October 1 does not make the September scheduling claim false.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:26:13

69. 69TrueThe Department of Homeland Security sent an inquiry to the IRS for taxpayer information regarding 1.2 million people.Multiple reports, including Reuters citing the Washington Post and an AP story on a Treasury inspector general report, state that DHS requested addresses for 1.2 million individuals from the IRS, so the claim's core assertion is supported. The claim tracks the post's wording faithfully, and the IRS ultimately provided data on about 47,000 people, which the claim does not address.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:29:28

70. 70TrueThe government sent an inquiry for 1.2 million people to obtain their last known addresses.The claim that the government sent an inquiry for about 1.2 million people seeking their last known addresses is supported by the Treasury inspector general's report and by Reuters. The post's own context (DHS wanting last known addresses and sending an inquiry for 1.2 million people) supplies the addresses element, so the extraction does not add anything the post did not say.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:29:39

71. 71TrueThe government obtained 47,000 records in response to an inquiry regarding undocumented persons.The claim matches the passage's core point: ICE asked the IRS for address records on about 1.2 million people it considered undocumented, and the IRS provided last-known address information for approximately 47,000 individuals, per a TIGTA report. The post's claim is that the IRS, not a generic government body, supplied the records, and the sources do not contradict that framing.3 sources →

    ▶ 1:30:12

72. 72TrueA three-judge panel consisting of Judges Millet, Pillard, and Wilkins issued a preliminary injunction and a 705(a) interim stay under the APA regarding a government inquiry.The D.C. Circuit panel of Judges Millett, Pillard, and Wilkins unanimously affirmed the district court's Section 705 stay and preliminary injunction against IRS disclosures of taxpayer data to ICE/DHS, so the panel and the injunction/stay are confirmed. Strictly, the district court originally issued the stay and injunction and the panel affirmed them, so 'issued' is loose wording, but this does not change the substance.4 sources →

    ▶ 1:30:29

73. 73TrueJudge Preska in the Southern District of New York dismissed Imran Ahmed's First Amendment challenge to his potential deportation.Multiple sources confirm that Judge Loretta Preska of the Southern District of New York dismissed Imran Ahmed's lawsuit, which included First Amendment claims, against his potential detention and deportation, on September 8, 2026. The dismissal was for lack of jurisdiction under a recent appellate ruling, not a merits ruling, and the judge said Ahmed 'may very well have valid causes of action'; the extracted claim does not depart from the passage.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:31:10

74. 74TrueImran Ahmed is the CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate.Multiple independent sources, including a 2026 Reuters report and a 2026 primary bio/speaker listing, identify Imran Ahmed as CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, and sources from before and around 2026-09-14 consistently describe him in that role. The claim matches the passage's wording without added scope, and no source contradicts it as of 2026-09-14.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:31:34

75. 75TrueSecretary Rubio sanctioned Imran Ahmed under a provision citing serious adverse foreign policy consequences to his presence in the United States.Multiple tier-1 reports (Reuters, AP, PolitiFact) and a court filing quoting the State Department's December 23, 2025 press release confirm that Rubio determined Ahmed's presence in the U.S. had potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences and that he was sanctioned under INA 212(a)(3)(C). The claim departs from the passage only in its wording, and the minor point that the sanction was announced by the State Department is consistent with Rubio's role as Secretary.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:32:11

76. 76TrueThe Second Circuit Court of Appeals decided to rehear the Madawi case en banc.The Second Circuit granted rehearing en banc in Mahdawi v. Trump (the 'Madawi' case) by order dated September 3, 2026, confirmed by the court's own order and a Supreme Court filing. The post said 'last week', but the order predates the post by about ten days, a peripheral timing detail that does not change the core claim.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:33:40

77. 77TrueThe release of the special counsel's report regarding Judge Cannon is still pending before the appeals court.As of the claim's date (2026-09-14), the appeal over release of Jack Smith's report on the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case was still pending before the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Later sources (October and November 2026) confirm the appeal remained open, with oral argument set for Nov. 2, so the status did not change before the claim date. The claim's 'special counsel's report regarding Judge Cannon' is a loose label for Smith's report, which the post itself describes the same way.6 sources →

    ▶ 1:34:59

78. 78TrueThe Trump administration is making an ongoing effort to destroy the database mandated by law to track the beneficial ownership of corporations and LLCs.The claim is supported: Treasury's FinCEN issued a final rule on August 11, 2026 ending beneficial ownership reporting for U.S. companies and said it would delete previously reported U.S. person information from the database, and states later sued in October to stop that deletion. The claim's 'ongoing effort' framing fits the record as of 2026-09-14, though the lawsuits were filed after that date.8 sources →

