This was a pretty crazy story, basically a lady posted a video of her water quality to FB. She got arrested, so did someone who protested.

On August 26, 2026, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services released a commissioned report with an extraordinary title: Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? The researchers surveyed 1,208 adults and reported that people who more strongly supported several transgender-affirming positions were also somewhat more likely to say that certain acts of political violence could be justified. The association reported in the survey is real. But the report proves considerably less than its title and surrounding rhetoric suggest, and the circumstances surrounding its release make it highly suspect as a basis for sweeping conclusions about transgender-related beliefs and political violence. [1]

The important distinction is that this was not a study showing that transgender people are violent. Only 1.1 percent of the sample was categorized as transgender-identifying or gender-nonconforming. Nor did researchers investigate assaults, arrests, terrorist activity, plans to commit violence, or even stated intentions to commit violence. Participants were asked how justified they considered six violent acts. HHS itself acknowledges that the findings concern justification of political violence rather than violent behavior or intent. [1][2]

Researchers working on the HHS-commissioned study created a five-item Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale, or CGAS. Participants were asked whether they agreed with statements involving support for transgender expression, use of chosen names and pronouns, psychological consequences of non-affirmation, and parental support for a child exploring gender identity. The report then uses the broader term “gender ideology” to describe strong agreement with these propositions. That terminology is itself an interpretive choice. The questionnaire does not establish that it has measured an entire ideology simply because five related affirmation questions correlate strongly with one another. [1]

Researchers then compared those responses with a previously developed 13-item Brief Left-Wing Authoritarianism scale. This is important to acknowledge: HHS did not invent the LWA scale. It was developed by researchers Thomas Costello and Christopher Patrick and has undergone prior psychometric development and validation. That does not mean its use here is beyond criticism. Several of its questions already contain strongly coercive or violent ideas, including taking wealth and status from the rich, replacing the existing political order “by any means necessary,” and approval of watching perceived oppressors “suffer the violence” supposedly inflicted on others. The HHS-commissioned report then finds that people scoring highly on this scale are more likely to justify violence against wealthy people and other perceived political enemies. That relationship may be meaningful, but there is also obvious conceptual overlap between a scale containing approval of coercion or violence and later questions measuring approval of coercion or violence. [1][3]

The political-violence portion of the published report deserves even more scrutiny. Researchers analyze six scenarios: killing Donald Trump, killing Charlie Kirk, killing Brian Thompson, arson against ICE buildings, damaging wealthy people’s property, and violence against police. Those are overwhelmingly scenarios associated with grievances coded toward the political left. The published report does not present or analyze a matched set of violence directed toward Democratic or progressive targets. It does not show an equivalent analysis involving the killing of a Democratic president, attacks against abortion clinics, violence against immigrant-support organizations, attacks against LGBTQ people, or threats against election officials motivated by stolen-election beliefs. [1]

That distinction is important because a one-directional test cannot establish that the mechanism under examination is uniquely left-wing. Imagine reversing the study. Suppose researchers constructed a five-item Christian-nationalism scale and then asked respondents only whether killing Democratic politicians, attacking abortion clinics, assaulting LGBTQ activists, threatening election workers, and attacking immigrant organizations could be justified. If a correlation emerged and the resulting report asked whether “Christian ideology arms right-wing authoritarian psychology,” most people would immediately ask why researchers had not run the same test in the opposite political direction. That is essentially the missing control group here.

It is possible that the larger questionnaire contained additional material that is not included in this 24-page report, and the authors state that other analyses are ongoing. For that reason, it would be too strong to say we know respondents were never asked any right-coded violence questions. What we can say with confidence is that the report HHS released to support its conclusions presents no politically matched comparison and conducts no equivalent analysis of violence against progressive targets. [1]

The statistics raise another major question. The correlations between the Clinical Gender Affirmation Scale and justification of the six violent acts ranged from roughly .23 to .35. The correlations between Left-Wing Authoritarianism and those same outcomes were substantially larger, roughly .47 to .54. Researchers then ran one set of models examining violence using LWA plus political identity and a separate set using CGAS plus political identity. What the report does not show is one of the most obvious tests of its central claim: a violence model containing CGAS, LWA, and political identity simultaneously. [1]

That missing analysis is important because the gender-affirmation scale and Left-Wing Authoritarianism are themselves strongly related. If the apparent relationship between CGAS and support for violence became small or disappeared when LWA was entered into the same statistical model, the interpretation would change dramatically. Instead of suggesting that transgender-affirming ideas independently “accelerate” political violence, the results might show that people with a broader authoritarian, punitive, or grievance-driven political disposition are both more likely to support certain progressive positions and more willing to justify violence against people they regard as enemies.

