The Reign of Trump

[bilateralrope]

Education Secretary Wants 'A1' in Classrooms as Early as Kindergarten. She Means AI

Linda McMahon made the gaffe during a conference on technology in schools.
Taylor Odisho / Published Apr 10 2025, 12:39 PM EDT

While speaking at the ASU+GSV Summit on Tuesday, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon outlined big plans for "A1" in classrooms. She meant AI.

When asked how entrepreneurs can participate in bringing tech into schools to accelerate students' learning, McMahon conceded she did not have the blueprint for the best technology answer, but said the summit attendees selling products and programs in schools is part of the path forward.

McMahon, whose $3.1 billion net worth was earned via a media empire she created with her husband, Vince, made the gaffe while referencing a school system that is aiming to make AI a part of the curriculum as early as pre-K.

"There's a school system that's gonna start making sure that first graders or even pre-Ks have A1 teaching every year," McMahon stated.

"[It] wasn't that long ago, it was we're gonna have internet in our schools. Now, let's see A1, and how can that be helpful? How can it be helpful in 1-on-1 instruction? How can it be helpful in absorbing more information for those fast learners? It can be more 1-on-1 directed," she continued. "Those are the kinds of things and innovations that I want to see continue to develop," McMahon added.

Social media users scorned McMahon for the mistake.

"From the floor of #asugsv #asugsv2024 - Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon did indeed say 'A1' instead of 'AI'. There seems to be some confusion as to whether it happened, but I was there - and yes, she said A1, multiple times," attendee Dr. Mary Jo Madda stated in an X post the day of the event.

"This is where the United States is at. The Secretary of Education who doesn't know what AI is, because she calls it A-one, not once but twice," X user @helenmaryallen wrote.

Several also made jokes about McMahon accidentally referring to AI as a steak sauce while attending a summit about tech in schools.

"Secy of education Linda McMahon called AI A1. Ya know. The steak sauce. She's thrilled that kindergarteners are getting A1 at school now," a social media user joked.

Trump managed to find an education secretary that doesn't read.

[Solauren]

The most recent pictures of seen of Linda McMahon make it look like her one eye is starting to get weaker. It could be that caused her to read something wrong.

At least she didn't mention JR's BBQ Sauce....

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Ladies and Gentlemen - This is what an early stage dementia sufferer that doesn't get enough sleep, with a mindset stuck in the 1980s looks like when using modern social media technology.

I'd say he's at the same stage Reagan was while president, only more dangerous

[bilateralrope]

The most recent pictures of seen of Linda McMahon make it look like her one eye is starting to get weaker. It could be that caused her to read something wrong.

At least she didn't mention JR's BBQ Sauce....

Read it wrong, heard it wrong and doesn't know enough about AI to have heard the term "artificial intelligence"

Now imagine a snarky comment about Trump ending DEI and hiring on 'merit'

[Solauren]

Oh, I know Linda McMahon was not hired on merit.

Her background is -
She has a near 60 year old bachelors degree in French
She helped build*, and run the WWF/E to 2009....

Absolutely no grounding or background in education.

*While she and her husband Vince where considered business genisus, Knowing what I know about WWF/E history, including what Vince himself has said about it, it was more Vince ignoring how the territory system worked, including pouching talent and other things, and the other promoters not being prepared for it, that helped build the company, then any great business savy.

[bilateralrope]

Even The Supreme Court Says Human Trafficking People by Accident Goes Too Far, Less Sure What To Do About It

from the where-in-the-world-is-abrego-garcia? dept
Fri, Apr 11th 2025 07:17am - Mike Masnick

We predicted earlier this week that the Supreme Court would need to weigh in on the Abrego Garcia case. Now it has done so with a striking unanimous order that rejects the DOJ’s attempt to wash its hands of what it admits was “accidentally” trafficking Garcia to El Salvador — a country he had protected status from due to credible threats of torture. The Court’s message is clear: yes, federal courts can and should tell the government to fix its “mistakes,” especially when those mistakes involve sending someone to face torture in violation of U.S. law.

