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. . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
