AI Analysis
Machine-generated analysis of the post above on 2026-09-16. Not written by the author of the post.
A formally signed presidential statement attacking the Supreme Court over three adverse rulings, notable for where the aggression is aimed: at justices he appointed. The Court is split into "legends both" (Alito, Thomas, who dissented) and "a shell of their original selves" — with "These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court" marking the devaluation as personal betrayal by his own selections. The causal account is that the Court is "bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left" and that "Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats." Judicial independence is reframed as cowardice; the mechanism attributed to the justices — being pressured into rulings by a hostile faction — is the one he is applying to them in public. A martyr clause closes it: "it will likely cost me dearly for years to come - but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President." No cost exists or is specified. The line converts an attack from the most powerful office into a sacrifice witnessed by the reader. The operative content is electoral. Seven weeks before midterms, the ruling is said to give the opposition "an open field" to cheat on mail-in ballots, with mail voting asserted as an established "SCAM" the U.S. alone endures — false on its face. An explanation for a future loss is being installed in advance, with the judiciary pre-assigned the blame for enabling it.
- Doubled spaces mid-sentence in "United States" and "having rendered" — keystroke artifacts, not formatting
- "Dumocrats" in scare quotes: idiosyncratic derogatory wordplay with no staff-writing precedent
- Signature block "Thank you for your attention to this very important matter... President DONALD J. TRUMP" — his long-form statement format
- Vague magnitudes rather than figures: "Trillions and Trillions of Dollars," "Billions of Dollars"
- Non-rule capitalization landing on Court, World, History, Mail-In, SCAM; ALL CAPS burst at "RIPPING IT OFF FOR YEARS"
Strongest facet: angry hostility (Neuroticism)
Primary drive: power
Trigger: Narcissistic Injury — Defeat (Adverse Supreme Court rulings on mail-in voting, tariffs, and birthright citizenship)
Rage: Intensity 62% targeting Supreme Court justices other than Alito and Thomas
Elevated
- Pre-election fraud narrative installed seven weeks before midterms: "now they have an open field to do so"
- Delegitimization of the judiciary by a sitting president, with adverse rulings attributed to fear and capture rather than law
- Opposition characterized as "crazed and depraved," placing them outside normal political disagreement
- Blame for a future electoral outcome pre-assigned to the branch that would adjudicate challenges to it
- Mail-in voting asserted as established fact rather than contested claim: "our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting 'disaster'"
- False exclusivity claim presented as common knowledge: "we are the only country that has to endure such"
- Unspecified harm declared already consummated: "has already led to massive corruption with respect to 'citizenship'"
- Consensus manufactured for an unverifiable claim: "they know this, just as everyone else does"
- The United States as the sole nation using mail-in voting
- Mail-in ballots as an established mechanism of large-scale fraud
- Rulings as products of intimidation by the opposition rather than legal reasoning
- Tariff decision costing "Trillions and Trillions," a figure exceeding the entire collected base
- Court decisions having "set America back at least a hundred years"
Postal voting is routine in many democracies. Switzerland conducts the large majority of its federal votes by mail; Germany's Briefwahl accounted for roughly half of ballots in recent Bundestag elections; the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all offer postal ballots to any eligible voter or to broad categories of them. Several Australian states and multiple U.S. states run all-mail elections as the default.
Documented mail-ballot fraud in U.S. elections occurs at rates measured in thousandths of a percent. Post-2020 audits and recounts in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan found no fraud at a scale affecting outcomes, and the Trump administration's own CISA called the 2020 election the most secure in American history. Mail ballots are subject to signature verification, barcode tracking, and ballot-receipt deadlines in every state that uses them. The assertion of an "open field" describes an intent and opportunity for which no evidence is offered.
The ruling is identifiable: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided February 20, 2026, 6-3, Chief Justice Roberts writing, holding that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented.