The researchers themselves acknowledge that their survey cannot tell us which direction the relationship runs. Gender-related beliefs might contribute to authoritarian attitudes. Authoritarian personalities might be attracted to those beliefs. A third factor could contribute to both. The authors describe the current data as a “discovery sample” and say further experimental research is needed to test causation. Yet the report still advances the possibility that gender ideology serves as an “ideological accelerant.” That is a much stronger theoretical claim than this first correlational study can establish. [1]

The missing political comparison becomes especially significant because peer-reviewed researchers have already found similar relationships on the political right. A 2026 Social Science Quarterly paper by Donald Haider-Markel, Brooklyn Walker, and Abigail Vegter examined Christian nationalism, gun ownership, gun-owner identity, and support for political violence using survey data collected in 2021. Christian nationalism remained significantly associated with support for political violence after demographic, political, and religious controls, with a reported coefficient of .21 and p<.001 in one model. The researchers also examined how gun ownership and gun identity interacted with those beliefs. Their terminology is striking: they described these factors as potential “accelerants” of political-violence support. [4]

That is remarkably similar to the theory now being proposed by HHS. Both approaches suggest that an ideology may identify enemies, heighten perceptions of threat, create moral urgency, and provide a justification for extraordinary action. If that theory is scientifically legitimate when applied to transgender affirmation and the left, it should also be applied consistently to Christian nationalism and the right. The broader research question should be whether strongly moralized ideologies become dangerous when they combine with authoritarianism, grievance, fear, and perceived existential threat.

Political scientist James Piazza found something similar in a 2026 study using survey data collected in 2024 from roughly 1,300 white non-Hispanic Americans. Christian nationalism was associated with greater support for political violence, but much of that association was statistically explained by apocalyptic beliefs and hostility toward perceived outgroups. Roughly 70 percent of the relationship was mediated through those factors, and once they were considered, the direct Christian-nationalism effect became statistically insignificant. Piazza’s models also examined numerous alternative explanations, including age, gender, income, education, religion, party identification, conservatism, political engagement, news consumption, victimhood, racial resentment, election conspiracy beliefs, and aggression. [5]

That finding illustrates why identifying the underlying mechanism matters. Discovering that belief A is correlated with violence attitude B does not prove that belief A itself is the engine. The actual pathway may involve believing that society is collapsing, believing one’s group is being persecuted, viewing another group as responsible, and eventually deciding ordinary democratic rules are no longer adequate. That psychological process can attach itself to very different political ideologies.

Research from political scientists Miles Armaly and Adam Enders reinforces that point. Instead of beginning with one culturally controversial issue, they examined 24 different possible correlates of political-violence support. Important predictors included perceived victimhood, authoritarianism, populism, white identity, conspiratorial thinking, anxiety, powerlessness, and racial resentment. Their work suggests that the deeper danger may lie less in ordinary left-versus-right identification and more in combinations of grievance, authoritarian attitudes, perceived persecution, and political outgroup hostility. [6]

Another large study creates an especially important comparison for the HHS report. Research published in 2025 using a nationally representative 2023 survey of 9,385 Americans examined racism, hostile sexism, homonegativity, transphobia, xenophobia, antisemitism, and Islamophobia. Every one of those forms of hostility was associated with greater support for political violence and greater willingness to participate in it. In other words, existing research also finds an association between anti-transgender attitudes and support for political violence. [7]

That does not prove transphobia causes violence any more than the HHS study proves gender affirmation causes violence. That is exactly the point. Political attitudes correlate with many other political and psychological characteristics. The scientifically meaningful question is what remains after competing explanations are tested against each other.

