July 7, 2026
Trump Accounts Are Live, FLOTUS Redefines Role Of First Lady, America250: King George III Declares Colonies In Open Rebellion, And More
On June 6, 2026, The White House published the release President Trump Rings in Trump Accounts with Historic Opening Bell Ceremony from the Oval Office announcing that for the first time ever, the opening bells were present in the Oval Office for President Trump to ring. The ringing of the bells marked the official launch of the new Trump Accounts for children as promised in the One Big Beautiful Bill (discussed in my July 16, 2025, August 30, 2025, December 3, 2025, and July 6, 2026 ANP Articles). Trump Accounts are available for every US Citizen under 18 born between January 1, 2025 and December 31, 2028 and have a valid social security number.
Trump Accounts will receive an automatic $1,000 deposit from the Federal government upon creation. This initial contribution is not counted in the current maximum $5,000 per year investment that can be made to Trump Accounts. Parents (and others) can then invest up to a combined $5,000 more per child each year until their child turns 18. No deductions are allowed from Trump Accounts before the child reaches 18.
Parents, guardians, grandparents, family members, friends, employers, and the children, themselves, can contribute to a child's Trump Account. Qualifying charitable organizations, government entities (states, tribes, localities, etc.) may make contributions to a qualified class of children (all children born in a certain year, all children in a specific state, etc.).
At this time, the maximum contribution parents that can be made (from all sources) to this account is $5,000 per year per child (after 2027, the maximum will be recalculated based on cost of living adjustments). Employers can make contributions of up to $2,500 per child (out of the $5,000) per year and is included as part of the maximum contribution of $5,000 per year. This is a separate plan for employers and does not count towards the employer's IRA contributions for the working parent.
Over 50 companies have committed to Trump Account contributions for their employees' children. The the original company investment was by Michael and Susan Dell of Dell Corporation (discussed in my December 3, 2025 ANP Article). This donation grants the first 25 million American children age 10 and under living in ZIP codes with median incomes below $150,000 an additional $250 (which will be included in the $5,000 per year maximum contributions) per child.
At this time, Americans have applied for more than 6 million Trump Accounts. Over 86% of these accounts are from families earning less than $200,000 annually.
The traditional role of the First Lady of the United States is slowly evolving, most notably with the advent of international media and social media. First Ladies are becoming more involved in the political aspirations of their President husbands as well as their own political agendas. In her 2013 article First Ladies’ Contributions to Political Issues and the National Welfare author Betty Boyd Caroli explains:
George and Martha Washington started the tradition that the president works and lives at the same address, and this pulls those who reside with him into the political arena as they watch (and sometimes interact with) legislators and advisors who come to confer with the president. . . .
Caroli notes:
The US Constitution assigns no duties or responsibilities to the president’s spouse. Every woman had to define for herself the role she wanted to play. Every woman had to define for herself the role she wanted to play. From the blank slate that Martha Washington encountered in 1789, the job gradually grew, as she and her successors shaped it. Although many presidents’ wives shunned a public role (and wanted to do nothing more than look after their own families) others used their prominence to support causes and achieve political change. By the late 1900s, America’s first ladies enjoyed huge potential to contribute to the nation’s welfare . . . first ladies were nevertheless expected by the nation’s leaders to set a standard for how all American women should behaved. . . . The expansion of national media in the late nineteenth century turned the president’s wife into a celebrity. . . .