    ▶ 1:35:51

79. 79TrueThe government alleged that the Afghan legal permanent resident planned to relocate to Afghanistan with her family while her son and son-in-law carried out a mass attack in November 2024.The sources confirm that the government alleged Zada planned to relocate to Afghanistan while her son and son-in-law carried out the planned November 2024 attack. The Yahoo report attributes this to administration officials' new filings, and Justia reports she planned to take other children to Afghanistan before the attack. The sources say 'siblings' or 'other children' where the claim says 'family', a peripheral wording difference, and the claim describes an allegation rather than an established fact.5 sources →

    ▶ 5:48

80. 80TrueA federal court granted a preliminary injunction in May 2026 related to policies at West Point that restricted a professor's ability to express personal views on subject matter taught in the classroom.Multiple sources confirm that U.S. District Judge Cathy Seibel issued a preliminary injunction on May 26, 2026, in Tim Bakken's case, barring West Point from enforcing its policies against him, including the informal policy that barred him from sharing personal opinions on subjects he teaches in the classroom. The claim matches the passage's description and the reporting.6 sources →

    ▶ 30:49

81. 81TrueThe City of Denver, LULAC, Common Cause, and Unidos U.S. sued to prevent ICE from deploying at polling stations.Multiple independent outlets (The Hill via WCIA, Washington Post via Inquirer, Washington Examiner, Common Cause, Public Rights Project press release, Democracy Docket) report that the City and County of Denver, LULAC, Common Cause, and UnidosUS filed a federal lawsuit in September 2026 to block ICE agents from being deployed to polling places. The claim's wording matches the passage's referents, and the extraction faithfully reflects what the post says; the sources also note the suit's basis is a Civil War-era 'troops at polls' law and that DHS says ICE would enter polls only for threats or warrant service, which does not affect the core claim.5 sources →

    ▶ 57:16

82. 82TrueSecretary Mullen stated on September 1st that ICE would only be at polling places if there is a threat to the polling place or to serve a warrant on someone being actively tracked.Multiple reliable outlets, including NBC News (published Sept. 1, 2026) and PolitiFact, directly quote DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin's September 1 remarks that agents would be at polling places only if there is a threat to that polling place or they are serving a warrant on someone they have been actively tracking. The claim's spelling "Mullen" is a misspelling of Mullin, and its paraphrase matches the quoted wording.5 sources →

    ▶ 58:15

83. 83True18 U.S.C. 592 prohibits any officer of the Army or Navy or other person in the civil, military, or naval service of the United States from ordering, bringing, keeping, or having under their authority or control any troops or armed men at any place where a general or special election is held, unless necessary to repel armed enemies of the United States.The claim paraphrases 18 U.S.C. 592, and the current official text on uscode.house.gov matches its core prohibition on officers or other federal service members ordering, bringing, keeping, or controlling troops or armed men at any place where an election is held, unless needed to repel armed enemies. Snopes and PolitiFact also quote or describe the same statute, and the extraction faithfully tracks the passage, which omits only the penalty.4 sources →

    ▶ 59:46

84. 84TrueDoug Burgum tweeted on September 3 that the administration is preparing to start excavation work for the Great Triumphal Arch and Military Observation Deck over the next two-week period.The claim matches the post's wording: Burgum announced on X on September 3, 2026 that the administration is preparing to start excavation work over the next two-week period, and the X post itself and AP, Reuters, Bloomberg and Politico all confirm it. CNN reports that government lawyers later said the planned work was archaeological survey work, but that later development does not make the September 3 tweet false.6 sources →
85. 85TrueTesting of material from the East Wing dumped at the East Potomac Golf Course showed no presence of asbestos.The sources report that asbestos was not detected in the tested East Wing debris samples at the East Potomac Golf Links, though some samples were never tested for asbestos and critics question the reliability of the asbestos testing. The claim's core assertion holds as stated on 2026-09-14, and the untested-sample caveat and reliability dispute are noted but do not contradict it.5 sources →

    ▶ 1:09:14

86. 86TrueThe Supreme Court ruled in a case involving a ballroom that there is no standing.The Supreme Court's 5-4 emergency-docket order in the White House ballroom case held that the National Trust for Historic Preservation likely lacked standing to challenge the project. The claim's wording is a simplification (the ruling was preliminary, 'likely' rather than final, and not a merits decision), but the core assertion holds and the extraction faithfully matches the passage.7 sources →

    ▶ 1:10:24

87. 87TrueJudge Brinkema issued a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction against the Department of Justice's 'weaponization slush fund' for J6 defendants.Judge Leonie Brinkema issued a temporary block on the fund on May 29, 2026 and a preliminary injunction on June 12, 2026, against the Trump administration's roughly $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund, which critics called a slush fund that would reward Jan. 6 defendants and other allies. The extracted claim matches the post's own hedge between a preliminary injunction and a TRO, and the sources support both.7 sources →