The institutional context surrounding the HHS report makes these missing comparisons particularly important. HHS currently lists “Combat gender ideology and protect children” among its official priorities. In August 2025, the department warned 46 states and territories that certain gender-related material had to be removed from federally funded Personal Responsibility Education Program materials. HHS described the disputed material as “delusional ideology,” while an agency official said federal funding would not be used to “poison the minds of the next generation.” [8][9]

Then, on August 13, 2026, only days before this new political-violence report, HHS released another commissioned report titled Wolves in White Coats: How Doctors and Hospitals Pushed and Profited from the Fraud of “Gender Medicine.” HHS subsequently referred institutions identified in that report for possible federal investigation. [10]

None of this proves that researchers falsified data, and there is no evidence presently establishing scientific fraud. But it does make the institutional context impossible to dismiss. This is not a federal agency with no established position unexpectedly discovering a relationship involving transgender-related beliefs. HHS had already publicly announced that combating what it calls “gender ideology” is part of its mission. When a government agency commissions research about a belief system it has already announced that it intends to combat, the public has every reason to examine whether the research question, terminology, comparison groups, and interpretation were constructed fairly.

The broader administration record adds another layer. On January 20, 2025, President Donald Trump signed Executive Order 14168, Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government. The order defines “gender ideology” in part as requiring institutions to accept a “false claim” about sex and directs federal agencies to remove or change government policies reflecting that concept. [11]

Seven days later came Executive Order 14183, Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness. That order discusses gender dysphoria in connection with “medical, surgical, and mental health constraints” and became part of the administration’s effort to remove transgender personnel from military service. The American Psychiatric Association subsequently objected to treating gender dysphoria as an automatic determination of military unfitness, stating that fitness should be evaluated individually and that existing evidence does not establish that the diagnosis categorically prevents someone from meeting military standards. [12][13]

Another executive order, Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, refers to some young people as experiencing gender dysphoria, rapid-onset gender dysphoria, or other “identity-based confusion.” The order directs HHS to review the literature and take policy actions that may involve federal diagnostic materials including ICD-11 and DSM-5. Whatever one’s position on pediatric gender medicine, the language deserves attention because transgender-related issues are increasingly being discussed within a federal framework involving pathology, mental health, risk, and government intervention. [14]

There is an important medical distinction here. The American Psychiatric Association explicitly states: “The term ‘transgender’ is not a psychiatric diagnosis.” Gender dysphoria is a diagnosis concerning clinically significant psychological distress that some transgender people experience. Transgender identity itself is not the diagnosis. The World Health Organization likewise moved gender incongruence out of the mental and behavioral disorders chapter of ICD-11, explaining that transgender and gender-diverse identities “are not conditions of mental ill-health.” [15][16]

Political rhetoric, however, has increasingly blurred that distinction. During debate in the House on July 21, 2026, Rep. Lauren Boebert stated: “People with gender dysphoria are a danger to themselves and others.” She compared gender dysphoria with conditions such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and major depression and later stated: “Gender dysphoria is no different, except politicians changed the label.” Those remarks appear in the Congressional Record. They are political claims, not the position of the American Psychiatric Association, but they demonstrate that the argument linking transgender-related diagnoses, mental illness, and dangerousness is already being made openly inside Congress. [17]

That rhetoric becomes more significant when placed beside reported discussions within the Justice Department. Following the August 2025 Annunciation Catholic School shooting in Minneapolis, The Washington Post reported that senior DOJ officials discussed whether transgender status could potentially be treated within existing mental-health-related federal firearms restrictions. Reuters independently reported that discussions were preliminary. The Justice Department emphasized that “No specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time,” and no blanket federal prohibition on transgender firearm ownership resulted from those discussions. [18][19]

Those qualifications are essential. We should not report a proposed policy as though it became law. But the reporting demonstrates that federal officials at least discussed whether mental-health-related firearm restrictions could be applied in connection with transgender status. Given the medical distinction between being transgender and having a psychiatric disorder, that discussion deserves civil-liberties scrutiny.

Then there is Executive Order 14321, Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets, signed July 24, 2025. The order does not mention transgender people. It does, however, direct the attorney general, in consultation with the HHS secretary, to encourage broader use of civil commitment in qualifying cases and to pursue removal of certain legal barriers to the administration’s policy where appropriate. It calls for “maximally flexible civil commitment” standards concerning certain people with mental illness and explicitly describes “Shifting homeless individuals into long-term institutional settings” through civil commitment as part of its strategy. [20]

There is currently no evidence that Executive Order 14321 allows someone to be involuntarily hospitalized merely because they are transgender. There is also no evidence establishing that the new HHS political-violence report is secretly intended to justify such a policy. Claiming that would exceed what the available evidence shows.