In his March 26, 2026 article The role of first lady has evolved to become "quite active in policymaking," Salve Regina University professor says - With the Melania Trump film focusing attention on her role at the White House, Dr. Mary Anderson talks about first ladies through history, from Mary Washington to Jill Biden author Edward Fitzpatrick notes the change in the First Lady's role from support to activism citing:
- Rosalynn Carter's involvement with policy matters
- Hillary Clinton's policy to push universal heath care
- Laura Bush's policy involvement concerning girls and women in Afghanistan
- Jill Biden continued teaching while serving as First Lady
In addition to fulfilling the traditional duties of a First Lady, First Lady Melania Trump's ambitious policymaking agenda is being noted. She is fighting relentlessly for the youth of our Nation. From the Take It Down Act where, when the President signed the Act into law, he invited her to sign it as well, making her the 1st First Lady to co-sign a bill into law; to promoting the AI Challenge; to authorizing the loaning of art housed in the White House collection of American Master James McNeill Whistler; to her child reunification efforts; to the Fostering the Future Accounts for youth who are aging out of the foster system, she has worked with legislators to accomplish what no First Lady before her has done (although some have tried). This is setting a precedent and extending the role of the First Lady of the United States.
Redefining the Role of FLOTUS: A New Level of Leadership in the East Winghttps://t.co/0zWAC5quIs
— Office of the First Lady (@FirstLadyOffice) July 6, 2026
The SENATE convened on July 6, 2026 at 9:01am for a pro forma session and adjourned less than 1 minute later. They held no votes. The SENATE will reconvene July 9, 2026 at 4pm for another pro forma session. They will continue to do this every few days until July 13, 2026.
The HOUSE convened on July 6, 2026 at 10:30am and adjourned at 10:32am. They held no votes. The HOUSE will reconvene July 9, 2026 at 3pm apparently for another pro forma session.
So apparently it's not just the dumocrats holding up the work of We The People. The entire Senate is luxuriating in an extended vacation and the House has apparently decided to join them. Apparently they are avoiding the work We The People want them to be doing. It remains to be seen what happens when both chambers meet again on the afternoon of Monday July 13, 2026.
LAWFARE lawsuit tracker to date:
- 332 active cases
- 24 suits filed by the Trump Administration
- 18 SCOTUS stays or motions to vacate of lower court orders
- 2 SCOTUS affirmation of lower court order
- 11 suits where judges ruled for the federal government
- 16 suits where judges ruled against the federal government
- 7 criminal prosecutions by the DOJ
These next 3 lawsuit updates deal with illegal aliens:
In the lawsuit Make the Road New York v. Kristi Noem docket # 25-5320 Appeal of 1:25-cv-00190 filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on September 5, 2025 about Expedited Removal Policy where the government appealed Judge Cobb's order granting the plaintiff's motion for a stay of the agency's action which pauses the implementation of the DHS's new rule on expedited removal. The original lawsuit sought the following relief:
- Declare the Rule unconstitutional and contrary to law;
- Enter an order vacating the Rule;
- Enter an order enjoining and staying Defendants from continuing to apply expedited removal to noncitizens who have been present in this country for longer than 14 days, or who have been apprehended farther than 100 miles from the border;
- Award Plaintiffs’ counsel reasonable attorneys’ fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, and any other applicable statute or regulation; and
- Grant such further relief as the Court deems just, equitable, and appropriate.
On August 29, 2025, Judge Jia M Cobb concluded:
Plaintiff’s motion for a stay of agency action, ECF 50, is GRANTED. The Challenged Actions (the January 21 Designation Notice and the January 23 Huffman Memorandum insofar as it implements the January 21 Designation Notice) are hereby STAYED, pending conclusion of these review proceedings.
On August 29, 2025, Judge Jia M Cobb ordered:
For the reasons stated in the accompanying memorandum opinion, it is hereby ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Stay of Agency Action under 5 U.S.C. § 705, ECF 22, is GRANTED.
It is further ORDERED that, to preserve status or rights pending conclusion of the review proceedings, the effective dates of implementation and enforcement of the January 21 Designation Notice and the January 23 Huffman Memorandum, insofar as it implements the January 21 Designation Notice, are immediately postponed and stayed.
On September 2, 2025, Defendants filed a notice of appeal to the DC Circuit Court.
On September 5, 2025, docket # 25-5320 was assigned and Judge Jia M Cobb ordered:
ORDERED that the Government’s motion to stay the Court’s August 29, 2025, order granting a stay of agency action under 5 U.S.C. § 705, ECF 67, is DENIED.
