Republican Behind “Trump Derangement Bill” Accused of Soliciting Minor

A right-wing Minnesota state senator, who infamously co-sponsored a bill Monday to label “Trump Derangement Syndrome” a mental illness, was arrested hours later for allegedly soliciting a minor for prostitution.

Senator Justin Eichorn was arrested at 6 p.m. Monday in Bloomington, Minnesota, and is being held in the city’s jail after sending messages to and arranging a meetup with a person who he thought was a 16-year-old girl but was actually a Bloomington Police Department detective. After the arrest was made public, his Republican colleagues in the Minnesota Senate, including Speaker of the House Lisa Demuth, called for his resignation. 

“While he is entitled to due process, we must hold legislators to a higher standard,” Demuth said in a statement.

It’s quite a fall for the 40-year-old Eichorn, who is married with four children and has served in the Minnesota Senate since 2016. His day began with himself and four other Republican senators introducing the bill to declare “Trump Derangement Syndrome” a mental illness, describing it as “the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal persons that is in reaction to the policies and presidencies of President Donald J. Trump.”

The bill was attacked by state Democrats, who asked that it be withdrawn. Democratic Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy called it “possibly the worst bill in Minnesota history.” 

“If it is meant as a joke, it is a waste of staff time and taxpayer resources that trivializes serious mental health issues,” Murphy said in a statement. “If the authors are serious, it is an affront to free speech and an expression of a dangerous level of loyalty to an authoritarian president.”

This isn’t the first bill Eichorn has sponsored that has verged on the absurd. Last year, he co-sponsored a bill inspired by the discredited “chemtrails” conspiracy theory, which included pseudoscience such as “xenobiotic electromagnetism and fields.” Now, unless he resigns, he’ll have to conduct legislative activity under the suspicion of being a child sex offender. 

Trump’s Justice Department believes the president has the authority to fire agency heads based on age and gender, according to a report from Talking Points Memo.

The stunning argument came during a testy court hearing Tuesday on Trump’s firing of board members at the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection Board.

“Could the president decide that he wasn’t going to appoint or allow to remain in office any female heads of agencies or any heads over 40 years old?” Judge Karen Henderson of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals asked Deputy Assistant Attorney General Eric McArthur, at one point in the arguments.

“I think that that would be within the president’s constitutional authority under the removal power,” McArthur said. “There would be separate questions about whether that would violate other provisions of the Constitution.”

Lower courts have already ruled against Trump’s firings of the board members, and the panel of three judges on Tuesday appeared skeptical of the Justice Department’s reasoning. But the Trump administration welcomes these challenges so that it can drive its aggressive policies to the nation’s highest court, where they have an overwhelming ideological advantage.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has demanded that the United States and its allies end intelligence and military assistance to Ukraine in order for hostilities to end.

Putin reportedly made this point during his phone call with President Trump on Tuesday, and the detail was conveniently not mentioned in the White House’s readout of the call. The White House’s account said that Russia agreed to an energy and infrastructure ceasefire as a first step toward a “maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace,” with negotiations beginning “immediately in the Middle East.” Trump is already celebrating, calling it a “very good and productive” call.

But Russia’s demand is not likely to go over well with Ukraine or its allies. Russia isn’t likely to end intelligence activities against Ukraine even in a permanent ceasefire, for one. Ukraine’s supporters in Congress too will see ending military and intelligence support as abandoning the country. Even if Ukraine isn’t fighting Russia, it would still presumably maintain a military.

Perhaps that is one of Russia’s goals: to weaken Ukraine’s defense capabilities and claim that it will take responsibility for defending the country. To Ukrainians, that might bring back painful memories of Russian hegemony under the Soviet Union and would be a nonstarter. After all, Russia invaded Ukraine allegedly due to fears of the country seeking NATO membership, an independent relationship with Russia, and closer ties to the West.

