A group of anonymous federal judges is criticizing the Supreme Court for overturning lower court rulings and siding with President Donald Trump’s administration with little to no explanation, NBC News reported Thursday.

NBC spoke with 12 federal judges, appointed by Democratic and Republican presidents including Trump, who pointed to a trend of lower court decisions being overturned by emergency rulings from the high court. These cases often see prominent members of Trump’s administration lashing out at lower court judges before their cases are overturned.

Ten of the 12 judges argued the Supreme Court should offer more explanation when overturning such decisions, saying emergency rulings in such cases imply poor work on the part of lower court judges.

‘It is inexcusable,’ one judge said of the Supreme Court. ‘They don’t have our backs.’

That judge also said they have received death threats for issuing rulings that counter Trump’s agenda. Trump himself and some of his top officials have spoken out against judges issuing unfavorable rulings.

When Judge James Boasberg sought to block the administration’s deportation flights to El Salvador, Trump argued he should be ‘IMPEACHED’ on social media.

When various judges issued rulings blocking Trump’s tariff agenda in March, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller argued it was a ‘judicial coup.’

The judge who described the Supreme Court’s actions as inexcusable predicted that ‘somebody is going to die’ if criticism from top Trump officials continues, according to NBC.

Another judge said lower courts are being ‘thrown under the bus.’

‘It’s almost like the Supreme Court is saying it is a ‘judicial coup,’’ a third judge told the outlet.

A fourth judge, however, appointed by President Barack Obama, conceded that several judges had been out of line with their rulings against Trump.

‘The whole ‘Trump derangement syndrome’ is a real issue. As a result, judges are mad at what Trump is doing or the manner he is going about things; they are sometimes forgetting to stay in their lane,’ that judge said.

‘Certainly, there is a strong sense in the judiciary among the judges ruling on these cases that the court is leaving them out to dry,’ the judge continued. ‘They are partially right to feel the way they feel.’

The Supreme Court’s public information office did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fox News Digital.

A federal district court wrongfully blocked President Donald Trump’s administration from temporarily withholding billions of dollars in climate grants, a federal appeals court ruled Tuesday.

The District Court for Washington, D.C. granted an injunction blocking the Trump administration from withholding $16 billion in climate grants. Tuesday’s ruling from the D.C. Circuit Court finds that the lower court overstepped its authority in doing so, and that Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was acting in accordance with its role to provide ‘proper oversight’ of how funds are distributed.

‘We conclude the district court abused its discretion in issuing the injunction. The grantees are not likely to succeed on the merits because their claims are essentially contractual, and therefore jurisdiction lies exclusively in the Court of Federal Claims,’ Judge Neomi Rao wrote in the court’s opinion.

‘And while the district court had jurisdiction over the grantees’ constitutional claim, that claim is meritless. Moreover, the equities strongly favor the government, which on behalf of the public must ensure the proper oversight and management of this multi-billion-dollar fund,’ the opinion continued.

The case relates to EPA grants worth $16 billion awarded under the previous administration to five nonprofits to promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The nonprofits included the Climate United Fund, Coalition for Green Capital, Power Forward Communities, Inc., Inclusiv, Inc., and Justice Climate Fund, Inc.

When Trump took office, the new EPA conducted a review of the program and sought to cut the flow of funds. The five nonprofits then sued, and the district court granted them an injunction.

Judge Rao wrote that records show that one month before Trump took office, the EPA modified the grant agreements ‘to make it more difficult for the government to terminate the grants.’

The opinion also points to statements from an EPA employee who said that after Trump’s election victory, the EPA under President Joe Biden was ‘just trying to get the money out as fast as possible.’

‘The employee compared the situation to ‘throwing gold bars off the Titanic,” Rao wrote.

It was after that point that Trump’s EPA reviewed the grant program and sought to kill it.

‘It’s fantastic to see reason prevail in the court system,’ an EPA spokesperson told Fox News Digital on Tuesday. ‘EPA has a duty to be an exceptional steward of taxpayer dollars. Administrator Zeldin canceled these grants due to well-documented concerns about self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, and intentionally reduced agency oversight. The gold bar recipients were wrong about jurisdiction all along and wrong to act so entitled to these precious public funds that belong to hardworking American taxpayers.’

The Climate United Fund responded to the ruling shortly after it was handed down, with CEO Beth Bafford condemning the outcome.

‘While we are disappointed by the panel’s decision, we stand firm on the merits of our case: EPA unlawfully froze and terminated funds that were legallyobligated and disbursed. This is another hurdle in our fight to lower energy costs for those who need it most while creating jobs for hardworking Americans, but we will continue to press on for communities across the country that stand to benefit from clean, abundant, and affordable energy. This is not the end of our road,’ Bafford wrote.

Tuesday’s ruling allows for the nonprofits to appeal the decision. The other four organizations did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

The cuts were only a small part of Trump’s wider effort to rein in government spending across the executive branch. In July, the EPA announced plans to cut its workforce by 23% and close its research and development office.