As we had covered, the Trump administration is completely dismissive not just of due process around those it is trafficking to a foreign slave camp (which might have prevented the “accidental” trafficking of someone), but has also been mocking the courts for suggesting it should maybe try to fix the mistake it admits it made. As I noted, anyone with even a smidgen of a conscience or shame would try to fix a mistake upon realization it had been made. I would expect that government officials would go even further if the “mistake” was literally human trafficking someone when they were forbidden from doing so. Instead, the Trump administration has basically just been mocking the district court judge who told them to try to fix this very fixable situation. That’s what puts the sociopathic cherry on top of the evil, hateful human trafficking policy.

Again, this isn’t hard: if you make a mistake, you try to fix it. Especially when lives are at stake. If instead of trying to fix it, you’re laughing about the mistake, it not only shows a callous lack of concern about the human lives at stake, it suggests it wasn’t so much of a “mistake” or “administrative error” but the administration’s position that it will simply ignore all laws and due process to disappear anyone.

Thankfully, even this Supreme Court seems to recognize how fucked up Garcia’s situation is. It released an unsigned order admitting that of course a judge can order the US government to try to facilitate the return of the wrongfully trafficked person, while admitting that it’s possible that El Salvador could refuse it, saying that the original district court ruling may have gone a step too far in ordering DHS to both “facilitate” and “effectuate” Garcia’s return, saying that while it can be ordered to “facilitate” it, the “effectuate” part likely requires some help from a foreign sovereign (El Salvador), which could complicate things:

The application is granted in part and denied in part, subject to the direction of this order. Due to the administrative stay issued by THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the deadline imposed by the District Court has now passed. To that extent, the Government’s emergency application is effectively granted in part and the deadline in the challenged order is no longer effective. The rest of the District Court’s order remains in effect but requires clarification on remand. The order properly requires the Government to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador. The intended scope of the term “effectuate” in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority. The District Court should clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs. For its part, the Government should be prepared to share what it can concerning the steps it has taken and the prospect of further steps.

It’s notable that not a single Justice dissented from this, which is quite notable given the times we live in, and the ways some of the Court will bend over backwards to try to protect Trump.

Justice Sotomayor wrote an additional statement, saying that she wouldn’t have even taken the case in the first place, since the lower courts’ rulings (both the district court and the Fourth Circuit) correctly told the US government to go get Garcia and bring him home. It also calls out exactly how messed up the government’s unwillingness to try to fix its error is, and how it speaks loudly about its willingness to literally disappear anyone:

Instead of hastening to correct its egregious error, the Government dismissed it as an “oversight.” Decl. of R. Cerna in No. 25–cv–951 (D Md., Mar. 31, 2025), ECF Doc. 11–3, p. 3. The Government now requests an order from this Court permitting it to leave Abrego Garcia, a husband and father without a criminal record, in a Salvadoran prison for no reason recognized by the law. The only argument the Government offers in support of its request, that United States courts cannot grant relief once a deportee crosses the border, is plainly wrong. See Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 447, n. 16 (2004); cf. Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U. S. 723, 732 (2008). The Government’s argument, moreover, implies that it could deport and incarcerate any person, including U. S. citizens, without legal consequence, so long as it does so before a court can intervene. See Trump v. J. G. G., 604 U. S. ___, ___ (2025) (SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting) (slip op., at . That view refutes itself.

That said, there are reasonable concerns that the order from the Supreme Court leaves the Trump administration an out: claiming that it’s done everything it can, but El Salvador won’t assist in freeing Garcia. That claim would be wholly unbelievable. The US created an agreement with El Salvador and has plenty of leverage to get Garcia back. Pretending it doesn’t should be seen as a real possibility, and a serious Supreme Court would address it.

But the Roberts court is not a serious court and will ignore the bad faith actions of the Trump administration over and over again.

With the original deadline now passed, Judge Xinis wasted no time demanding answers from DHS. This morning, the government must detail Garcia’s current location, what steps (if any) they’ve taken to bring him back, and their concrete plans for his return. The DOJ quickly filed a motion for an extension, claiming the Xinis’s new deadline was inconsistent with the Supreme Court order and proposing to submit the required information by next Tuesday. The original deadline has now passed, and the extension has not been granted, so it’s unclear what exactly will happen next.

