Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth insists President Donald Trump ’s abrupt firing of the nation’s senior military officer amid a wave of dismissals at the Pentagon wasn’t unusual, brushing aside outcry that the new administration is openly seeking to inject politics into the military. He also suggested more firings could come.

“Nothing about this is unprecedented,” Hegseth told “Fox News Sunday” about Air Force Gen. CQ Brown Jr. being removed Friday night as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. “The president deserves to pick his key national security advisory team.”

Hegseth said “there are lots of presidents who made changes” citing former commanders in chief from Franklin D. Roosevelt to George H.W. Bush to Barack Obama, who the defense secretary said “fired or dismissed hundreds” of military officials.

Months into his first term, Obama relieved Army Gen. David McKiernan as the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan. Trump, however, vowed while running for his second term to eradicate “woke” ideologies from the military and moving swiftly to dismiss so many top leaders means keeping a campaign promise.

Hegeseth and Trump have made no secret about focusing on pushing aside military officers who have supported diversity, equity and inclusion in the ranks. The administration says its is on better fortifying a lethal fighting force.

Brown was just the second Black general to serve as chairman. His 16 months in the post were consumed with the war in Ukraine and the expanded conflict in the Middle East. Trump in 2020 nominated Brown as Air Force’s chief of staff.

Trump wants to replace Brown Air Force Lt. Gen. Dan “Razin” Caine, who retired in December. It is unclear what recalling Caine to active-duty service will require. The position requires Caine to be confirmed by the Senate.

Hegseth said Friday’s dismissals affected six three- and four-star generals and were “a reflection of the president wanting the right people around him to execute the national security approach we want to take.”

He called Brown “honorable” but said he is “not the right man for the moment,” without citing specific deficiencies. After the 2020 murder of George Floyd, Brown in a video spoke of his experience as a Black pilot, apparently making him fodder for the Trump administration’s wars against inclusion initiatives in the military.

Of Caine, the Defense secretary said that Trump “respects leaders who untie the hands of war fighters in a very dangerous world.”

Retired Gen. George Casey, commander of U.S. and multinational forces in Iraq from 2004 to 2007 under Republican President George W. Bush, called the firings “extremely destabilizing.” He also noted that the Trump administration can change Pentagon policy without changing personnel, but added, that what happened is “”within the president’s prerogative.”

“That’s his prerogative,” Casey told ABC’s “This Week.” “He is the commander in chief of the armed forces.”

Still, Sen. Jack Reed of Rhode Island, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee told ABC that the firings were “completely unjustified” and that “apparently, what Trump and Hegseth are trying to do is to politicize the Department of Defense.”

Hegseth was also asked on Fox News about officials potentially compiling lists of more defense officials they plan to fire. He said there was no list but suggested that more dismissals could indeed be coming.

A familiar pattern has emerged since President Donald Trump returned to the White House less than three weeks ago: He makes a brash proposal, his opponents file a lawsuit and a federal judge puts the plan on hold.

It’s happened with Trump’s attempts to freeze certain federal funding, undermine birthright citizenship and push out government workers.

Now the question is whether the court rulings are a mere speed bump or an insurmountable roadblock for the Republican president, who is determined to expand the limits of his power — sometimes by simply ignoring the laws.

Although Democrats may be encouraged by the initial round of judicial resistance, the legal battles are only beginning. Lawsuits that originated in more liberal jurisdictions like Boston, Seattle and Washington, D.C., could find their way to the U.S. Supreme Court, where a conservative majority has demonstrated its willingness to overturn precedent.

“What’s constitutional or not is only as good as the latest court decision,” said Philip Joyce, a University of Maryland public policy professor.

Roughly three dozens lawsuits have already been filed, including by FBI agents who fear they’re being purged for political reasons and families who are concerned about new limitations on healthcare for transgender youth.

The spotlight on the judiciary is brighter because the Republican-controlled Congress has essentially abdicated its role of serving as a check on the presidency. Lawmakers from Trump’s party have acceded to his demands to unilaterally cut spending and fire government watchdogs without proper notice.

That leaves only the courts as a potential guardrail on the president’s ambitions.

In Seattle, U.S. District Judge John Coughenour blocked Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship, which was intended to prevent the children of parents who are in the country illegally from being automatically considered Americans.

Coughenour described birthright citizenship, which was established by the 14th Amendment, as “a fundamental constitutional right” and he assailed Trump in scathing terms.

“The rule of law is, according to him, something to navigate around or simply ignore, whether that be for political or personal gain,” said the judge, who was nominated by President Ronald Reagan in 1981.

“There are moments in the world’s history where people look back and ask, ‘Where were the lawyers? Where were the judges?’” Coughenour added. “In these moments, the rule of law becomes especially vulnerable. I refuse to let that beacon go dark today.”

The judge had previously called the order “blatantly unconstitutional” when issuing a temporary ruling.

“I’ve been on the bench for over four decades,” Coughenour said then. “I can’t remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is.”

Also on Thursday in Boston, U.S. District Judge George O’Toole Jr. paused Trump’s plan to encourage federal workers to resign by offering them paid leave.

O’Toole, who was nominated by President Bill Clinton in 1995, did not express an opinion on the deferred resignation program, which is commonly described as a buyout. He scheduled a hearing for Monday afternoon to consider arguments.

“We continue to believe this program violates the law, and we will continue to aggressively defend our members’ rights,” American Federation of Government Employees National President Everett Kelley said in a statement.

The White House said at least 40,000 federal workers have already agreed to quit in return for being paid until Sept. 30.

