Democrats will likely ‘waste millions’ of dollars battling President Donald Trump’s executive orders and actions in court with little success to show for it, according to University of California, Berkeley law professor John Yoo. 

Trump ‘will have some of the nation’s finest attorneys defending his executive orders and initiatives, and the Democrats will waste millions of dollars losing in court,’ Yoo, the former deputy assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel, told Fox News Digital on Tuesday when asked whether there are efforts of ‘lawfare’ against Trump in his second administration. 

‘I expect that Trump will ultimately prevail on two-thirds or more of his executive orders, but the Democrats may succeed in delaying them for about a year or so,’ Yoo said. 

The Trump administration has been hit by at least 54 lawsuits in response to Trump’s executive orders and actions since his inauguration on Jan. 20. Trump has signed at least 63 executive orders just roughly three weeks into his administration, including 26 on his first day alone. 

The executive orders and actions are part of Trump’s shift of the federal government to fall in line with his ‘America First’ policies, including snuffing out government overspending and mismanagement through the creation of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), banning biological men from competing in women’s sports and deporting thousands of illegal immigrants who flooded the nation during the Biden administration. 

The onslaught of lawsuits come as Democratic elected officials fume over the second Trump administration’s policies, most notably the creation of DOGE, which is in the midst of investigating various federal agencies to cut spending fat, corruption and mismanagement of funds.

A handful of Democratic state attorneys general and other local leaders vowed following Trump’s election win to set off a new resistance to his agenda, vowing to battle him in the courts over policies they viewed as harmful to constituents. Upon his inauguration and his policies taking effect, Democrats have amplified their rhetoric to battle Trump in the courts, and also to take the fight to ‘the streets.’

‘We are going to fight it legislatively. We are going to fight it in the courts. We’re going to fight it in the streets,’ House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., said in January of battling Trump’s policies. 

‘Our biggest weapon historically, over three years alongside the Trump administration, has been the bully pulpit and a whole lot of legal action, so my guess is it will continue,’ New Jersey Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy said the day after Trump’s inauguration. 

Rep. Jasmine Crockett, D-Texas, said at a protest over DOGE and its chair, Elon Musk, earlier in February, ‘We are gonna be in your face, we are gonna be on your a–es, and we are going to make sure you understand what democracy looks like, and this ain’t it.’

The dozens of cases come after Trump faced four criminal indictments, on both the state and federal level, in the interim of his first and second administrations. Trump had railed against the cases — including the Manhattan trial and conviction, the Georgia election racketeering case, and former special counsel Jack Smith’s election case and classified documents case — as examples of the Democratic Party waging ‘lawfare’ against him in an effort to hurt his re-election chances in the 2024 cycle. 

Yoo, when asked about the state of lawfare against Trump now that he’s back in the Oval Office, said the president’s political foes have shifted from lawfare to launching cases to tie up the administration in court. 

‘I think that what is going on now is different than lawfare,’ he said. ‘I think of lawfare as the deliberate use by the party in power to prosecute its political opponents to affect election outcomes. The Democrats at the federal and state level brought charges against Trump to drive him out of the 2024 elections.’ 

‘The lawsuits against Trump now are the usual thrust and parry of the separation of powers,’ Yoo explained. ‘The Democrats are not attacking Trump personally and there is no election. Instead, they are suing Trump as President to stop his official policies. 

Yoo said the Republican Party also relied on the courts in an effort to prevent policies put forth during the Obama era and Biden administration, including when President Barack Obama signed the Affordable Care Act into law in 2010, or his 2012 immigration policy, Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). Republicans also challenged the Biden administration in court after President Biden attempted to forgive student debt through executive action in 2022.

‘Turnabout is fair play,’ Yoo said of groups suing over various administrations’ executive actions or policies.  

‘What makes this also different than the law is that now Trump controls the Justice Department,’ he added, explaining that Democrats will spend millions on the cases, which will likely result in delays for many of the Trump policies but will not completely thwart the majority of them. 

A handful of the more than 50 lawsuits have resulted in judges temporarily blocking the orders, such as at least three federal judges issuing preliminary injunctions against Trump’s order ending birthright citizenship. 

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt was asked on Wednesday during the press briefing whether the administration believes the courts have the authority to issue such injunctions. Leavitt appeared to echo Yoo that the administration will be ‘vindicated’ in court as the cases make their way through the judicial system. 