Update: Garcia’s lawyers quickly opposed the extension, and Judge Xinis has now granted a partial extension to 11:30am ET today. This is a developing story and we’ll bring more updates as soon as we can.

Update 2: The DOJ has submitted a filing saying it will not comply with the court’s order. The hearing is still scheduled for 1:00pm ET today.

The unanimity of the Supreme Court’s order, combined with Judge Xinis’s swift follow-up, sends a powerful message: the government’s “oops, nothing we can do” defense isn’t just legally wrong – it’s a dangerous assertion of unlimited power to disappear people beyond the reach of U.S. courts. As Justice Sotomayor noted, taken to its logical conclusion, this would mean the government could deport and incarcerate anyone, including U.S. citizens, as long as they acted before courts could intervene.

We’ll soon see if DHS finally decides to fix its “mistake” or continues its pattern of contempt for both the courts and basic human rights. But I wouldn’t hold my breath expecting the administration to put any real effort into doing the right thing… or that the Supreme Court would actually respond to the government’s inevitable bad faith efforts to avoid doing what it is required — both ethically and legally — to do in this situation.

We have found the point at which SCOTUS thinks the Trump administration has gone too far. Once someone gets permission to stay in the US permanently, they don't want that person removed without due process.

With the DOJ refusing to comply, that means we are going to have to wait for the contempt of court rulings. For judges to deputize people to enforce them and start fining and/or imprisoning the individuals who refuse to follow the law. That's when things get violent or the DOJ backs down.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Thing is...if Trump calls SCOTUS's bluff and just ignores them, what can they actually do? They've already ruled that he as President has complete immunity for "official acts." I don't know the exact regs but I can't imagine that the assorted courts can fine the government enough to make a real difference and/or deterrent to them.

[Solauren]

The Supreme Court can remember this if Trump is ever in front of them for anything.

Beyond that, there is not much they can do .

[Ralin]

Thing is...if Trump calls SCOTUS's bluff and just ignores them, what can they actually do? They've already ruled that he as President has complete immunity for "official acts." I don't know the exact regs but I can't imagine that the assorted courts can fine the government enough to make a real difference and/or deterrent to them.

They can send marshals to arrest everyone who carries out his orders on the subject and hold them until the relevant agency complies. Theoretically.

[bilateralrope]

Thing is...if Trump calls SCOTUS's bluff and just ignores them, what can they actually do? They've already ruled that he as President has complete immunity for "official acts." I don't know the exact regs but I can't imagine that the assorted courts can fine the government enough to make a real difference and/or deterrent to them.

Trump is immune for whatever SCOTUS calls an official act. That might change if he pisses them off, especially if he has nothing more he can offer them. But Trump isn't the one disobeying courts here.

Everyone else can be fined or held to encourage compliance. Judges can deputize people to enforce contempt orders when the federal marshals refuse to do so.

What seems likely is that ICE is going to say that they asked El Salvador to return Abrego Garcia, but El Salvador said no, so they are out of options. Then the judge asks if they have threatened to cancel their contract with the torture prison. Then orders that no more money or people are to be sent there until Abrego Garcia is returned. Then the people who ignore that order are personally held in contempt.

Or ICE just says that Abrego Garcia is dead so there is nothing they can do. Then the wrongful death lawsuit starts.

[vakundok]

Trump managed to find an education secretary that doesn't read.

In Hungary during the past ten or so years, this would have resulted in either a declaration that Artificial Intelligence is to be abbreviated as A1, or the announcement that this initiative is called A1.

[Elfdart]

Thing is...if Trump calls SCOTUS's bluff and just ignores them, what can they actually do? They've already ruled that he as President has complete immunity for "official acts." I don't know the exact regs but I can't imagine that the assorted courts can fine the government enough to make a real difference and/or deterrent to them.

They can send marshals to arrest everyone who carries out his orders on the subject and hold them until the relevant agency complies. Theoretically.

There is another...