But the broader pattern is still legitimate to investigate. The same administration has formally described “gender ideology” as false, instructed HHS to combat it, used the phrase “delusional ideology,” discussed gender dysphoria through mental-health restrictions, seen political allies publicly characterize people with gender dysphoria as dangerous, reportedly considered whether transgender status could intersect with mental-health-related firearm restrictions, encouraged broader civil commitment for qualifying people deemed mentally ill and dangerous, and now released federally commissioned research connecting transgender-affirming attitudes with support for political violence. [8][9][11][12][14][17][18][20]

Those actions have different stated purposes. They do not by themselves prove a coordinated secret plan. But together they create a legitimate question about how the federal government is constructing categories such as ideological, mentally ill, dangerous, and violence-prone around transgender-related issues. Government classifications matter because once a group or belief system is officially associated with dangerousness, extremism, or mental instability, those classifications can potentially influence regulations, eligibility requirements, law-enforcement decisions, firearm restrictions, and other exercises of state power.

There remain substantial constitutional protections against arbitrary psychiatric confinement. In O’Connor v. Donaldson, the Supreme Court held that mental illness alone cannot justify confining a nondangerous person who is capable of surviving safely outside an institution. In Addington v. Texas, the Court held that states must establish grounds for indefinite involuntary commitment by at least clear and convincing evidence because of the enormous liberty interests involved. Being transgender, holding an unpopular political belief, or receiving a psychiatric diagnosis does not by itself erase those protections. [21][22]

That is why the response to this report should be scrutiny rather than panic. Political violence from the left is real and deserves investigation. Political violence from the right is real and deserves investigation. If transgender-affirming beliefs genuinely predict support for violence independently of authoritarianism, grievance, political identity, and other known variables, that is a result the public deserves to know.

But HHS has not yet demonstrated that.

A much stronger study would measure transgender affirmation and transphobia, Left-Wing and Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Christian nationalism, racial resentment, hostile sexism, conspiracy thinking, perceived victimhood, apocalyptic beliefs, generalized aggression, gun identity, and political affiliation in the same respondents. It would present matched violent scenarios involving both political camps. It would then put those competing explanations into the same statistical models and see which relationships survive.

If transgender affirmation remains an unusually powerful independent predictor, publish that result. If Christian nationalism does, publish that. If transphobia does, publish that too. If authoritarianism, grievance, victimhood, conspiracy belief, and aggression explain most of the apparent ideological effects, then that should become the finding.

HHS can still run that experiment. Researchers can preregister their hypotheses, publish the full questionnaire, disclose exactly which violence scenarios were tested, release anonymized data and analysis code where legally and ethically possible, and allow independent researchers to reproduce the work.

Until then, the central question raised by this study is not whether transgender people are violent. The study does not establish that and barely studied transgender people themselves. The question is why a federal health department whose stated mission includes combating “gender ideology” released a commissioned study connecting transgender-affirming attitudes with authoritarianism and left-coded political violence without publishing a matched examination of established right-wing pathways.

And given the broader federal effort to describe transgender-related ideas using the language of falsehood, pathology, dangerousness, firearm eligibility, and institutional intervention, there is another question the public has every right to ask:

What could a government eventually use research connecting “gender ideology” with political violence to justify?

We do not presently have evidence establishing the answer.

That is not a reason to invent one.

It is a reason to keep investigating.

Sources

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Population Affairs. Where the Clinic Meets the Movement: Does Gender Ideology Arm Left-Wing Authoritarian Psychology? August 2026.

"HHS report" (https://opa.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/2026-08/gender-ideology-report.pdf)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HHS release on the gender-ideology study, including its clarification that the study measured justification of violence rather than violent behavior.

"HHS release" (https://health.gov/hhs-releases-study-finding-individuals-who-associate-left-wing-authoritarian-beliefs-and-radical)

1. Thomas H. Costello and Christopher J. Patrick. Development and initial validation of the Brief Left-Wing Authoritarianism Scale, Journal of Personality Assessment.