‘We believe that the injunction actions that have been issued by these judges, have no basis in the law and have no grounds. And we will again, as the president said very clearly yesterday, comply with these orders. But it is the administration’s position that we will ultimately be vindicated, and the president’s executive actions that he took were completely within the law,’ Leavitt said, before citing the ‘weaponization’ of the court systems against Trump while he was on the campaign trail. 

‘We look forward to the day where he can continue to implement his agenda,’ she said. ‘And I would just add, it’s our view that this is the continuation of the weaponization of justice that we have seen against President Trump. He fought it for two years on the campaign trail — it won’t stop him now.’ 

While the debate over President Donald Trump’s cuts to facilities and administrative costs associated with federally funded research grants rages on, one expert in the field of medicine says he sees a clear way forward. 

Dr. David Skorton, president and CEO of the Association of American Medical Colleges, has had a wide-ranging career spanning government, higher education and medicine. He now runs a national association that oversees all Medical Doctorate-granting schools in the country, and about 500 academic health systems teaching hospitals. Skorton told Fox News Digital that while he does not agree with Trump’s blanket cuts, the current status quo needs changing. He cited over-regulation as a reason why facilities and administrative costs have gotten so ‘wildly expensive.’ 

He also said that transparency from research institutions could help create better awareness of how taxpayer dollars are being used to support those institutions that have become the bane of critics who say they are stockpiling taxpayer dollars for their own benefit. 

‘In some cases, more than one agency will develop regulations, and the researchers have to answer to all of those different agency regulations. We should be able to harmonize those things and come out with a more thoughtful approach to reducing some of the regulatory burden,’ Skorton said. He added that, in turn, researchers will be able to spend more time doing what they do best, research, which in the long run will mean greater results for the public.   

‘It would also mean that the costs would go down because the additional personnel, the additional things that are necessary to keep track of things for these regulations, that would also go down,’ Skorton pointed out.

Skorton said that the impact of reducing over-regulation will be two-fold: it will improve the current research environment and show that there is room for collaboration to reduce overhead costs while not threatening new research. In particular, he pointed to research involving human or animal subjects, which Skorton said is often riddled with regulatory requirements that, while important, could be streamlined.  

Skorton added that the AAMC was ‘very hungry’ to work with the administration on improving this framework, noting that ‘we’re not here to claim that the status quo is perfect, and we want to defend it, but the idea of very quickly knocking down the facilities and administrative costs to what felt like an arbitrary number to many of us, 15%, will cause research to be reduced.’

The AAMC president said there is an onus on research institutions as well to better educate folks about where their taxpayer dollars are going when they are utilized by federally funded research programs.

‘For every dollar that we get at universities, medical schools, et cetera, for research from the NIH or some other science agency, for every dollar another half dollar, roughly, is contributed by the institution,’ Skorton pointed out. ‘That’s something that maybe people don’t realize, and why would they, because we have to be more clear in making that visible, that we already contribute a lot to the research.’

Fox News Digital spoke to medical experts who have supported Trump’s blanket cut to administrative and facilities costs, and they argue that reducing this price burden on the federal government will increase the availability of new research grants, while getting rid of financial bloat that universities have been able to take advantage of at the taxpayers’ expense.

One of the doctors who shared their thoughts, Dr. Erika Schwartz, echoed calls for reform to the current structure, similar to Skorton.  

‘While infrastructure support is necessary, there’s room for more efficient cost management. A reformed funding model could redirect more resources to direct research activities while maintaining essential support services,’ Schwartz said. ‘This could potentially increase the number of funded research projects and accelerate medical breakthroughs, ultimately benefiting patients more directly.’

A judge in Washington state has issued a temporary restraining order over President Trump’s executive order that withholds federal funding to health care providers who prescribe youth puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones or who perform surgeries for gender dysphoria. 

Judge Lauren King, in the Western Washington District Court, issued the order on Friday. 

It comes after a federal judge in Maryland issued a similar temporary retraining order this week. 

Several states emboldened by President Donald Trump’s executive orders are moving to introduce bills banning transgender medical care for minors, and one legal expert believes it’s a ‘continuation’ of the success other states have achieved in the last several years fighting against the Biden administration.

‘You go back to 2020, when Idaho became the first state to pass a save women’s sports law, and in 2021, Arkansas was the first state to protect kids from dangerous gender transition, drugs and surgeries,’ Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Matt Sharp told Fox News Digital in an interview. ‘And since that time, we’ve had over 25 states pass both of those laws, plus other measures to protect women’s privacy and safety and schools or women’s shelters or correctional facilities.’

‘So, what we are seeing is truly the continuation of incredible work by state legislatures and others to address the concerns of gender ideology and make sure that women and children in their states are not being harmed by it,’ he said.

