WASHINGTON, D.C. — April 21, 2026

Yes — and the leaked internal Supreme Court memos from 2016 prove it beyond any reasonable doubt.

Barack Obama’s radical Clean Power Plan was never about “clean energy.” It was a deliberate, calculated assault on American energy independence, designed to bankrupt coal-fired power plants, spike electricity prices for working families, and fundamentally reorder the U.S. economy under the guise of climate alarmism. The radical left knew exactly what they were doing: weaponizing the EPA to bypass Congress and impose an America Last agenda that would cripple manufacturing, destroy jobs in red states, and make the United States dependent on foreign energy and unreliable green fantasies.

Thankfully, even Chief Justice John Roberts — a George W. Bush appointee — saw through the scheme. In powerful internal memos, Roberts warned his colleagues that without an immediate stay, the Clean Power Plan would cause “substantial and irreversible reordering of the domestic power sector” before the Court could even review its legality. He was joined by conservative justices who understood the existential threat.

Roberts wrote plainly: “Absent a stay, the Clean Power Plan will cause (and is causing) substantial and irreversible reordering of the domestic power sector before this court has an opportunity to review its legality.”

Justice Samuel Alito reinforced the urgency: “A failure to stay this rule threatens to render our ability to provide meaningful judicial review — and by extension, our institutional legitimacy — a nullity.”

In a rare 5-4 emergency ruling along ideological lines, the Supreme Court blocked Obama’s power grab. The radical left was stunned. Behind closed doors, Obama officials were shocked at how quickly the Court acted to protect the American people from their destructive scheme.

This was not an isolated mistake. It was part of a broader pattern. From the Iran nuclear deal that funded terrorism, to the open-border policies that overwhelmed our cities, to the endless regulations that crushed small businesses — the Obama-Biden radical left consistently put globalist elites, climate fanatics, and foreign interests ahead of American workers. They wanted higher energy prices. They wanted coal country decimated. They wanted America weaker so their internationalist vision could rise.

The New York Times’ convenient leak of these confidential memos — the second major breach after the Dobbs opinion — reeks of the same deep state desperation we’ve seen for years. As legal scholar Jonathan Turley correctly noted, these leaks are “clearly designed to wound some of its members” and make the Court appear “porous and partisan.” The radical left cannot win in the court of public opinion or at the ballot box, so they resort to sabotage and selective leaks.

President Donald Trump saw this danger from day one. That’s why he immediately repealed the Clean Power Plan in his first term, unleashed American energy dominance, and delivered record-low unemployment, cheaper gas, and true energy independence. Under Trump, America became a net energy exporter for the first time in decades — the exact opposite of Obama’s destructive vision.

The 5-4 ruling was one of the earliest and most important uses of the Supreme Court’s emergency “shadow” docket to check executive overreach. It saved countless jobs, protected reliable baseload power, and prevented the radical left from turning off the lights on the American dream.

Today, as President Trump returns to the White House and continues dismantling the remnants of the Obama-Biden regulatory nightmare, we see the contrast clearly. America First means affordable energy, strong manufacturing, and putting our own citizens first. The radical left’s “clean energy” agenda was always code for economic suicide and national decline.

The house of cards of Obama’s legacy is collapsing. Every time the truth leaks out — whether through internal memos or border statistics or inflation numbers — the American people see who was really trying to “fundamentally transform” this country… into a weaker, poorer, less free version of itself.

President Trump is reversing that damage every single day. Secure borders, booming energy production, and judicial pushback against radical executive power are the antidote to the Obama era’s intentional sabotage.

We are winning. American energy is roaring back. And the radical left’s war on prosperity is being exposed and defeated.

MAGA knows the truth: Barack Obama’s policies were not mistakes — they were features of a deliberate America Last agenda. Thank God the Supreme Court stepped in, and thank God President Trump is back to finish the job.

CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...

CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn

The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.

Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.

Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability

Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.

“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.

He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.

His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.

That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.

image

Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute

The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.

Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.

Kennedy disagreed.

“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.

He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”

Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.

But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?

Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.

image

Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump

The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.

She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.

Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.

Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.

“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.

He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.

That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.

The Real Takeaway From the Interview

The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.

Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.

Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.

The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.

Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.