The $83.3 million defamation verdict against President Donald J. Trump in favor of E. Jean Carroll has been placed on a temporary stay blocking enforcement by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. The May 11, 2026 order gives Trump time to seek Supreme Court review.

This stay follows the court’s decision to uphold the verdict and its denial of Trump’s request for an en banc rehearing. Carroll’s legal team consented to the pause on the condition that Trump post an additional $7.46 million bond to cover accruing interest through October 2027. The $83.3 million award remains on hold as the case proceeds toward the Supreme Court.

Trump’s team asserts there is a strong prospect that the Supreme Court will grant review and reverse on these grounds. His legal team is pursuing presidential immunity and the Westfall Act, arguing that his 2019 denials were official acts made during his first term as president. If the Supreme Court accepts either argument, the defamation claims could be dismissed entirely due to the federal government’s sovereign immunity.

This case combines two relatively uncommon elements: New York’s 2022 Adult Survivors Act, which created a one-year window to revive time-barred adult sexual assault claims, and the application of presidential immunity doctrines and the Westfall Act to statements made by Trump while in office.

Trump’s legal team contends that his 2019 denials, made while he was president, were official acts shielded by absolute presidential immunity under the Supreme Court’s 2024 Trump v. United States decision and the older Nixon v. Fitzgerald (1982) precedent. They are also seeking to invoke the Westfall Act to replace Trump with the U.S. government as defendant. 

This case involves statements President Trump made in 2019 while in office, including responses to reporters at the White House and in the Oval Office.

Carroll’s team has argued these statements carried the full authority and reach of the presidential “bully pulpit,” causing far greater reputational and emotional harm than the same words from an ordinary citizen. Trump has countered that the allegations are false, and that issuing the denial from official channels and presidential grounds only reinforces its truth and authority.

This case stems from E. Jean Carroll’s 2019 public accusation that Donald Trump sexually assaulted her in a Bergdorf Goodman dressing room in the mid-1990s. Trump has strongly denied the allegation, calling Carroll a liar who invented the story for publicity and financial gain. Carroll filed suit under New York’s 2022 Adult Survivors Act, which temporarily lifted the statute of limitations for adult sexual assault claims.

A 2023 jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse (not rape) and defamation, awarding $5 million. A 2024 trial over additional statements resulted in the $83.3 million verdict. Throughout the litigation, Trump has maintained his innocence and called the lawsuits politically motivated “witch hunts.” Carroll, a longtime advice columnist, has framed her case as a stand for accountability and support for sexual assault survivors, pledging any awarded funds to help victims.

The trials included testimony from Carroll’s friends who corroborated her account soon after the alleged incident, a decades-old photo of the two, the Access Hollywood tape, and testimony from other women who accused Trump of similar misconduct, evidence Trump’s team argued unfairly prejudiced the jury.

As the Supreme Court weighs whether to grant review, this case sits at the key intersection of executive power and the boundaries of civil liability for presidents. A ruling favoring Trump on constitutional immunity grounds or under the Westfall Act would meaningfully broaden protections for future presidents when they communicate in their official capacity. Such a decision would reinforce the safeguards designed to let the executive branch operate without constant fear of personal litigation.

The decadent arrogance of Washington’s permanent ruling class is perhaps nowhere more visible than in the spectacle of former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James Comey sitting comfortably in a television studio while under federal indictment, casually admitting on national television that he remains in regular contact with active FBI personnel. The same James Comey who oversaw one of the most politically contaminated periods in the history of American law enforcement now wishes the public to believe that the Federal Bureau of Investigation is somehow “under siege” because agents and bureaucrats are finally being subjected to oversight, accountability, and constitutional restraint. The sheer audacity of such a statement would be laughable were it not so dangerous. This is the same institutional Goliath that unleashed armed dawn raids on political targets, weaponized intelligence operations against American citizens, and participated in one of the most monstrous abuses of federal power in modern history. I know this personally. Twenty nine heavily armed FBI agents descended upon my home before sunrise as though they were raiding a narcotics cartel compound in Medellín, while James Comey, protected by the velvet gloves of the establishment he served, was afforded the dignity of surrender and media interviews. That contrast tells the American people everything they need to know about the double standards that have metastasized inside the upper echelons of federal law enforcement.