Regardless of why Russia would want military and intelligence assistance to Ukraine to end, it’s telling that the White House didn’t mention this demand. Trump and Vice President JD Vance have made no secret about their inclinations toward Russia and antipathy to continued support of Ukraine. Perhaps they thought it would be hashed out in negotiations, or that Russia wouldn’t mention it. Either way, it doesn’t speak well of Russia’s intentions for a postwar Ukraine, and no one outside of the White House or Kremlin is going to like it.

Three weeks into his gubernatorial campaign, and failed presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy is already pathetically parroting Donald Trump’s name-changing stunt. 

During an address to the Lucas County Republican Party last week, Ramaswamy pitched changing the name of one of the Great Lakes, while boasting about Ohio’s natural resources.

“I like what President Trump’s done with the Gulf of Mexico and the Gulf of America,” Ramaswamy said to some applause and laughter. “Anybody think if there’s a Lake Michigan, maybe there should be a Lake Ohio around here?” 

“I’m feeling that, so we’ll talk about that a little bit more as this campaign progresses,” Ramawamy continued. 

Lake Erie runs across Ohio’s northern border, as well as Pennsylvania, New York, and Michigan—and the southern border of Ontario, a Canadian province that is not feeling so friendly toward the U.S. right now.  

A campaign spokesperson told the Cincinnati Enquirer that Ramaswamy was only joking about pursuing a new name for Lake Erie. “The audience understood it was a joke. Perhaps the media will someday get a sense of humor,” the spokesperson said. “Vivek is focused on real policies to Make Ohio Great Again.”

And yet, he seems primarily interested in sucking up to Trump, who saw Ramaswamy banished back to the Midwest after he was surreptitiously dismissed as Elon Musk’s co-head of the Department of Government Efficiency. 

Last month, Trump endorsed Ramaswamy’s gubernatorial run in the state that was the epicenter of the president’s outlandish and racist claims about immigrants eating their neighbors’ pets on the campaign trail. Ramaswamy is currently running against Attorney General Dave Yost, a Republican, and former Ohio Department of Health Director Amy Acton, a Democrat. 

Even if Ramaswamy was only joking, it’s unclear just how far Trump’s acolytes will go to pay tribute to their president. And while many may had hoped that Trump was only joking about changing the name of the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, that’s exactly what he did on his first day in office. 

The White House has attempted to enforce the use of this alternative name, cracking down on publications that do not comply with their shared delusion. 

Multiple U.S.-funded news organizations worldwide continue to operate in the face of cuts and purges from the Trump administration.

Last week, President Trump signed an executive order to destroy the U.S. Agency for Global Media. The next day, virtually the entire staff at Voice of America was fired, as they are considered federal employees. But other international broadcasters funded by the United States operate as nonprofits that rely on federal grants—and they’re fighting back.

Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Radio Free Asia, and Middle East Broadcasting Networks are all continuing reporting while they prepare for legal challenges to Trump’s order, which they believe is “unlawful.”

“Our pro bono legal team is prepared to take all necessary steps to ensure that RFE/RL continues its Congressionally authorized mission,” wrote Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty board chair Lisa Curtis on LinkedIn.

She continued:

Here are four reasons it’s illegal for USAGM to deny appropriated funds to RFE/RL.

1. It violates the statute governing RFE/RL.

2. It violates Congressional appropriations laws.

3. It violates the U.S. Constitution. The Appropriations Clause and the Take Care Clause of the Constitution, and the Impoundment Control Act, cannot be ignored. Justice Kavanaugh agrees and said so in his Aiken County decision in 2013.

4. Finally the grant termination itself is unlawful.

Leaders of the outlets said programming is set to continue until further notice.

Americans are begging Democrats to put up a resistance to the Trump administration as MAGA strips the federal government for parts.

The party was put to task by a concerned parent who spoke to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries during a Healthcare Education Project discussion Monday afternoon.* The woman said she thought Jeffries was “doing a great job” but argued that the liberal party’s continued inaction as a whole in the face of sweeping Medicaid cuts would end many American lives.

