July 2, 2025

Permission to republish original opeds and cartoons granted.

 

An America First Merger That Puts American Workers First

By Robert Romano 

Antitrust concerns don’t arise without good reason. More often than not, modern-day mergers between larger players in an industry can mean layoffs for workers and bad deals for consumers. It’s rare that a good deal comes along that spurs economic investment, brings back jobs to the U.S., while benefiting consumers. But that’s the case with the proposed combination of Charter and Cox Communications.  

The Charter-Cox merger is an America First deal that supports President Trump’s agenda to bring jobs and new investment to the United States. Big Tech and Big Media dominate the telecom space, which continues to escape regulations that others in the industry are subject to, tilting the playing field in favor of Disney, Google, Netflix, and the like. In the Trump economy, a merger between companies like Charter and Cox makes sense to empower American workers, provide consumers with better choices, and increase competition in the marketplace. 

This deal puts American workers first. The combined company will adopt Charter’s model of employing a 100 percent U.S.-based customer sales and service workforce, which means that Cox will onshore hundreds of its customer service jobs to the U.S. This move is a win for President Trump’s agenda to reshore American jobs, creating new, good-paying careers for American workers. 

The company guarantees that every new employee will receive a minimum starting wage of at least $20 per hour — nearly three times the federal minimum wage. It’s more proof that the private sector and free markets do a better job of rewarding workers than government price-fixing.

This deal benefits hard-working, blue-collar Americans, not just those in the corner suites. Charter and Cox’s combined self-driven and broadband field tech apprenticeship programs will provide employees with opportunities to learn skills and gain on-the-job technical training to advance their careers. Deals like this help fulfill Trump’s promise to take care of American workers over American elites. It’s a model that should inform the conditions of future mergers.

The government’s role in policing the private sector should be simple: protect workers, consumers, ensure fair practices, and foster competition and innovation. This deal benefits American workers while bringing more competition for Big Tech and Big Media.  

The Charter-Cox deal is a good example of how companies should think about mergers. This deal is a win for American workers, consumers, and the economy.  

Robert Romano is the Executive Director of Americans for Limited Government. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/07/an-america-first-merger-that-puts-american-workers-first/

---

Supreme Court Curtails Sweeping Universal Injunctions Set In Place To Block President Trump In Historic Case 

By Manzanita Miller

The month of June concluded with a historic victory for President Donald Trump and the American people when the Supreme Court effectively dismantled the strategy a network of federal judges has been using to block key elements of the president’s policy agenda in lower courts. 

In the landmark case, Trump v. Casa, the Supreme Court ruled in a 6–3 decision that “universal injunctions” used by a network of judges to block elements of President Trump’s executive order on birthright citizenship nationwide exceed judiciary power. 

While the case did not overtly address the issue of birthright citizenship, what it did do is empower the president to carry out elements of his executive orders without facing “universal” — or nationwide — roadblocks from the lower courts.   

The Supreme Court’s decision limited the use of “universal preliminary injunctions” which a handful of judges from liberal cities have been using for months to block and delay multiple executive orders nationwide issued by President Trump. 

In the majority opinion, Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted the distinction between allowing lower courts to issue an injunction providing “complete relief” to specific challengers in a lawsuit, and allowing lower courts to grant “universal relief” to any individual across the country who may be impacted by the executive orders.  

At issue was not the content of the executive orders — or even the legal rights of plaintiffs to challenge the executive orders. Instead, the Supreme Court’s decision allows individual plaintiffs and class action groups to present their cases in court, but it denies a network of federal judges the authority to issue sweeping nationwide preliminary injunctions to block President Trump’s executive orders nationwide.   

And that is exactly what was happening across the country up until last week as individual judges in liberal cities began issuing universal preliminary injunctions, blocking President Trump’s executive orders on issues such as deporting illegal aliens, halting foreign aid to other nations until that aid could be vetted for fraud and abuse, and halting racial discrimination in university settings.  