So judges can deny appeals to stay their own orders? Shouldn't a different judge decide whether a judge's order can be stayed during the appeal process?
On June 23, 2026, Circuit Judge Walker (Rao & Wilkins) ordered:
Although Make the Road clears the four threshold procedural hurdles, it falters when it reaches the merits. It has not shown that the written directives fail to comply with constitutional due process. And Make the Road’s evidence of implementation problems — referral errors, rushed interviews, communication barriers — does not establish that the Designation and Huffman Memorandum are themselves “not consistent with applicable provisions of [the INA] or . . . otherwise in violation of law.” 8 U.S.C. § 1252(e)(3)(A)(ii). We therefore vacate the district court’s § 705 stay.
On June 23, 2026, Clifton B Cislak, Clerk for the Court, transmitted the order:
It is ORDERED, on the court's own motion, that the Clerk withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. See Fed. R. App. P. 41(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41. This instruction to the Clerk is without prejudice to the right of any party to move for expedited issuance of the mandate for good cause shown.
So the stay on expedited removals has been removed; however, the case now returns to the lower court for adjudication on the merits of the original case.
In the lawsuit In re: Donald Trump docket # 25-5452 (discussed in my April 16, 2025 ANP Article) Appeal of 1:25-cv-00766 (discussed in my November 19, 2026 ANP Article) filed in Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on December 12, 2025 about Alien Enemies Act Deportation where the government appealed Judge Boasberg's order contempt inquiry into the Trump administration.
On June 22, 2026, Chief Judge Srinvasan with Circuit Judges Henderson, Millett, Pillard, Wilkins, Katsas, Rao, Walker, Childs, Pan, and Garcia, ordered:
ORDERED that the unopposed motion for invitation to participate as amici curiae be granted. The Clerk is directed to file the lodged amicus brief. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that this case be reheard by the court sitting en banc. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the court’s order filed on April 14, 2026, be vacated. The administrative stay entered on December 12, 2025, is in effect. It is
FURTHER ORDERED that oral argument before the en banc court be heard at 9:30 a.m. on Tuesday, September 29, 2026, in Courtroom 20. It is FURTHER ORDERED that, in addition to filing briefs electronically, the parties file 30 paper copies of each of the briefs and the appendix, in accordance with the following schedule:
- Brief for Petitioners on July 22, 2026
- Appendix on July 22, 2026
- Brief(s) of Amici Curiae in support of Petitioners, if any on July 29, 2026
- Brief for Respondents on August 21, 2026
- Brief(s) of Amici Curiae in support of Respondents, if any on August 28, 2026
- Reply Brief for Petitioners on September 11, 2026
So, the next order will not be issued until after September 29, 2026. In the interim, the administrative stay of December 12, 2025 (in the original suit) is still valid. I tried to find this stay order; however, courtlistener did not have it posted in any of the suits or appeals they track for this suit:
- J.G.G. v. TRUMP (D.D.C. 2025) Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00766 Date Filed: March 15th, 2025
- J.G.G. v. TRUMP (D.D.C. 2025) Docket Number: 1:25-cv-00766 Date Filed: March 15th, 2025
- J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir. 2026) Docket Number: 26-5074 Date Filed: March 5th, 2026
- J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir. 2026) Docket Number: 26-5040 Date Filed: January 30th, 2026
- J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025) Docket Number: 25-5217 Date Filed: June 10th, 2025
- J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025) Docket Number: 25-5068 Date Filed: March 15th, 2025
- J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025) Docket Number: 25-5067 Date Filed: March 15th, 2025
- J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (D.C. Cir. 2025) Docket Number: 25-5124 Date Filed: April 17th, 2025
So I am not sure which stay is still in effect in this case.