“I know you need to engage a lot more people,” the woman said. “My son recently had a transplant in January.… Because of that, he needs to take his anti-rejection medication every day in order to survive for the rest of his life.”

“If these Medicaid cuts go through—to give tax breaks to billionaires that really don’t need it—my son is basically sentenced to die, because he will not be able to afford the medication for anti-rejection,” she continued. “And like him, there are many, many others in the same situation.”

“So we need you to engage the others, to fight hard, to go as low as you have to just like the Republicans do, and fight for ours,” she added.

In response, Jeffries likened the current struggle to the Civil Rights era, and agreed that Democrats “have to show up with the same level of strength, resilience, and courage” as their historic heroes.

“The odds were stacked against us in 2017 that we could save the Affordable Care Act, but together, we did,” he said. “And as long as we show up, stand up, and speak out with the same level of energy, courage, and strength, we’re going to save Medicaid, stop them from enacting this cut, and protect the health care of the American people.”

Still, Jeffries’s efforts have only stretched so far. All but one House Democrat voted against the Republican budget resolution last week. Yet despite vehemently opposing the measure over the last several weeks, Jeffries ultimately defended Senator Chuck Schumer’s leadership on Tuesday after the Senate minority leader pushed his caucus to vote for it.

Jeffries told reporters that he still believes Schumer should lead Democrats in the upper chamber. The comments followed a moment last week in which Jeffries dodged a question on Schumer’s future.

Constituents in Arizona similarly torched Democratic Senators Mark Kelly and Ruben Gallego at a town hall on Monday, urging the politicos to “get in the mud” with Republicans.

“We can do better, and we should do better. We owe it to every Arizonan,” Gallego said, before telling his constituents that they should instead pile the pressure on Republican lawmakers.

Republicans have pitched an $880 billion cut to Medicaid in order to pay for an extension to Trump’s 2017 tax plan, which will overwhelmingly benefit corporations and is projected to add as much as $15 trillion to the national deficit.

Medicaid insures more than 70 million Americans. The popular social program, established in 1965 under President Lyndon B. Johnson, represents nearly $1 out of every $5 spent on health care in the U.S. It pays for more than 41 percent of births in America, according to data from the Kaiser Family Foundation, and is the largest financier of nursing home care in the country, according to HuffPost.

* This story originally misstated the time of day Jeffries made his comments.

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts is suddenly bristling at Donald Trump’s threats against federal judges. 

In a rare public statement on Tuesday, Roberts said, “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”  

Roberts was likely referencing Trump, Elon Musk, and other right-wing personalities who have threatened judges ruling against the administration. It seems to be an about-face from the Supreme Court’s rulings expanding presidential authority, which Roberts has voted in support of as one of the court’s six conservatives. Roberts, along with that conservative majority, voted to give the presidency near-total immunity in July in a ruling concerning federal charges against Trump. 

In a Truth Social post Tuesday, Trump called U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg, who blocked Trump’s use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to justify deportation flights, “a troublemaker and agitator who was sadly appointed by Barack Hussein Obama.”

“This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!! WE DON’T WANT VICIOUS, VIOLENT, AND DEMENTED CRIMINALS, MANY OF THEM DERANGED MURDERERS, IN OUR COUNTRY. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!!” Trump’s post concluded. 

It’s not the first time Trump has threatened a judge as president. Last month, he said that a judge temporarily blocking his cuts to biomedical research at the National Institutes of Health was “a very serious violation,” saying that “maybe we have to look at the judges.”

Vice President JD Vance has also criticized judicial checks on the Trump presidency, claiming that “[j]udges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.” 

Roberts may suddenly be realizing that all of these right-wing attacks on judges not only undermine judicial authority in the U.S., but also amount to a constitutional crisis. But he, and the rest of the Supreme Court’s conservatives bear responsibility for protecting Trump from legal action, allowing him to be elected a second time with increased, nearly unchecked power. 