During his May 14, 2026 appearance on CNN with Kasie Hunt Comey openly acknowledged that he still communicates regularly with FBI employees. When Hunt asked him directly whether he remained in contact with bureau personnel, Comey responded, “I do… They’re under siege.” Those words were not accidental. They were carefully chosen. They reveal an entrenched mentality among certain former and current officials who view any attempt to reform the FBI as an existential attack on their power. No other former head of any major federal law enforcement agency is making statements remotely similar to this. One does not hear former Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) administrators lamenting accountability reforms. One does not hear former U.S. Marshals Service (USMS) directors declaring their agencies “under siege” because elected officials demand constitutional compliance. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms (ATF) former directors aren’t utilizing this melodramatic language. No. This is unique to the FBI establishment because the FBI establishment became accustomed to operating as an untouchable fourth branch of government.

The timing of Comey’s remarks is extraordinary because he currently faces federal indictment stemming from his now infamous “86 47” Instagram post involving seashells arranged in a coded political message directed at President Donald Trump, the forty seventh President of the United States. Prosecutors allege that the post constituted a threat under federal statutes criminalizing threats against the President and interstate transmission of threatening communications. Comey’s defenders have attempted to dismiss the matter as harmless symbolism or artistic ambiguity, but threats against the President are not trivial matters and never have been. Federal law exists for a reason. The statutes in question are designed to protect the Commander in Chief from threats involving assassination, bodily harm, or kidnapping. The law does not merely concern explicit declarations typed in plain language. Courts have long recognized that context, symbolism, coded communication, and intent all matter enormously in evaluating whether speech crosses the threshold from protected political expression into unlawful threat territory.

The seriousness of threatening a President cannot be overstated. The office carries with it not merely symbolic authority but command over the world’s most powerful military and intelligence apparatus. Any statement interpreted as encouraging violence against the President reverberates far beyond ordinary political discourse. Under federal law, prosecutors must prove that the statement constituted a true threat rather than protected hyperbole or satire. They must establish that the communication was knowingly and willfully made and that a reasonable person familiar with the context would interpret it as a serious expression of intent to inflict harm. Courts have repeatedly wrestled with the balance between free speech protections and genuine security threats. Context becomes decisive. Social media has further complicated this legal terrain because coded phrases, viral symbolism, and politically charged innuendo can spread instantaneously to millions of people, often detached from their original context. The Comey case therefore carries implications extending far beyond one man. It touches on how modern America interprets political speech, online symbolism, and the limits of constitutional protections in an era poisoned by polarization and violence.

Yet the most astonishing aspect of Comey’s interview was not his legal predicament. It was his casual acknowledgment that he remains embedded in ongoing communication with current FBI employees while simultaneously portraying himself as a victimized resistance figure. That raises extremely profound ethical, security, and governance concerns. The FBI is not a fraternal lodge or social club. It is a broken and corrupt domestic law enforcement and counterintelligence agency of the United States government which Director Patel is working hard to get back on track; back to fighting crime, not inventing politically motivated investigations improperly such as Crossfire Hurricane in which two time convicted felon Charles McGonigal, who I’ve written about extensively, played a very intimate role in opening. 

Former directors possess intimate knowledge of classified operations, investigative methodologies, confidential sources, and institutional vulnerabilities. When an indicted former director openly boasts of continued conversations with active personnel, Americans are entitled to ask whether those contacts involve operational information, internal dissent, or coordinated opposition to current leadership. The optics alone are catastrophic.

Conservative critics immediately interpreted Comey’s remarks as evidence of a lingering internal network loyal not to the Constitution or the elected leadership of the nation, but to a permanent bureaucratic ideology. Whether or not criminal conduct exists, the appearance of impropriety is undeniable. Federal defendants are ordinarily counseled to avoid unnecessary contact with personnel connected to agencies potentially involved in their investigations. Yet Comey appears perfectly comfortable projecting the image of a former ruler checking in on loyal retainers inside the palace walls. This is precisely why millions of Americans lost trust in the FBI after the Crossfire Hurricane debacle, the Steele dossier fiasco, the manipulation of FISA surveillance authorities, and the extraordinary politicization of intelligence operations during the Obama years.

Comey’s defenders insist that these conversations are innocent exchanges among former colleagues and that his indictment itself represents political retaliation. They claim the reforms under current FBI Director Kash Patel have created fear and uncertainty within the bureau. But that argument collapses under scrutiny because the reforms Patel is implementing are fundamentally about restoring the FBI to its original mission. Patel’s agenda centers on violent crime reduction, homeland security, organizational accountability, and rebuilding public trust. None of those objectives should terrify honest agents. Only entrenched bureaucrats accustomed to ideological favoritism and institutional impunity would interpret accountability as persecution.