Democracy Docket

Contempt of court is classified as either civil or criminal depending on whether a court seeks to compel compliance with its orders or punish obstruction of justice. When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.

Civil contempt is different. The Supreme Court has long held that “a pardon cannot stop” courts from punishing cases of civil contempt. And while the marshals have traditionally enforced civil contempt orders, the courts have the power to deputize others to step in if they refuse to do so.

This authority is recognized in an obscure provision of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which govern proceedings in federal trial courts. Rule 4.1 specifies how certain types of “process” — the legal term for orders that command someone to appear in court — are to be served on the party to which they are directed. The rule begins in section (a) by instructing that, as a general matter, process “must be served by a United States marshal or deputy marshal or by a person specially appointed for that purpose.”

The next section, Rule 4.1(b), is entitled, “Enforcing Orders: Committing for Civil Contempt.” It sets some geographical limits for where “[a]n order committing a person for civil contempt of a decree or injunction” may be served based on the federal vs. state nature of the underlying lawsuit. But it does not say who may enforce such an order, and it never modifies the general rule that process may be served by a marshal, deputy marshal or person specially appointed for that purpose. Thus, by its plain terms, Rule 4.1 contemplates that the court may appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders.

This understanding of the courts’ powers is consistent with other provisions of the rules that allow them to make use of other parties as a backstop to enforcement by the marshals. For example, the rules governing civil forfeiture provide that when the court takes control of property, “the warrant and any supplemental process” may be enforced by marshals and “someone specially appointed by the court for that purpose.”

Perhaps more important, courts’ power to appoint individuals other than the marshals to enforce civil contempt orders is consistent with the broader law of contempt. A through theme in that law is the necessity of courts having independent authority to punish contempts to protect the rule of law. As expressed by the Supreme Court, “If a party can make himself a judge of the validity of orders which have been issued, and by his own act of disobedience set them aside, then are the courts impotent, and what the Constitution now fittingly calls ‘the judicial power of the United States’ would be a mere mockery.”

To be sure, a court that appointed someone other than the marshals to enforce a civil contempt order would be breaking new ground. Because of the marshals’ long and honorable history of respecting their legal obligation to enforce federal courts orders, the courts have rarely, if ever, had to turn to other parties to have their orders enforced. If forced to do so, however, individuals from court security officers and probation officers to local police and sheriffs have the training and experience to bring contemnors into court. And unlike the marshals, these individuals would be responsible to the court alone.

Even a rogue marshal’s service, in other words, is not an insurmountable obstacle to courts enforcing the rule of law. If courts have the courage, the legal tools are there.

Judges at every level have a great deal of leeway when it comes to the conduct in their courtrooms. A judge could fine or jail an attorney for bringing frivolous cases, cases that have no merit, cases that are brought to break the law, or just plain annoying the judge. This is not a referral to prosecutors to seek contempt charges later (if ever), it's having the bailiff toss the offender in jail immediately or other forms of humiliation.

[bilateralrope]

When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.

Is this true when the contempt is ongoing ?
For example, refusal to obey a court order.

Sure, the president can pardon any contempt that happened before issuing the pardon. But the refusal to obey the court order continues afterwards, and pardons can't cover future crimes. Plus SCOTUS have probably worked out by now that they don't want to cede any of their power to Trump.

[Ralin]

When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.

Is this true when the contempt is ongoing ?
For example, refusal to obey a court order.

Sure, the president can pardon any contempt that happened before issuing the pardon. But the refusal to obey the court order continues afterwards, and pardons can't cover future crimes. Plus SCOTUS have probably worked out by now that they don't want to cede any of their power to Trump.

That could lead to a tug of war where the president is constantly pardoning them for each contempt and the judge keeps adding new ones. That would be more likely to result in the court looking silly and weak than anything else, so I'm guessing they would chose not to do it.

[bilateralrope]

When it comes to criminal contempt, the executive really does hold a veto over contempt proceedings. While Supreme Court caselaw and the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure recognize the courts’ authority to appoint a private attorney to prosecute contempt, the president may pardon the contemnor, rendering the prosecution an academic exercise.

Is this true when the contempt is ongoing ?
For example, refusal to obey a court order.