“We are grateful to the judge for extending the deadline so more federal workers who refuse to show up to the office can take the administration up on this very generous, once-in-a-lifetime offer,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement.

It’s unclear which legal battles will reach the U.S. Supreme Court, where justices can choose what cases to consider. But Trump has nominated three out of nine members, and the court has taken an expansive view of presidential power.

President Donald Trump signed the first bill of his new administration on Wednesday—a piece of legislation bearing the name of Laken Riley, a Georgia nursing student whose tragic death galvanized supporters during his White House campaign.

Trump expressed gratitude for the bipartisan support that marked this inaugural legislative effort since his January 20 inauguration. The law, known as the Laken Riley Act, mandates that federal officials detain unauthorized immigrants accused of crimes ranging from theft to acts of violence. The measure garnered support in both the House and Senate, with Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) present at the signing ceremony at the White House.

Laken Riley’s story lends a poignant note to the act. At 22, while running on February 22, 2024, Riley—a student at Augusta University College of Nursing—was fatally attacked by Jose Antonio Ibarra. Prosecutors detailed that during a struggle, Ibarra killed Riley, later choosing to waive his right to a jury trial. A judge, acting as the sole arbiter in the case, found Ibarra guilty of murder and other related crimes, sentencing him to life without parole.

In the fallout from her death, Trump and other Republicans have pointed fingers at former President Joe Biden. They contend that Ibarra, who had been arrested for illegal entry near El Paso, Texas in September 2022 amid a surge in migration, was released to pursue his case in immigration court—a decision they argue indirectly paved the way for the tragedy. “If this act had been the law of the land, he never would have had the opportunity to kill her,” stated Rep. Mike Collins, a Republican from Georgia.

Laken Riley’s name has also surfaced in broader discussions on immigration policy. Biden referenced her during his last State of the Union address when addressing border security, a moment further amplified when U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene passionately urged, “Say her name!”

Under the Laken Riley Act, any migrant arrested or charged with crimes such as shoplifting, assaulting a police officer, or offenses resulting in injury or death must be detained. “If you come into this country illegally and you commit a crime, you should not be free to roam the streets of this nation,” said Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who was instrumental in shepherding the bill through the Senate.

Moreover, the act empowers state attorneys general to sue the federal government for any harm caused by shortcomings or decisions in immigration enforcement—whether that’s releasing migrants from custody or neglecting to detain those with deportation orders. This aspect of the legislation provides states with a measure of control over immigration policy, reflecting ongoing disputes with executive decisions during both the Trump and Biden administrations.

In essence, the Laken Riley Act stands as both a tribute to a young life lost too soon and a firm policy stance on immigration, encapsulating a significant moment in the current political landscape.

On January 23, 2025, U.S. District Judge John C. Coughenour, appointed by President Reagan, issued a temporary restraining order, labeling the executive action as "blatantly unconstitutional." This decision came in response to lawsuits filed by several states and civil rights organizations, which argued that the order violated the 14th Amendment.

The 14th Amendment clearly states that "all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States." Legal experts have long interpreted this to mean that anyone born on U.S. soil, regardless of their parents' immigration status, is automatically granted citizenship. The Supreme Court reinforced this interpretation in the 1898 case of United States v. Wong Kim Ark, affirming that the Constitution grants birthright citizenship to almost all children born in the United States.

President-elect Donald Trump is asking the Supreme Court to call off Friday’s sentencing in his hush money case in New York.

Trump’s lawyers turned to the nation’s highest court on Wednesday after New York courts refused to postpone the sentencing by Judge Juan M. Merchan, who presided over Trump’s trial and conviction last May on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. Trump has denied wrongdoing.

The justices asked for a response from prosecutors by Thursday morning. Trump’s team sought an immediate stay of the scheduled sentencing, saying it would wrongly restrict him as he prepares to take office. While Merchan has indicated he will not impose jail time, fines or probation, Trump’s lawyers argued a felony conviction would still have intolerable side effects.

The sentencing should be delayed as he appeals the conviction to “prevent grave injustice and harm to the institution of the Presidency and the operations of the federal government,” they argued.

The emergency motion is from lawyers John Sauer, Trump’s pick for solicitor general, who represents the government before the high court, and Todd Blanche, in line to be the second-ranking official at the Justice Department.

They also pointed to the Supreme Court ruling giving Trump and other presidents broad immunity from prosecutions over their actions in office, saying it supports their argument that his New York conviction should be overturned.

Their filing said the New York trial court “lacks authority to impose sentence and judgment on President Trump — or conduct any further criminal proceedings against him— until the resolution of his underlying appeal raising substantial claims of Presidential immunity, including by review in this Court if necessary.”

The Republican president-elect’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, called for the case to be dismissed in a statement. Trump simultaneously filed an emergency appeal in front of New York’s highest court.

The Manhattan district attorney’s office, meanwhile, said it will respond in court papers. Trump’s convictions arose from what prosecutors said was an attempt to cover up a $130,000 hush money payment to porn actor Stormy Daniels just before the 2016 presidential election.

Daniels claims she had a sexual encounter with Trump in 2006. He denies it.

The Supreme Court’s immunity opinion came in a separate election interference case against him, but Trump’s lawyers say it means some of the evidence used against him in his hush money trial should have been shielded by presidential immunity. That includes testimony from some White House aides and social media posts made while he was in office.

Merchan has disagreed, finding they would qualify as personal business. The Supreme Court’s immunity decision was largely about official acts of presidents while in office.