In the lawsuit Dorcas International Institute of Rhode Island v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services docket # 1:26-cv-00132 (discussed in my March 12, 2026 ANP Article) filed in District Court, D. Rhode Island on March 5, 2026 about New Immigration Policies where a coalition of nonprofits sued the Trump administration over four newly enacted policies by USCIS which have halted all adjudications of asylum requests and immigration benefit and started a reconsideration of its past decisions granting immigration benefits.
On June 11, 2026, Chief Judge John J McConnell Jr ordered:
- The Challenged Policies as a whole—the Benefits Hold Policy, the Global Asylum Hold Policy, the Comprehensive Re-Review Policy, and the Country-Specific Factors Policy—are contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious in violation of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C). Therefore, the Challenged Policies are vacated and set aside pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
- Partial final judgment shall enter in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Government on Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint (ECF No. 1).
- Within twenty-four (24) hours, the Government shall file a status report, advising the Court as to what specific steps it has taken to comply with the Court’s Order.
- The Court retains jurisdiction to enforce this judgment.
On June 11, 2026, Clerk of Court Hanorah Tyer-Witek transmitted the judgement:
Pursuant to this Court’s Order entered on June 11, 2026, and in accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58, partial final judgment is hereby entered in favor of Plaintiffs and against the Defendants on Counts I and II of Plaintiffs’ Complaint.
On June 12, 2026, Defendants filed a notice of appeal and case # 26-1703 was issued.
And so the takeover of the Executive branch by activist judges continues . . .
We have discussed the following events that lead to the signing of the Declaration of Independence.
- March 23, 1765 Parliament passes Stamp act Sons of Liberty clubs form in Boston and spread elsewhere
- March 23, 1765 Loyal Nine
- October 1765 Stamp Act Congress in NYC delegates from 9 colonies protest taxation without representation
- March 18, 1766 Stamp act is repealed
- June 29, 1767 Townshend Revenue Act requires colonist to pay import duties on tea glass paints oil lead and paper
- March 5, 1770 Boston Massacre
- March 5, 1770 Crispus Attucks and 4 others murdered
- June 10, 1772 After the Gaspee British Schooner runs aground in Rhode Island is attacked by merchants
- July 1772 Committees of correspondence formed
- December 16, 1773 Revolutionaries dress as native Americans board 3 ships and dump 342 chests of tea in the water in protest over East India Company's monopoly on tea exports to colonies
- Fall 1774 Intolerable Acts - Boston In response to Boston Tea Party, Britians Intolerable Acts strips Massachusetts of its rights leading to 1st Continental Congress
- March 23, 1775 Patrick Henry declares "Give me liberty or give me death!"
- April 18, 1775 Paul Revere rides
- April 19, 1775 First shots of the Revolutionary War are fired at Lexington and Concord “shot heard round the world.”
- May 10, 1775 Fort Ticonderoga seized by Col Ethan Allen and Benedict Arnold and The Green Mountain Men
- June 15, 1775 George Washington appointed Commander of Continental Army
- June 17, 1775 The Battle of Bunker Hill
- August 23, 1775 King George III proclaims Americans have "proceeded to open and avowed rebellion"
- September 7, 1775 The First Continental Congress (after intolerable acts) Carpenter's Hall 13 Colonies Samuel Adams - debated 7 wks
- December 31, 1775 Battle of Quebec
- January 10, 1776 Thomas Paine publishes Common Sense
- June 11, 1776 Declaration of Independence was created
- July 4, 1776 Declaration of Independence officially approved
On October 31, 1776, in response to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, King George II proclaimed in Parliament that the colonies have proceeded to open and avowed rebellion. He ordered officials to use their utmost endeavours to withstand and suppress such rebellion.
Thus begins the Road to Freedom we call the American Revolutionary War.
For more articles by SE Gunn, click here.
ANP Fundraiser:
‘Dangerous, Derogatory, Harmful, Unreliable!’
Those are some of the exact words used by Google’s censors, aka 'Orwellian content police,' in describing many of our controversial stories. Stories later proven to be truthful and light years ahead of the mainstream media. But because we reported those 'inconvenient truths' they're trying to bankrupt ANP.