The refund half of the claim is accurate. The majority opinion did not address refunds of duties already collected at all — it resolved the question of authority and left remedial mechanics entirely to further proceedings. The American University Business Law Review analysis notes that the only explicit discussion of refunds anywhere in the slip opinion appears in Justice Kavanaugh's dissent, which warned that repayment could significantly affect the Treasury. So Trump's specific complaint — that the Court "didn't even state, 'money paid does not have to be paid back'" — describes the opinion correctly. His follow-on point that this costs billions immediately is also borne out: the Court of International Trade ordered CBP on March 4, 2026 to liquidate and reliquidate entries without IEEPA duties, covering roughly $165-166 billion collected from more than 330,000 importers. By July 2026 the government had paid back about $81 billion, and as of July 31, 2026, roughly $128.68 billion in potential and certified refunds had been accepted for processing through CBP's new CAPE system.
The magnitude half is exaggerated, though not by the margin the first-pass analysis suggested — that analysis compared against annual customs collections rather than the ten-year budget window, and the correct comparison is much closer to the claim. On the day of the ruling, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the decision could add $2.4 trillion to the debt through FY2036 (a $1.9 trillion net revenue reduction plus interest), assuming refunds and no replacement revenue; $2.2 trillion without refunds. CBO's March 2026 estimate put primary deficits $1.6 trillion larger over 2026-2036.
But those were pre-substitution figures. The administration then imposed replacement tariffs under Sections 301, 338 and 122. CRFB's July 23, 2026 update found the ruling eliminated $1.7 trillion in projected revenue through FY2036 while replacements recover about $950 billion — less than 60 percent — leaving a net shortfall of roughly $825 billion against the February 2026 CBO baseline. CBO's own updated projections as of July 31, 2026 put total deficits $0.9 trillion larger over FY2027-2036 ($0.7 trillion primary plus $0.2 trillion debt service), largely driven by the removal of IEEPA tariffs. Penn Wharton separately recorded about $164.7 billion in IEEPA tariffs collected as of January 2026 and up to $175 billion potentially subject to refund.
So as of the date of this post, the best current net estimate is roughly $0.9 trillion — under one trillion, and about a third of what "Trillions and Trillions" implies. The gross revenue struck down ($1.7-1.9 trillion) and the initial debt-impact estimate ($2.4 trillion) are trillion-scale, so the figure is hyperbole attached to a genuinely large number rather than an invention. One accurate component and one inflated component yields a split verdict.
Confirmed across multiple independent sources. On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's application to lift a lower-court block on a U.S. Postal Service regulation implementing Trump's March 2026 executive order on mail ballots. The rule would have required states to submit voter eligibility lists to the Postal Service for verification before ballot delivery and imposed envelope design requirements, with USPS returning non-compliant envelopes to election officials. The Court found the administration "is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the" preliminary injunction.
The vote was 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito the only dissenters. Alito authored a written dissent, joined by Thomas. Both dissents were public and noted on the order — the Election Law Blog headlined the outcome specifically on the fact that Thomas and Alito were "publicly dissenting."
The dissent was sharply worded. Alito wrote that "Some of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a 'Hail Mary pass' that 'rarely succeeds,'" and concluded: "The Government has made the showings necessary for a stay, so I respectfully dissent." He also criticized the courts for taking too long to decide the case. One mild qualifier: per NBC News, Alito acknowledged that state concerns about implementation difficulty "gave him pause," but said it was "not enough to convince me." That hedge does not undercut the characterization — he filed a formal public dissent arguing the government had the better of the argument.
A collateral detail in the post also checks out. Trump complained the Court "blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution." Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence said there was "at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority," but that applying it in the 2026 elections "would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections."
Note this is a separate case from Watson v. Republican National Committee (decided June 29, 2026, 5-4), a different mail-ballot ruling in which Alito also dissented, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. The September post refers to the USPS rule order, as the timing and the "no time left to implement" reference confirm.
The ruling is Trump v. Barbara, decided June 30, 2026, 6-3, Chief Justice Roberts writing, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson. It struck down Executive Order 14160 and held that people born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
The claim fails on causation before it fails on evidence. The decision changed nothing. It reaffirmed United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the rule that had governed for 128 years, and struck down an executive order that had never taken effect — EO 14160 was enjoined by district courts almost immediately after its January 2025 issuance and remained blocked throughout. A ruling that preserves the status quo ante cannot have "already led to" a new phenomenon in the roughly ten weeks between the decision and this post. There is no operational change for corruption to flow from.