‘Under President Trump’s leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while Powering the Great American Comeback,’ EPA Administrator Lee Zeldin said in a July statement.

Read the full opinion from the D.C. Circuit below (App users click here)

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., sharpened his criticism of Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., on Tuesday as the debate over how to handle transparency in the Jeffrey Epstein case rages on Capitol Hill.

‘I would describe virtually everything Thomas Massie says, as related to this issue, as meaningless,’ Johnson told reporters, delivering his harshest remarks yet against the Kentucky Republican.

The jab came minutes before Massie introduced a measure designed to bypass Johnson and force a vote on legislation compelling the release of a wide range of Department of Justice (DOJ) records tied to Epstein. Johnson, meanwhile, is backing a separate resolution authorizing the House Oversight Committee’s inquiry into the case.

Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are spearheading a discharge petition — a rare procedural move that allows lawmakers to circumvent leadership if a majority of House members sign on. 

Massie told Fox News Digital he expected enough signatures to hit that threshold by the end of this week.

‘I think there’s a real good chance of that,’ he said.

As of Tuesday afternoon, the petition had two signatures: Massie and Rep. Jim McGovern, D-Mass.

Asked about Johnson’s comments, Massie blasted House leaders’ measure as a ‘placebo resolution.’

‘He copied three pages out of my resolution. I mean, we wrote this from scratch. So if he thinks it’s meaningless, why is he copying it and taking the teeth out of it?’ Massie said. ‘He is afraid of President Donald Trump. Mike Johnson’s speakership just hangs on that thread.’

The DOJ has already begun turning over thousands of files to the Oversight Committee under a bipartisan subpoena, though at least some redactions are expected. 

Johnson argued his approach balances transparency with privacy concerns for Epstein’s victims.

He told reporters Tuesday, ‘I would not put much stock into what Thomas Massie says.’

‘The House Republicans have been very consistent about maximum disclosure and maximum transparency with the Epstein files, but we had to do it in a way that would protect the innocent victims of these horrific crimes,’ Johnson said. ‘We have achieved that. Now we have a resolution that will accomplish that desired end. And what people want to do with this for political purpose is, to me, this is really just shameful.’

Massie and Khanna plan to hold a press conference Wednesday with several of Epstein’s victims to promote their resolution. Those victims also met Tuesday with Johnson and members of the Oversight Committee.

The showdown underscores intensifying GOP divisions over how to handle the DOJ’s handling of Epstein’s case, which was reignited after an internal memo effectively declared the matter closed earlier this year.

President Donald Trump sought to dispel swirling social media rumors about his health Tuesday, saying he was ‘very active’ over the Labor Day weekend.

‘I didn’t do anything for two days, and they said ‘there must be something wrong with him,’’ Trump told reporters in the Oval Office, describing the speculation about his death as ‘fake news.’

Trump’s comments followed a wave of unfounded speculation that began Friday night and stretched into Saturday morning, fueled by an empty public schedule and recycled photos showing bruising on his hand. 

The online chatter subsided after Trump was seen leaving the White House with his grandchildren for his golf club in Virginia on Saturday. He was seen wearing a white polo shirt and red MAGA hat.

‘I was very active over the weekend. I went out to visit some people at the club that I own pretty nearby on the Potomac River. No, I’ve been very active, actually,’ Trump said, drawing a sharp comparison to his predecessor, President Joe Biden.

‘You wouldn’t see him (Biden) and nobody ever said there was ever anything wrong with him,’ Trump said. ‘And we know he wasn’t in the greatest of shape.’ 

In July, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Trump was experiencing bruising on his hands that was attributable to ‘frequent handshaking and the use of aspirin.’ 

She added that he also had mild swelling in his legs that stemmed from a ‘benign and common condition’ in individuals older than age 70.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated. 

A federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., allowed a Biden-appointed member of the Federal Trade Commission to keep her job, at least for now, as part of a lawsuit centered on President Donald Trump’s authority to remove members of independent agencies without cause.

A three-judge panel said Tuesday that a lower court’s decision that Trump unlawfully fired FTC Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter could remain in place and that the firing was squarely at odds with Supreme Court precedent. 

‘The government has no likelihood of success on appeal given controlling and directly on point Supreme Court precedent,’ the panel wrote in an order.

Slaughter was abruptly fired after Trump took office, rehired when Judge Loren AliKhan ruled in her favor last month, and then re-fired days later when the appellate court briefly paused Ali Khan’s decision.

The three-judge panel, comprising two Obama appointees and one Trump appointee, lifted that pause on Tuesday, which allows Slaughter to return to work. The Trump administration can appeal the decision.

Department of Justice attorneys had argued for the appellate court to grant the Trump administration a stay, pointing to the Supreme Court’s decision to do the same in a recent separate case involving other independent agencies.