The Supreme Court’s decision is a decisive victory for the Trump Administration, because it renders obsolete a network of universal injunctions that were setting up roadblocks against key elements of President Trump’s agenda, elements that the American people elected him to fulfill. 

While liberals are melting down over the Supreme Court’s decision to limit universal injunctions — with some saying the court has affirmed an “imperial presidency” and other such rhetoric —  the thorny issue of lower courts issuing universal injunctions to halt elements of a president’s agenda has been under the microscope for years. It is just that under President Trump, the number of courts issuing universal injunctions to block him skyrocketed, hastening the need for the court to rule on these injunctions.     

As two University of Michigan law professors recently recounted in an analysis of the Supreme Court’s decision, the use of universal injunctions by lower courts rose substantially under President Donald Trump compared to past presidents. 

Kristin Collins, the James E. and Sarah A. Degan Professor of Law at the University of Michigan and Sam Erman, a professor of law and co-director of the Program in Race, Law, and History at the University of Michigan, noted that universal injunctions have drawn criticism in the legal community for years: “critics have asserted that universal injunctions exceed the federal courts’ equity powers, that they short circuit the process of percolation of legal issues in different federal courts, and that they incentivize plaintiffs to forum shop for the district court most likely to be amenable to their case.”

As to whether the Supreme Court capitalized on this moment for political reasons, the two law professors say that the timing of the court’s decision is “unsurprising”, but more due to the flurry of universal injunctions issued by lower courts in the first few months of President Trump’s second term.  

“The timing of this case is also unsurprising”, the two wrote. “Federal courts have issued universal injunctions staying enforcement of policies and orders promulgated by presidents of both parties. However, there have been more universal injunctions issued during President Trump’s first and second terms than during Presidents Bush’s, Obama’s, and Biden’s terms combined. Thus, the Trump administration had a significant incentive to challenge their legality.” 

The two professors did speculate that they strongly expect the Supreme Court to rule directly on birthright citizenship “in the fall” of this year and likely issue a decision in the spring of 2026.    

Because the Supreme Court did not rule specifically on the constitutionality of each aspect of Trump’s executive orders, there is still room for the court to be forced into making a decision on each issue — birthright citizenship, deportation, federal spending and so on. That said, the court’s ruling is a decisive victory for the Trump Administration and the American people, as it removes a back-channel by which unelected judges were attempting to circumvent key elements of the president’s agenda which the American people elected him to fulfill. 

Manzanita Miller is the senior political analyst at Americans for Limited Government Foundation. 

To view online: https://dailytorch.com/2025/07/supreme-court-curtails-sweeping-universal-injunctions-set-in-place-to-block-president-trump-in-historic-case/ 

---

 

ALG Praises Senate Passage Of One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Urges House Passage

July 1, 2025, Fairfax, Va.—Americans for Limited Government Executive Director Robert Romano today issued the following statement praising Senate passage of the One Big Beautiful Act and urging speedy House passage:

"The Senate has done its job and passed President Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act pursuant to Senate reconciliation rules. Most of the House's provisions have survived, including the President's promised no income taxes on tips and overtime, tax cuts for seniors collecting Social Security, making the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent, 100 percent expensing for factories to produce products in America, finishing the border wall and boosting immigration enforcement. 

"In the meantime, the Senate has taken one, big, beautiful step towards boosting the economy, securing the border and putting America first on trade and immigration. This keeps the promises President Trump repeatedly made to the 77 million Americans who put Trump back in the White House and swept Republicans to House and Senate majorities. Now it is up to the House to finish the job and get the legislation to President Trump's desk. Make a promise, keep a promise.”

Correction: The provision removing 1.4 million illegal aliens from the Medicaid rolls was put back in the bill. 

To view online: https://getliberty.org/2025/07/alg-praises-senate-passage-of-one-big-beautiful-bill-act-urges-house-passage/