On evidence, no agency finding, prosecution statistic, audit, or dataset documents any post-ruling surge in citizenship fraud. What exists post-ruling is enforcement activity aimed at pre-existing conduct: Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald issued a memo on June 30, 2026 — hours after the decision — directing prosecutors to "prioritize the investigation and prosecution of birth tourism schemes"; State and Justice flagged 600-plus cases and revoked hundreds of visas in the following month; USCIS field offices were instructed to refer 100-200 denaturalization cases per month to DOJ. These are responses to the loss, not measurements of new corruption.
The scale of birth tourism, the phenomenon closest to the claim, is small and long-predates the ruling. CDC estimated about 9,500 births to non-U.S. residents in 2024. Penn State researchers estimated 5,000 to just under 10,000 per year, roughly 0.3 percent of annual births. The most expansive estimates, from restriction-favoring think tanks, run to 26,000 or 70,000 — still under 2 percent of the roughly 3.6 million annual U.S. births. PolitiFact's March 2026 review found Trump's birth tourism assertions misleading and separately found his claim that the U.S. is unique in granting birthright citizenship inaccurate, noting roughly three dozen countries grant it unrestricted.
The Court itself barely engaged the subject. Across 91 pages of opinions, only Justice Thomas mentioned birth tourism, in passing. Immigration law professor Denise Gilman noted that "all of the other justices acknowledge that the contours of citizenship should not be changed based on questions about this one small group."
The word "massive" is unsupported at every available measure, and the causal link asserted is foreclosed by the fact that the decision left the prior rule intact.
Trump personally interviewed and appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett during his first term. The factual premise — that he selected sitting justices — holds. Alito and Thomas, the two he praises, were appointed by George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush respectively and were not among his interviews.
No contradictions with other posts detected yet.
On Monday night he promised $5,000 for adult citizens if Republicans hold Congress, shared news of federal maps renaming Lake Ontario "Lake America," and posted four video clips in under three minutes, reposting each one himself. Tuesday opened with an attack on the Supreme Court over rulings that w...
A president filing a grievance against his own bench
The post is a 500-word indictment of the Supreme Court delivered under a formal signature block — "Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. God bless the U.S.A. President DONALD J. TRUMP" — the format he reserves for statements he wants read as official. Three rulings are stacked into one arraignment: mail-in voting, tariffs, birthright citizenship. The unifying claim is not that the Court erred on law but that it lost nerve: "Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America."
That sentence is the post's engine. Adverse rulings are not reasoned outcomes; they are symptoms of cowardice induced by an enemy. The Court "is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years." The mechanism attributed to the justices — being pressured into judgments by a hostile faction — is the mechanism he is himself applying in public, from the office with the most leverage over them. He calls the ruling "highly political" in a post whose entire complaint is that the Court failed to rule politically for his side.
Splitting the bench into legends and shells
The Court is divided cleanly in two, with no middle. Alito and Thomas are "legends both," their dissent "strongly disagreed." Everyone else is "merely a shell of their original selves." The devaluation is aimed at justices he selected: "These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court." Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett were his appointments; the line reframes their independence as decay from an original, better version he once possessed. This is the recurring pattern applied to attorneys general, defense secretaries, and chiefs of staff, now reaching the one institution whose members he cannot remove — which is likely why the language shifts from firing to eulogy ("a shell of their original selves").
The martyr clause
Near the end the register changes: "It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court - it will likely cost me dearly for years to come - but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love!" A sitting president criticizing the judiciary faces no plausible personal cost, and none is named. The clause converts an attack into a sacrifice, and recruits the reader as witness to a price being paid on their behalf. It sits beside the grandiose claim two sentences earlier about having personally interviewed the justices — the expansive and the wounded registers alternating inside a single paragraph.