‘The court’s reinstatement of a principal officer of the United States—in defiance of recent Supreme Court precedent staying similar reinstatements in other cases—works a grave harm to the separation of powers and the President’s ability to exercise his authority under the Constitution,’ the attorneys wrote.

This is a developing story. Check back for updates.

The House Oversight Committee released a tranche of thousands of documents related to Jeffrey Epstein’s case on Tuesday night.

The surprise file dump came ahead of an expected House-wide vote to formalize the committee’s Epstein inquiry on Wednesday afternoon.

That vote, while largely symbolic, would also direct the House Oversight Committee to release the Epstein files sent by the Department of Justice (DOJ).

Nearly 34,000 pages are being released that include the DOJ’s interview with Ghislaine Maxwell and videos that appear to show the inside of Epstein’s Palm Beach home.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., subpoenaed the DOJ in early August for all documents pertaining to its investigation of Epstein and Maxwell. 

The subpoena was directed by a bipartisan vote during an unrelated House Oversight Committee hearing in late July.

‘This is the most thorough investigation into Epstein and Maxwell to date, and we are getting results,’ Comer said during a House Rules Committee meeting on Tuesday evening.

‘We have already deposed former Attorney General Bill Barr, the Department of Justice provided nearly 34,000 pages of documents and will produce more, which are being made public as we speak.’

Rep. Robert Garcia, D-Calif., the top Democrat on the committee, claimed that some 97% of those documents were already public, however.

The sudden release appears to be a bid to neutralize an effort by Reps. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Ro Khanna, D-Calif., to force a vote on their own bill to make the DOJ release information on Epstein.

The bipartisan pair is spearheading what’s known as a discharge petition — a rare procedural move that allows lawmakers to circumvent leadership if a majority of House members sign on. 

Such a vote could put Republican lawmakers, who are also pushing for more transparency, in a difficult position, forced to decide between the political ramifications of bucking the vote or defying their own leaders.

Massie told Fox News Digital earlier this week he expected enough signatures to hit that threshold by the end of this week, however.

‘I think there’s a real good chance of that,’ he said.

But Comer said the committee was ‘way ahead’ of Massie and Khanna’s move.

‘We’re going to go beyond it. We’re already getting the documents from the administration,’ Comer said. ‘I don’t think [the discharge petition is] necessary at all.’

In addition to deposing Barr and subpoenaing the DOJ, Comer’s panel also sent subpoenas to former Attorney General Loretta Lynch, ex-FBI Director James Comey, former President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

The Senate teed up a colossal package to authorize funding for the Pentagon on Tuesday, marking the first legislation to hit the floor since lawmakers returned from August recess.

Lawmakers advanced the Fiscal Year 2026 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) on a largely bipartisan 84 to 14 vote, setting up the bill for debate before a later vote to advance it from the Senate.

This year’s version of the bill isn’t as divisive as its predecessor, given the lack of provisions targeting ‘woke’ policies at the Pentagon, which became a major target for Republicans when they gained power in the House during the latter half of former President Joe Biden’s first term.

Instead, the measure focuses on military contracting reforms and lasers in on the Pentagon’s failure to complete, let alone pass, an audit for the last several years. It also includes a bump to service members’ pay, though not as high as in recent years. It also includes an extension to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative through 2028, and increases authorized funding to $500 million. 

Still, the measure would authorize about 3% more funding for the Pentagon when compared to last year’s NDAA in the midst of the GOP and White House’s push to cut costs in the government.

It also comes on the heels of a $150 billion injection of defense spending passed in President Donald Trump’s ‘big, beautiful bill.’

Senate Armed Services Committee Chair Roger Wicker, R-Miss., said after the bill glided through committee in July that the ‘United States is operating in the most dangerous threat environment we have faced since World War II.’

‘The bill my committee advanced today is a direct reflection of the severity of that threat environment, as well as the rapidly evolving landscape of war,’ he said. ‘My colleagues and I have prioritized reindustrialization and the structural rebuilding of the arsenal of democracy.’

And Sen. Jack Reed, the Democrat on the panel, similarly agreed that the U.S. ‘faces a global security environment unlike any in recent memory.’

‘This legislation invests in the service members, technology, and capabilities we need to deter our adversaries and defend our national interests,’ the Rhode Island Democrat said. ‘I thank Chairman Wicker and our colleagues on both sides of the aisle for advancing this bill to prioritize the safety and security of the American people.’

The Senate and House have offered competing versions of the bill, too. Lawmakers in the upper chamber leapfrogged their colleagues in the House, where their iteration of the NDAA is expected to be considered next week.

Overall, the Senate’s version of the legislation would tee up nearly $925 billion in defense spending. That total is split among the Department of Defense at over $878 billion, the Department of Energy at over $35 billion with another $10 billion allocated for ‘defense-related activities’ outside of the bill’s jurisdiction.

The House version of the bill clocked in at just over $848 billion, well below the Senate’s product but more in line with the Pentagon’s budget request for the upcoming fiscal year.