So far this year, several states have introduced or considered legislation to ban transgender medical procedures for minors. More than two dozen states already have laws in place restricting such procedures. 

Alabama recently passed a bill in the Senate aiming to legally define gender based on one’s biological sex, in line with Trump’s ‘two sexes’ declaration. Georgia’s state Senate also passed a bill this week that would cut state funding for transgender surgical treatments, extending to both minors and adults. The bill aims to block state funds for state employee and university health insurance plans, Medicaid, and the state’s prison system.

Some states are still rebelling against Trump’s orders. Kansas Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, vetoed a bill this week that would have prohibited state funds from being used on gender transition treatments and procedures on minors and allow civil actions against healthcare providers conducting such treatments. 

Despite Trump’s executive orders, Democratic attorneys general from 15 states – California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin – issued a joint statement this month doubling down on their support for transgender procedures for minors.

The executive orders, signed in late January, include a reinstatement of the ban on transgender troops in the military, a ban on federal funding for sex changes for minors and a directive requiring federal agencies to recognize only ‘two sexes,’ male and female, in official standard of conduct.

‘What these executive orders represent is a 180-degree turn from that, rather than the federal government trying to push this dangerous ideology and being an adversary of states and their efforts to protect women and girls, you know, have an ally at the federal government,’ Sharp, who filed one of the first state cases against a Connecticut policy allowing men to compete in women’s sports in 2020, said.

Sharp described Trump’s executive orders as a ‘return to normalcy.’

‘What we saw starting a new Obama administration and continuing in the Biden administration, I think was trying to erase sex and replace it with the concept of gender identity,’ he said. ‘And I think Americans have seen that. They’ve seen the harm that’s caused to countless young women, to young children, pushed to do irreparable damage to their bodies through these gender transition drugs and surgeries to even families who have had their rights violated by policies that were hiding information, lying to parents about a child who was experiencing distress over their sex and gender.’

While the Trump White House has made its stance on gender-related issues clear, the U.S. Supreme Court will determine a critical ruling this summer on whether the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause, which guarantees equal treatment under the law for individuals in similar circumstances, prevents states from banning medical providers from offering puberty blockers and hormone treatments to children seeking transgender surgical procedures. 

A federal judge on Friday indefinitely delayed a final ruling on the Labor Department’s request to block Elon Musk’s government efficiency team from accessing internal system data, telling both parties only that ‘you will hear from me,’ while declining to promise an exact time or date. 

The update from U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, comes just one week after he rejected an earlier attempt from the Labor Department to issue a temporary restraining order to block DOGE access to internal system data, saying that the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to show they would suffer sufficient harm as a result of the actions. 

In response, unions amended their complaint to broaden the scope of the lawsuit, adding the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education, and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Arguments on Friday stretched for more than three hours, with plaintiffs arguing that DOGE employees were accessing their information illegally, since DOGE is not technically a U.S. government agency.

‘There has been reporting that DOGE is directing the cuts of agency staff and contracts, not simply advising the president,’ one lawyer for the plaintiffs told Judge Bates, ‘The situation is extremely fluid and changing,’ plaintiffs argued.

They urged Judge Bates to grant a temporary request to block DOGE’s access to the information, which they said would ‘force the agency to implement a more thoughtful process.’

Meanwhile, the Justice Department argued in response that the DOGE personnel in question are ‘detailed’ U.S. government employees, who have access to the information under provisions of the Economy Act.

Judge Bates declined to rule from the bench, telling both sides only that ‘You will hear from me.’

The update will likely do little in the near-term to assuage concerns at the Labor Department and other federal agencies over DOGE’s access to sensitive internal data. 

Attorneys for Labor Department unions argued during last week’s hearing that, absent court intervention, DOGE could access protected agency information, including the financial and medical records of millions of Americans, as well as employee safety and workplace complaints.

Plaintiffs noted that Labor Department systems contain sensitive information about investigations into Musk-owned companies Tesla and SpaceX, as well as information about trade secrets of competing companies, plaintiffs noted – sparking concerns about Elon Musk’s possible access to the information.

Attorney Mark Samburg argued that DOGE access to this information could have a ‘chilling effect’ on new employees coming forward, due to fear of unlawful disclosure or retaliation.  

‘The sensitive information of millions of people is currently at imminent risk of unlawful disclosure,’ Samburg said.

Judge Bates suggested Friday that DOGE’s creation and its hierarchy were ‘odd,’ noting that it ‘was created in a way to get it out of OMB [Office of Management and Budget], and instead answering to the chief of staff of the president.’