This story has been updated.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer provided a limp defense Tuesday for why he should keep his seat despite receiving immense backlash from his own party after he voted in support of the Republicans’ destructive budget bill last week.

Not only did Schumer vote in support of the legislation, which all but one House Democrat had not deigned to endorse, he instructed other members of his party to do so as well. In the end, nine Democratic senators lent their imprimatur to the bill.

Schumer’s support for a bill that will allow Donald Trump to keep steering the government until September has elicited strong outrage from Democratic lawmakers and voters alike, who began sounding calls for him to be replaced.

During an appearance on CBS Tuesday, Schumer was asked what he would say to voters who were demanding he depart his seat, and his response was simple.… Perhaps too simple.

“I am the best leader for the Senate,” Schumer said.

“I am the best at winning Senate seats,” he added, pointing to the results of the 2020 elections at the end of Trump’s first disastrous term, when Democrats won four Senate seats and only lost one.

Unfortunately for Schumer, the goodwill from that success has since waned. It’s 2025, and in the last election, his party didn’t just lose four seats in the Senate—they also lost the White House.

Still, Schumer insisted that he was not going anywhere. “We’re moving forward, Hakeem and I have a plan,” he said, referring to House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries.

“There is a real contrast between the parties. The Republican Party, now particularly in office, is the party of rich oligarchs who wanna really screw every average American so they can get tax cuts for the rich,” Schumer said, before outlining his plan for a “Day of Action on Medicaid” Tuesday that involved Democrats going to Medicaid centers and telling people about all they stood to lose from Trump’s cuts.

Schumer insisted that if Democrats simply kept up the “relentless fighting,” Trump’s popularity and “effectiveness” would decline.

But while Schumer’s version of “relentless fighting” seemed to involve Democrats doing direct outreach to voters, the disgraced lawmaker recently postponed his book tour citing concerns about his security amid the ongoing backlash to his lackluster leadership.

On Saturday, Donald Trump held a candlelight dinner at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, with tech oligarch Elon Musk in tow, where guests were asked to spend $1 million per seat.

Wired reports that this dinner did not appear on the president’s official schedule, unlike a similar candlelight dinner two weeks earlier where guests were also asked to donate $1 million each. That dinner’s invitation had a “MAGA INC.” header with a note reading “Donald J. Trump is appearing at this event only as a special guest speaker and is not asking for funds or donations.”

The donations for that dinner ostensibly went to Make America Great Again Inc., a super PAC that supported Trump’s 2024 presidential campaign. Not much is known about Saturday’s dinner, although Instagram reels posted by different guests showed that Musk attended with Shivon Zilis, the mother of four of his 14 known children, and an executive at his company Neuralink. Trump also sat next to Musk at Saturday’s dinner.

Also taking place over the weekend in nearby Palm Beach, Florida, was the Palm Event, an annual motorsports celebration. As a result, several expensive cars appeared at Mar-a-Lago on the night of the dinner, including a Rolls Royce, a Bugatti, and a Lamborghini, among other luxury vehicles. It’s an ostentatious show of wealth for an administration claiming to be reducing fraud, waste, and abuse in the federal government.

Trump holding fundraising dinners only two months into his presidency is historically unusual. Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, told Wired that he “can’t recall a sitting president in the first weeks of his administration asking for millions of dollars in fundraising.

“The concern is less about fundraising and more about access and influence. People hoping to get favorable treatment view it in their interest to donate money to Trump,” Moynihan said.

Why wasn’t this dinner on the White House’s schedule? Perhaps Trump didn’t like the attention given to the previous one, or there was something else going on. Mar-a-Lago is the site of many of Trump’s ethically questionable actions, including one-on-one meetings with business leaders who are willing to pay him $5 million for the privilege. Perhaps Trump wants his moneymaking schemes to get as little attention as possible.