    ▶ 1:23:27

88. 88TrueThe D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a district court decision ruling that the IRS's decision to share taxpayer information with the Department of Homeland Security violates the law.The D.C. Circuit's September 8, 2026 decision in Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS unanimously upheld a district court injunction, ruling that the IRS's data-sharing with ICE (a DHS component) violated federal tax privacy law (26 U.S.C. § 6103(i)(2)). A separate February 2026 D.C. Circuit ruling in the Centro case went the other way on a preliminary injunction, but it is a different decision and does not bear on the September ruling the claim describes.8 sources →

    ▶ 1:27:38

Sources

Related posts

• Badlands Media · Sep 16, 2026No in-studio guest tonight, just CannCon and Ashe in America playing prosecutor as they roll the tape on David Becker's members-only town hall, the one Ashe tried to record and got 49 minutes of silence for her trouble, now recovered from the group's own YouTube. They pick apart Says something close: The Department of Justice sued 30 states plus the District of Columbia to obtain sensitive voter list information.9 false10 mixed15 can’t tell61 true
• Strict Scrutiny · Sep 15, 2026Kate, Leah and Melissa hop on to break down the Supreme Court’s decision to block the Trump administration’s Postal Service regulation announcing it would not deliver mail-in ballots unless states adopted a bunch of last-minute, unnecessary, burdensome, and impossible policies goSays something close: The Supreme Court declined to issue a stay of the lower court's ruling that invalidated the Postal Service's regulation on mail-in ballots.2 mixed6 can’t tell29 true
• Behind the Bastards · Oct 3, 2026All of this week's episodes of It Could Happen Here put together in one large file: US Military Boat Strikes in the Caribbean and Pacific After Ceuta Were Macklemore’s First Amendment Rights Violated? What Happened in the Labor Movement Last Month? Executive Disorder: DHSSays something close: Currently, 27 U.S. states use the SAVE system to verify voters.2 false27 mixed11 can’t tell166 true
• IHIP News · Sep 20, 2026Is Trump gearing up for a second insurrection attempt? Pre-order Jennifer’s new book Not Today, Fascists today: https://linktr.ee/ivehaditpodcast Follow Us: I've Had It Podcast: @Ivehaditpodcast Jennifer Welch: @mizzwelch Josh Welch: @joshwelch_ Learn more about your ad choSays something close: The Department of Justice has sued 30 states for unredacted voter lists and lost 23 of these cases.3 mixed1 can’t tell19 true
• The Parnas Perspective · Oct 26, 2026Aaron Parnas reports on breaking news of Trump terrified as democratic early voting surges, including an exclusive interview with Dr. Amy Acton to share updates from her campaign, her opponents latest attack, and much more! ------------------------------- Midterms are Tuesday, Says something close: The Trump administration has lost 26 lawsuits seeking un-rejected voter rolls from states.1 false5 mixed16 true
• The Fox News Rundown · Oct 23, 2026As legal battles intensify ahead of the midterms, federal efforts to challenge state voter rolls are sparking fierce debate over state sovereignty versus federal oversight. FOX News Sunday anchor Shannon Bream discusses the Democratic countersuit against the administration, why jSays something close: The Department of Justice began suing 30 states and D.C. last year to obtain unredacted voter rolls.2 false6 mixed6 can’t tell23 true
• Badlands Media · Oct 21, 2026CannCon and Ashe in America open the Wednesday Badlands Daily, StreamYard gremlins and all. First up is the back-and-forth with Newsom's office and why the crew is bullish on the 2026 midterms, starting with lifelong Jewish Democrats in Michigan who are rethinking their votes. TSays something close: The D.C. Circuit appellate court denied an appeal to allow the Social Security Administration to continue using the SAVE database for eligibility verification.6 false13 mixed19 can’t tell44 true
• The NPR Politics Podcast · Sep 29, 2026Voters are already voting in this year's midterms. With Election Day just five weeks away, we take a look at how things are going so far in an election cycle filled with confusion and questions about voting by mail and potential federal interference in election processes. This eSays something close: The Supreme Court revived the SAVE system, a Department of Homeland Security data system, allowing it to be used before the upcoming election.3 mixed22 true
• The Bulwark Daily · Sep 29, 2026Vigilance is still in order, but Trump’s efforts to rig the midterms have so far flopped. And that includes Trump’s self-sabotaging of his own plan to blame China for hacking our voting machines. But should the Dems win back Congress, they’re going to be busy tracing all the moneSays something close: Joe diGenova and Kurt Olson have left their positions investigating former administration officials.1 false7 mixed9 can’t tell46 true
• VINCE · Sep 16, 2026A Haitian gang member who famously vowed he would never return to Haiti has now been deported; federal prosecutors charge seven noncitizens in a North Texas election-integrity investigation; FBI Director Kash Patel clashes with Senate Dems in fiery hearing; Thomas Massie files arSays something close: Joe De Genova resigned from his position in a grand conspiracy case in South Florida.2 false4 mixed6 can’t tell54 true