DOGE ‘took great effort to avoid being an agency, but in this case, you’re an agency,’ he said of DOGE. ‘It just seems to strain credulity.’ 

President Donald Trump’s administration has secured the release of 11 U.S. hostages held by foreign governments since taking office less than one month ago, according to the White House. 

The Trump administration has emphasized arranging the release of U.S. hostages under his second administration and welcomed U.S. Marc Fogel, a U.S. history teacher who had been detained in Russia since 2021, back to the U.S. Tuesday. 

Other hostages released since Trump’s inauguration include six Americans detained in Venezuela, two Americans detained in Belarus and Israeli-American citizen Keith Siegel, who was held hostage by Palestinian militant group Hamas. There are at least two living American citizen hostages believed to be held in Gaza. 

By comparison, former President Joe Biden said in 2024 his White House secured the release of more than 70 hostages during his four years in office, according to an August 2024 statement. Fox News Digital didn’t find any available data to compare numbers from Biden’s first month in office. 

Trump claimed to have helped release 58 in his first term as president. 

There were 46 American nationals known to be held captive in 16 different countries in 2024, according to the nonprofit Foley Foundation, which advocates for U.S. hostages and was named after James Foley, a U.S. journalist kidnapped while reporting in Syria in 2012 and killed by ISIS in 2014. That number is now likely closer to the low 30s after the recent releases of hostages in January and February.

On Tuesday, Trump met with Fogel, who was arrested in August 2021 at a Russian airport for possessing drugs and was slated to serve a 14-year sentence. Fogel’s family said the drugs he had on him were medically prescribed marijuana. 

‘I want you to know that I am not a hero in this at all,’ Fogel said Tuesday after meeting Trump. ‘And President Trump is a hero.

‘These men that came from the diplomatic service are heroes,’ Fogel said. ‘The senators and representatives that passed legislation in my honor — they got me home — they are heroes.’

Following Foley’s return and after announcing the release of another, unnamed hostage held in Belarus Wednesday, Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs Adam Boehler said Trump ‘has made bringing Americans home a top priority, and people respond to that.’

The names of most of the hostages released in February have not been publicly shared. 

‘President Trump is committed to freeing Americans held hostage and returning them to their families,’ Brian Hughes, a spokesperson for the National Security Council, said in a Friday statement to Fox News Digital. ‘To date, President Trump has secured the release of 11 Americans who were detained by the Taliban, Hamas, Venezuela, Russia and Belarus.’

Just before Trump’s inauguration Jan. 20, both the Biden administration and the incoming Trump administration coordinated to secure a ceasefire deal between Israel and Hamas, which included provisions to release dozens of hostages on both sides. 

Biden and Trump separately boasted about their individual efforts to secure the deal, and State Department spokesman Matthew Miller described the Trump administration’s involvement as ‘critical’ to getting the deal over the finish line. 

Trump also touted his administration’s involvement in a social media post Jan. 15, claiming it occurred ‘as a result of our Historic Victory in November, as it signaled to the entire World that my Administration would seek Peace and negotiate deals to ensure the safety of all Americans, and our Allies.’

Although Biden said the two teams had been ‘speaking as one team’ during the negotiations, he also mocked suggestions that Trump was responsible for securing the ceasefire deal. 

‘Who in the history books gets credit for this, Mr. President, you or Trump?’ Fox News’ Jacqui Heinrich asked Biden Jan. 15 after a White House news conference.

‘Is that a joke?’ Biden said. 

When Heinrich said it was not, Biden replied, ‘Oh. Thank you.’ 

The Associated Press and Fox News’ Emma Colton and Landon Mion contributed to this report.

Blue state attorneys general accused Vice President JD Vance of attempting to spread a ‘dangerous lie’ after he criticized judges blocking President Donald Trump’s agenda. 

‘The Vice President’s statement is as wrong as it is reckless. As chief law enforcement officers representing the people of 17 states, we unequivocally reject the Vice President’s attempt to spread this dangerous lie,’ the statement reads. 

Seventeen state attorneys general, including those from California, Connecticut, Arizona, Massachusetts and Washington, signed the statement released Friday after Vance sent the internet into a frenzy, saying, ‘Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’

‘Americans understand the principle of checks and balances,’ the AGs wrote. ‘The judiciary is a check on unlawful action by the executive and legislative branches of government. Generals, prosecutors, and all public officials are subject to checks and balances. No one is above the law.’ 