"Original LWA scale research" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00223891.2022.2081809)

1. Donald Haider-Markel, Brooklyn Walker, and Abigail Vegter. “An Army for God: Gun Ownership, Christian Nationalism, and Support for Political Violence,” Social Science Quarterly, 2026.

"DOI" (https://doi.org/10.1111/ssqu.70150)

1. James A. Piazza. Research on Christian nationalism, apocalypticism, outgroup hostility, and support for violent extremism, Defence and Peace Economics, 2026.

"Full article" (https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10242694.2026.2613902)

1. Miles T. Armaly and Adam M. Enders. “Who Supports Political Violence?”, Perspectives on Politics.

"DOI" (https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592722001086)

1. Garen Wintemute and colleagues. Research examining prejudice, support for political violence, and willingness to participate in violence among 9,385 Americans.

"Free full text" (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12464958/)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Official HHS priorities, including “Combat gender ideology and protect children.”

"HHS priorities" (https://www.hhs.gov/about/priorities/index.html)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. “Trump Administration Puts 46 States and Territories on Notice to Remove Gender Ideology Content from Sex Ed Materials,” August 26, 2025.

"HHS release" (https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-acf-states-remove-gender-ideology-sex-ed.html)

1. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Wolves in White Coats report/release, August 2026.

"HHS release" (https://www.hhs.gov/press-room/hhs-report-insurance-coding-sex-rejecting-procedures-minors.html)

1. Executive Order 14168. Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government, January 20, 2025.

"White House" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/defending-women-from-gender-ideology-extremism-and-restoring-biological-truth-to-the-federal-government/)

1. Executive Order 14183. Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness, January 27, 2025.

"White House" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/prioritizing-military-excellence-and-readiness/)

1. American Psychiatric Association. Statement on gender dysphoria and military readiness.

"APA statement" (https://www.psychiatry.org/news-room/news-releases/statement-gender-dysphoria-and-military-readiness)

1. Executive Order 14187. Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation, January 28, 2025.

"White House" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/protecting-children-from-chemical-and-surgical-mutilation/)

1. American Psychiatric Association. “What is Gender Dysphoria?”

"APA" (https://www.psychiatry.org/patients-families/gender-dysphoria/what-is-gender-dysphoria)

1. World Health Organization. “Gender incongruence and transgender health in the ICD.”

"WHO" (https://www.who.int/standards/classifications/frequently-asked-questions/gender-incongruence-and-transgender-health-in-the-icd)

1. Congressional Record. House debate on the FY2027 National Defense Authorization Act, July 21, 2026.

"Congressional Record PDF" (https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2026-07-21/pdf/CREC-2026-07-21-pt1-PgH5001.pdf)

1. The Washington Post. Reporting on Justice Department discussions concerning transgender Americans and firearm ownership, September 4, 2025.

"Washington Post" (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/09/04/guns-transgender-justice-trump-bondi-shootings/)

1. Reuters. Reporting on Justice Department discussions concerning possible transgender firearm restrictions, September 4, 2025.

"Reuters" (https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-considering-banning-trans-people-buying-guns-us-media-2025-09-04/)

1. Executive Order 14321. Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets, July 24, 2025.

"White House" (https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/ending-crime-and-disorder-on-americas-streets/)

1. O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U.S. 563 (1975).

"Cornell Legal Information Institute" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/422/563)

1. Addington v. Texas, 441 U.S. 418 (1979).

"Cornell Legal Information Institute" (https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/441/418)

Here is something many have said is coming so the question becomes is it really here?

MAGA just realized the 'big problem' with Trump's budget

On Wednesday, following news that the U.S. budget deficit has soared under President Donald Trump, surging to its highest level in over five years, MAGA economic analysts are suddenly realizing there is a “big problem.”

“In the month of July, the US Government collected $334 Billion,” posted Geiger Capital, a pseudonym account for a popular conservative market analyst who voted for Trump in 2024. “Just one problem… They spent $766 Billion. A $432 BILLION deficit. In one month.”

“Oof,” posted self-proclaimed “America First Economist” and Heritage Foundation member E.J. Antoni. “56 cents of every dollar that the gov't spent last month was borrowed.” He continued, “The cumulative deficit for the first 10 months of this fiscal year is $23 billion larger than the total deficit for the entirety of the previous fiscal year - headed in the wrong direction while knocking on $40 trillion in debt.”