Priming the ballot before the midterms
The most consequential passage is not the insult but the forecast: the ruling "makes cheating by the Radical Left 'Dumocrats,' on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do - And now they have an open field to do so!" Mail-in voting is treated as settled fact ("totally CORRUPT and out of control," "Nation Destroying SCAM") rather than contested claim, with the supporting assertion — "we are the only country that has to endure such" — plainly false; Switzerland votes almost entirely by mail, and Germany, the UK, Canada, and Australia all run postal ballots at scale.
Seven weeks before a midterm election, an explanation for a future loss is being installed in advance, with the Supreme Court pre-assigned responsibility for enabling it. That is what raises the danger reading above baseline for a post that names no individual and urges no action: the frame it builds is the one that preceded January 6, laid down early and attributed to the branch that would adjudicate any challenge.
Dictation, not staff work
Timing points the wrong way — 9:27 a.m. Eastern is staff hours — but nothing else does. The doubled spaces in "United
States" and "having
rendered" are keystroke artifacts, not formatting. "Dumocrats" in scare quotes, the mid-sentence pileup of the tariff refund complaint ("They didn't even state, 'money paid does not have to be paid back'"), the vague quantities ("Trillions and Trillions," "Billions of Dollars"), the capitalization that lands on Court, World, History, Mail-In with no rule behind it — all his. No aide writes "a laughing stock all over the World."
Syntactically this is denser than his short-form output: multi-clause sentences sustained across three separate legal holdings without losing the thread. Whatever else is happening here, production is not degraded.
Fact Verification
| Claim | Verdict | Evidence |
|---|---|---|
| "The United States is the only country that has to endure mail-in voting." | False | Postal voting is routine in many democracies. Switzerland conducts the large majority of its federal votes by mail; Germany's Briefwahl accounted for roughly half of ballots in recent Bundestag elections; the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand all offer postal ballots to any eligible voter or to broad categories of them. Several Australian states and multiple U.S. states run all-mail elections as the default. |
| "Mail-in voting is "totally CORRUPT" and the ruling makes cheating on mail-in ballots "a much easier thing to do," giving Democrats "an open field."" | Mostly False | Documented mail-ballot fraud in U.S. elections occurs at rates measured in thousandths of a percent. Post-2020 audits and recounts in Georgia, Arizona, Wisconsin, and Michigan found no fraud at a scale affecting outcomes, and the Trump administration's own CISA called the 2020 election the most secure in American history. Mail ballots are subject to signature verification, barcode tracking, and ballot-receipt deadlines in every state that uses them. The assertion of an "open field" describes an intent and opportunity for which no evidence is offered. |
| "The Supreme Court's tariff decision will cost the United States "Trillions and Trillions of Dollars" and the Court failed to state that money paid does not have to be refunded." | Half True | The ruling is identifiable: Learning Resources, Inc. v. Trump, decided February 20, 2026, 6-3, Chief Justice Roberts writing, holding that IEEPA does not authorize the President to impose tariffs. Justices Thomas, Alito and Kavanaugh dissented. |
The refund half of the claim is accurate. The majority opinion did not address refunds of duties already collected at all — it resolved the question of authority and left remedial mechanics entirely to further proceedings. The American University Business Law Review analysis notes that the only explicit discussion of refunds anywhere in the slip opinion appears in Justice Kavanaugh's dissent, which warned that repayment could significantly affect the Treasury. So Trump's specific complaint — that the Court "didn't even state, 'money paid does not have to be paid back'" — describes the opinion correctly. His follow-on point that this costs billions immediately is also borne out: the Court of International Trade ordered CBP on March 4, 2026 to liquidate and reliquidate entries without IEEPA duties, covering roughly $165-166 billion collected from more than 330,000 importers. By July 2026 the government had paid back about $81 billion, and as of July 31, 2026, roughly $128.68 billion in potential and certified refunds had been accepted for processing through CBP's new CAPE system.
The magnitude half is exaggerated, though not by the margin the first-pass analysis suggested — that analysis compared against annual customs collections rather than the ten-year budget window, and the correct comparison is much closer to the claim. On the day of the ruling, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated the decision could add $2.4 trillion to the debt through FY2036 (a $1.9 trillion net revenue reduction plus interest), assuming refunds and no replacement revenue; $2.2 trillion without refunds. CBO's March 2026 estimate put primary deficits $1.6 trillion larger over 2026-2036.