Sure, the president can pardon any contempt that happened before issuing the pardon. But the refusal to obey the court order continues afterwards, and pardons can't cover future crimes. Plus SCOTUS have probably worked out by now that they don't want to cede any of their power to Trump.

That could lead to a tug of war where the president is constantly pardoning them for each contempt and the judge keeps adding new ones. That would be more likely to result in the court looking silly and weak than anything else, so I'm guessing they would chose not to do it.

That would depend on who gives up first, Trump, the judge, or whatever Trump lackey keeps bouncing in and out of a cell.

[bilateralrope]

Legal Eagle put up a short about people burning Teslas.

One interesting point he made is that insurance companies typically don't cover damage from terrorism. So Trump's declaration that those attacks are terrorism could let insurance companies get out of paying for it.

[Solauren]

Just because Trump called it terrorism, doesn't mean the Courts will call it terrorism, or that it can be prosecuted as terrorism.

Vandalism? Yes
Destruction of Property? Yes
Terrorism? Probably not

The FBI Defines Terrorism as; the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a Government or civilian population in furtherance of political or social objectives.

As far as I know, no organized group has claimed responsibility for going after Teslas, and there have been no political statements or demands associated with Tesla burnings.

It just appears to be people that don't like Musk, and want to see him lose money cause he's an asshole.

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

[Ralin]

While none of us are inclined to take Trump's expert opinion seriously defining something as terrorism is inherently a political question and seems very much within the scope of his authority as president. After all, who else would you expect to decide that? The FBI? Cus I've got some news for you about them too.

And it's not even like it's a crazy decision since it is very much politically motivated violence that can reasonably be assumed is intended at least partially to intimidate supporters of Musk, Trump and the Republican party.

[bilateralrope]

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

[Tribble]

You know, when I said the Republicans and their support base’s main goals were ultimately to imprison, deport, enslave, and/or execute their enemies, some part of me was hopeful that perhaps I was wrong or exaggerating.

Part of me was also hoping that I was misreading things or exaggerating when I thought that the US was headed for either a civil war and/or fascist takeover.

But… nope.

That’s exactly what they are doing and what they are heading towards.

Dammit.

I hate it when the cynical side of me is right.

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Considering how expensive Teslas can be, their owners probably have more money than sense.

[bilateralrope]

Now, that being said, I can totally see Insurance Companies going 'nope,it's terrorism, the POTUS said so', and giving Musk the finger. If only because (in the US at least), that's what Insurance companies do.

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Considering how expensive Teslas can be, their owners probably have more money than sense.

What about the price of second hand teslas ?

[Solauren]

They won't be giving Musk the finger. They will be giving it to the people who had their Teslas burnt.

Then comes the fight in the courts. If the people fighting the insurance companies can afford it.

Considering how expensive Teslas can be, their owners probably have more money than sense.

What about the price of second hand teslas ?

No idea. I understand that they are having alot of fire sales these days...

[Tribble]

Considering how expensive Teslas can be, their owners probably have more money than sense.

What about the price of second hand teslas ?

No idea. I understand that they are having alot of fire sales these days...

A bit off topic, but I imagine they’re not the best vehicles to own?

The battery / range decays overtime, they’re heavier than a regular vehicle the lithium batteries are potential fire hazard especially if parked in the garage, and IIRC if the battery is even suspected of being damaged, the entire unit needs to be replaced (which I imagine is quite expensive).

[bilateralrope]

What about the price of second hand teslas ?

No idea. I understand that they are having alot of fire sales these days...

A bit off topic, but I imagine they’re not the best vehicles to own?

The battery / range decays overtime, they’re heavier than a regular vehicle the lithium batteries are potential fire hazard especially if parked in the garage, and IIRC if the battery is even suspected of being damaged, the entire unit needs to be replaced (which I imagine is quite expensive).

Evs are actually the least likely kind of car to catch fire. Though if one does, putting it out is very difficult.

Yes, the batteries wear out. But some quick searches say that 8 year warranties on the battery is standard for EV manufacturers. How long a warranty do ICE manufacturers give ?