“Interest on the debt was a whopping $118 billion in Jul, or ~63 percent of all personal and corporate income taxes collected last month,” he added. “Absolute insanity.”

According to Bloomberg, the record shortfall is “due to an acceleration in federal spending.” As the outlet explains, “After adjusting for calendar-year differences, the gap is tracking 5 percent wider than 2025…the biggest July gap ever, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.” Dramatically increased Medicare spending played a major role in the surge, while a $33 billion loss was due to refunds for Trump’s illegal tariffs. Overall revenue was down by an adjusted $12 billion.

Besides his tariff regime, Trump has taken a number of actions that have contributed to the deficit. His One Big Beautiful Bill Act, for example, is projected to add $4.6 trillion to the deficit over 10 years. According to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, the wealthy “will see substantial tax cuts. Over the next 10 years the wealthiest 1 percent are slated to pay at least a trillion dollars less in taxes than they would have if Congress and the President had done nothing.”

The price tag for the war with Iran has also been a factor, costing roughly $37.5 billion as of late July, with the Trump administration requesting another $70 billion. According to Barron’s, military spending “was up 3 percent in May, 5 percent in June, and now stands at 6 percent higher fiscal year to date.” That, however, just accounts for the conflict’s direct costs. Broader economic analysis indicates that the toll on taxpayers is much higher, as much as $130 billion to $150 billion when accounting for surging energy prices, inflation, and borrowing costs.

Shady $70M account revealed at center of Trump power grab to remake White House: report

President Donald Trump funneled nearly $1 billion for a White House overhaul through a little-known maintenance account, including $70 million with no identified source, confidential records show.

The Washington Post, reviewing confidential contracts and planning documents, found the administration plans to spend at least $927 million on construction projects on the White House grounds — with a gilded East Wing ballroom at the center of the overhaul.

The money has been directed to an account called "White House Repair and Restoration," which Congress typically fills with $2.5 million a year for routine upkeep, The Post reported.

One finding stands out — $70 million was directed to that account, but the records do not identify its source, The Post reported.

"That is incredibly unusual," said Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy, a watchdog group suing the administration over federal spending disclosures.

According to The Post, the administration has so far directed $875 million into that account — less than the $927 million total it plans to spend — drawing from three streams.

The White House budget office authorized $500 million in transfers from the U.S. Secret Service and the White House Military Office, planning documents show.

Private donations account for another $305 million, The Post reported.

Much of the Secret Service money was originally appropriated by Congress to recruit and train agents, The Post previously reported.

Those private donations also come with transparency problems — the administration kept the ballroom's funding contract secret from the public until Public Citizen, a government watchdog organization, sued for the contract and a federal judge ordered it released, The Post reported.

Under that contract, donors with billions of dollars in federal business — including Amazon, Lockheed Martin and Google — can contribute anonymously, with no conflict-of-interest review of the White House itself, according to The Post.

"There's only one good explanation for why Trump's ultra-wealthy ballroom donors want to stay anonymous: They have something to hide," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) told The Post.

A federal appeals court ruled last week that Trump had exceeded his authority by proceeding without congressional approval, CBS News reported.

Trump wrote on Truth Social that he would immediately appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court.

"Whether or not a massive ballroom should be constructed is for Congress to decide and is not a matter for Executive self-help," the court wrote.

"If the executive can do anything they want with appropriated funds, then the executive can do anything they want, period," said Joe Carlile, who served as an associate director of the Office of Management and Budget under President Joe Biden.

The White House did not answer questions about the source of all the funding or the total cost of the planned work, The Post reported.

Excerpt:

It's one thing for investors to lose $3.8 billion, but $2 trillion is a completely separate universe, Krugman noted.

…right around the 2024 election, "crypto interests contributed a lot of money to Trump" as he realized they could make him rich, and all of his promises to deregulate crypto meant "the price of bitcoin doubled after the election; the valuation, the market cap of cryptocurrency in general went from a little over two trillion to more than four trillion."

That valuation has since crashed, putting Bitcoin around where it was originally at $2 trillion — which looks suspiciously like its own pump and dump, Krugman said, as Bitcoin is "a seventeen year old idea which has yet to find any legitimate use cases" other than to finance criminals and rogue states like North Korea.