Vance’s comments were made after a court blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing personal data. The Trump administration has become the target of more than 50 lawsuits since Trump began his second term in mid-January. Judges in various states across the country, including Washington, Rhode Island and New York, have continuously blocked the administration’s efforts to implement its agenda. 

‘If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal,’ Vance posted on X. ‘If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.’

The statement from the AGs said that they would ‘carefully scrutinize each and every action taken by this administration.’ They also made clear that if the administration violated the Constitution or federal law, they would ‘not hesitate to act.’

‘Judges granted our motions and issued restraining orders to protect the American people, democracy, and the rule of law. That is and has always been their job,’ the AGs wrote. ‘That job is the very core of our legal system. And in this critical moment, we will stand our ground to defend it.’ 

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi recently pledged her support for Trump’s efforts, vowing to challenge ‘unelected’ judges obstructing his administration’s agenda.

‘We have so many un-elected judges who are trying to control government spending. And there is a clear separation of powers,’ Bondi said during an appearance on ‘America’s Newsroom.’ ‘What they’re doing to [DOGE leader Elon Musk], to our country, is outrageous. You know, people work their whole lives and pay taxes, yet they find out that they’ve been giving $2 million to Guatemala for sex changes. It’s outrageous. And it’s going to stop.’

Since Inauguration Day, dozens of activist and legal groups, elected officials and local jurisdictions, as well as individuals, have launched a myriad of lawsuits in response to the president’s executive orders and directives. Notably, Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, his immigration policies, directives on federal funding, and the implementation of DOGE have all come under fire. 

The Trump administration has proceeded to appeal many of these rulings to the appellate courts. In a recent development, the Trump administration appealed an order from a Rhode Island judge to unfreeze federal funds. The order claimed the administration did not adhere to a previous order to do so. 

The Trump administration appealed the order to the First Circuit shortly thereafter, which was ultimately denied.  

Upon Trump’s historic win in November, Democratic AGs, including New York Attorney General Letitia James, publicly said they would be ready to engage in any legal battles against the Trump administration for actions they view as illegal or negatively impacting residents. 

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report. 

A federal judge on Friday indefinitely delayed a final ruling on a request by labor unions to block Elon Musk’s government efficiency team from accessing internal system data, telling both parties, ‘You will hear from me,’ while declining to promise an exact time or date. 

The update from U.S. District Judge John Bates, a George W. Bush appointee, comes just one week after he rejected an earlier request from unions representing Labor Department employees for a temporary restraining order to block DOGE access to internal system data. The judge said the plaintiffs lacked standing and failed to show they would be harmed as a result of the actions. 

In response, the unions amended their complaint to broaden the scope of the lawsuit, adding the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. 

Arguments Friday stretched for more than three hours, with plaintiffs arguing that DOGE employees were accessing their information illegally since DOGE is not technically a U.S. government agency.

‘There has been reporting that DOGE is directing the cuts of agency staff and contracts, not simply advising the president,’ one lawyer for the plaintiffs told Judge Bates, ‘The situation is extremely fluid and changing.’

The plaintiffs urged Judge Bates to grant a temporary request to block DOGE’s access to the information, which they said would ‘force the agency to implement a more thoughtful process.’

Meanwhile, the Justice Department argued in response that the DOGE personnel in question are ‘detailed’ U.S. government employees who have access to the information under provisions of the Economy Act.

Judge Bates declined to rule from the bench, telling both sides, ‘You will hear from me.’

The update will likely do little in the near term to assuage concerns among employees at the Labor Department and other federal agencies over DOGE’s access to sensitive internal data. 

Attorneys for unions representing Labor Department employees argued during last week’s hearing that, absent court intervention, DOGE could access protected agency information, including the financial and medical records of millions of Americans, as well as employee safety and workplace complaints.

The plaintiffs noted that Labor Department systems contain sensitive information about investigations into Musk-owned companies Tesla and SpaceX, as well as information about trade secrets of competing companies, sparking concerns about Elon Musk’s possible access to the information.

Attorney Mark Samburg argued that DOGE access to this information could have a ‘chilling effect’ on new employees coming forward, due to fear of unlawful disclosure or retaliation.  

‘The sensitive information of millions of people is currently at imminent risk of unlawful disclosure,’ Samburg said.

Judge Bates suggested Friday that DOGE’s creation and its hierarchy were ‘odd,’ noting that it ‘was created in a way to get it out of OMB [Office of Management and Budget], and instead answering to the chief of staff of the president.’

DOGE ‘took great effort to avoid being an agency, but in this case, you’re an agency,’ he said of DOGE. ‘It just seems to strain credulity.’