But those were pre-substitution figures. The administration then imposed replacement tariffs under Sections 301, 338 and 122. CRFB's July 23, 2026 update found the ruling eliminated $1.7 trillion in projected revenue through FY2036 while replacements recover about $950 billion — less than 60 percent — leaving a net shortfall of roughly $825 billion against the February 2026 CBO baseline. CBO's own updated projections as of July 31, 2026 put total deficits $0.9 trillion larger over FY2027-2036 ($0.7 trillion primary plus $0.2 trillion debt service), largely driven by the removal of IEEPA tariffs. Penn Wharton separately recorded about $164.7 billion in IEEPA tariffs collected as of January 2026 and up to $175 billion potentially subject to refund.
So as of the date of this post, the best current net estimate is roughly $0.9 trillion — under one trillion, and about a third of what "Trillions and Trillions" implies. The gross revenue struck down ($1.7-1.9 trillion) and the initial debt-impact estimate ($2.4 trillion) are trillion-scale, so the figure is hyperbole attached to a genuinely large number rather than an invention. One accurate component and one inflated component yields a split verdict. | | "Justices Alito and Thomas strongly dissented from the mail-in voting ruling." | True | Confirmed across multiple independent sources. On September 14, 2026, the Supreme Court denied the Trump administration's application to lift a lower-court block on a U.S. Postal Service regulation implementing Trump's March 2026 executive order on mail ballots. The rule would have required states to submit voter eligibility lists to the Postal Service for verification before ballot delivery and imposed envelope design requirements, with USPS returning non-compliant envelopes to election officials. The Court found the administration "is unlikely to succeed on the merits of its challenge to the" preliminary injunction.
The vote was 7-2, with Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito the only dissenters. Alito authored a written dissent, joined by Thomas. Both dissents were public and noted on the order — the Election Law Blog headlined the outcome specifically on the fact that Thomas and Alito were "publicly dissenting."
The dissent was sharply worded. Alito wrote that "Some of the plaintiffs lack standing, while the remainder are pursuing a claim that this Court has recently called a 'Hail Mary pass' that 'rarely succeeds,'" and concluded: "The Government has made the showings necessary for a stay, so I respectfully dissent." He also criticized the courts for taking too long to decide the case. One mild qualifier: per NBC News, Alito acknowledged that state concerns about implementation difficulty "gave him pause," but said it was "not enough to convince me." That hedge does not undercut the characterization — he filed a formal public dissent arguing the government had the better of the argument.
A collateral detail in the post also checks out. Trump complained the Court "blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution." Justice Kavanaugh's concurrence said there was "at least a fair prospect that the final rule falls within the Postal Service's statutory authority," but that applying it in the 2026 elections "would be arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act because state and local election officials do not have sufficient time to reasonably implement the rule before the elections."
Note this is a separate case from Watson v. Republican National Committee (decided June 29, 2026, 5-4), a different mail-ballot ruling in which Alito also dissented, joined by Thomas and Gorsuch. The September post refers to the USPS rule order, as the timing and the "no time left to implement" reference confirm. | | "The Supreme Court's birthright citizenship decision "has already led to massive corruption with respect to 'citizenship' in our Country."" | False | The ruling is Trump v. Barbara, decided June 30, 2026, 6-3, Chief Justice Roberts writing, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, Barrett and Jackson. It struck down Executive Order 14160 and held that people born in the United States to parents unlawfully or temporarily present are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and are citizens at birth under the Fourteenth Amendment's Citizenship Clause.
The claim fails on causation before it fails on evidence. The decision changed nothing. It reaffirmed United States v. Wong Kim Ark (1898), the rule that had governed for 128 years, and struck down an executive order that had never taken effect — EO 14160 was enjoined by district courts almost immediately after its January 2025 issuance and remained blocked throughout. A ruling that preserves the status quo ante cannot have "already led to" a new phenomenon in the roughly ten weeks between the decision and this post. There is no operational change for corruption to flow from.
On evidence, no agency finding, prosecution statistic, audit, or dataset documents any post-ruling surge in citizenship fraud. What exists post-ruling is enforcement activity aimed at pre-existing conduct: Assistant Attorney General Colin McDonald issued a memo on June 30, 2026 — hours after the decision — directing prosecutors to "prioritize the investigation and prosecution of birth tourism schemes"; State and Justice flagged 600-plus cases and revoked hundreds of visas in the following month; USCIS field offices were instructed to refer 100-200 denaturalization cases per month to DOJ. These are responses to the loss, not measurements of new corruption.
The scale of birth tourism, the phenomenon closest to the claim, is small and long-predates the ruling. CDC estimated about 9,500 births to non-U.S. residents in 2024. Penn State researchers estimated 5,000 to just under 10,000 per year, roughly 0.3 percent of annual births. The most expansive estimates, from restriction-favoring think tanks, run to 26,000 or 70,000 — still under 2 percent of the roughly 3.6 million annual U.S. births. PolitiFact's March 2026 review found Trump's birth tourism assertions misleading and separately found his claim that the U.S. is unique in granting birthright citizenship inaccurate, noting roughly three dozen countries grant it unrestricted.
The Court itself barely engaged the subject. Across 91 pages of opinions, only Justice Thomas mentioned birth tourism, in passing. Immigration law professor Denise Gilman noted that "all of the other justices acknowledge that the contours of citizenship should not be changed based on questions about this one small group."
The word "massive" is unsupported at every available measure, and the causal link asserted is foreclosed by the fact that the decision left the prior rule intact. | | ""These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court."" | Mostly True | Trump personally interviewed and appointed Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett during his first term. The factual premise — that he selected sitting justices — holds. Alito and Thomas, the two he praises, were appointed by George W. Bush and George H. W. Bush respectively and were not among his interviews. |
Overall Veracity: 42%
Post from Truth Social
Republicans just got another bad decision from the United States Supreme Court, one that the Court System took forever to give, and then blamed it, in part, on no time left to implement a solution to our totally CORRUPT and out of control Mail-In voting “disaster,” which is a laughing stock all over the World, and where we are the only country that has to endure such a Nation Destroying SCAM. Justices Alito and Thomas, legends both, strongly disagreed with this horrible, highly political, ruling. It is a big loss for Republicans, and America itself, and makes cheating by the Radical Left “Dumocrats,” on Mail-In Ballots, a much easier thing to do - And now they have an open field to do so! The Supreme Court has really let our Country down! Certain Justices are petrified of these crazed and depraved Democrats, and are totally unable to show the courage necessary to save our America. Their horrible decision on Tariffs will be costing the U.S.A., for many years to come, Trillions and Trillions of Dollars. They didn’t even state, “money paid does not have to be paid back,” much to the benefit of entities that truly hate our Country, and have been RIPPING IT OFF FOR YEARS, unnecessarily costing us, immediately, Billions of Dollars. Likewise, the Supreme Court’s Decision on Birthright Citizenship is a complete and total disaster for America, and has already led to massive corruption with respect to “citizenship” in our Country. The damage done to America is incalculable, and they know this, just as everyone else does - It is an irreparable and unrecoverable harm! The Court’s inability and unwillingness to do the right thing for our Country will go down, in a very negative way, in the annals of History. This Supreme Court is bullied and cajoled by the Radical Left into making decisions that have set America back at least a hundred years. These are not the people I interviewed to serve on the United States Supreme Court, they are merely a shell of their original selves, a Court that is costing the United States Trillions of Dollars with shockingly bad rulings that are of such magnitude that it won’t be easily possible for our Country to recover or heal. It is a Court that will go down as having rendered some of the most destructive, hurtful, and damaging decisions in our Country’s history. It is not easy for me to write this criticism of the United States Supreme Court - it will likely cost me dearly for years to come - but I feel it my obligation and duty, as President, to do so for the America we love! Thank you for your attention to this very important matter. God bless the U.S.A. President DONALD J. TRUMP