Since assuming leadership in February 2025, Kash Patel has embarked upon one of the most aggressive reform efforts in modern FBI history. Thousands of personnel have been reassigned away from the bloated Washington headquarters apparatus and redirected into field operations focused on gangs, fentanyl trafficking, border crime, child exploitation, and violent offenders. Massive bureaucratic expenditures have been slashed. Intelligence analysts have been moved closer to operational investigations. Technological modernization has accelerated, including expanded use of artificial intelligence for threat assessment and criminal investigations. Patel has also overhauled command and coordination infrastructure to create faster operational response capability during national security incidents.

Predictably, the entrenched media establishment and the same political class that defended the abuses of the Russia collusion hoax now describe these reforms as a “purge.” That word is itself revealing because it assumes that federal employees are entitled to permanent insulation from accountability regardless of misconduct or politicization. Patel’s supporters view these changes as a long overdue correction after years in which the bureau increasingly resembled a praetorian political instrument rather than a neutral law enforcement agency. Americans watched as federal power was selectively deployed against political dissidents, traditional Catholics, parents at school board meetings, Trump associates, and conservatives while politically favored actors received kid glove treatment.

The contrast between how the federal government treated Trump allies and how establishment figures were treated remains one of the great scandals of our age. General Michael Flynn was financially and psychologically destroyed through prosecutorial ambushes and manipulated investigative tactics. Countless Americans saw their lives shattered by politically motivated investigations designed less to secure justice than to create public humiliation and intimidation. I experienced it firsthand when heavily armed federal agents stormed my home in darkness for a nonviolent process crime while television cameras conveniently arrived in advance to capture the spectacle. That was not law enforcement. That was political theater orchestrated to maximize fear and public degradation.

Meanwhile, James Comey cultivated the image of a sanctimonious guardian of democratic virtue while presiding over institutional corruption on a staggering scale. His defenders continue to portray him as a martyr because the mythology of the so called noble bureaucrat remains central to the Washington establishment’s self image. But the American people are no longer fooled by this performance. They watched the FBI involve itself in partisan political battles, manipulate intelligence narratives, and shield favored elites from scrutiny while unleashing overwhelming force against ideological opponents.

Comey’s claim that the FBI is “under siege” therefore deserves to be understood for what it truly is. The Bureau is not under siege because agents are being asked to investigate cartels, violent criminals, and traffickers rather than monitor political dissent. The Bureau is not under siege because Congress demands transparency after years of misconduct. The Bureau is not under siege because Americans insist that federal power be constrained by constitutional limits. The Bureau is finally being reminded that it exists to serve the law rather than rule above it.

The deeper panic among Comey and his ideological allies stems from the collapse of institutional invulnerability. For decades, powerful federal officials operated with the assumption that accountability applied only to ordinary citizens. Now, for the first time in generations, the architects of politicized investigations are themselves facing scrutiny. That reversal terrifies the old guard because it threatens the very culture of immunity upon which the modern administrative state was constructed.

The American people should not mistake whining for martyrdom. What James Comey calls a siege is merely the sound of constitutional government reasserting itself after years of bureaucratic decadence. The citadel of unchecked federal power is finally being forced to answer to the Constitution, the rule of law, and the citizens it was always meant to serve.

According to explosive testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee, the CIA is being accused of taking back 40 boxes of JFK and MKUltra files from the office of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard—documents reportedly being prepared for declassification and public release.

A CIA whistleblower, James Erdmann III, has claimed the agency not only seized the files, but also monitored the computers and phones of Gabbard’s investigators as they examined an alleged cover-up surrounding the origins of COVID-19. Let’s be abundantly clear: Tulsi Gabbard has been doing exactly what the American people deserve—pushing sunlight, accountability, and truth in a government too often addicted to secrecy. All those who are attacking Gabbard should be looked on with suspicion as deep state shills. She has been incredibly brave and effective in her role at DNI, and all those who are trying to subvert her—such as the reality-detached ghoul Laura Loomer—should be ashamed of themselves.

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou told Fox News the agency has no authority to overrule either the president or the Director of National Intelligence. He said the files are mandated for declassification and that Americans have a right to know what is inside. Representative Anna Paulina Luna says the CIA has 24 hours to return the records or face a subpoena.

She called the seizure deeply troubling, especially because President Trump had ordered full declassification of JFK records. The CIA denies bad faith and calls the hearing political theater—because that is what CIA spooks always do: they lie and deny. But after decades of secrecy, destroyed records, and discredited denials around MKUltra, the JFK assassination and virtually everything else under the sun, Americans deserve the right to know. They can no longer be allowed to hide under the cloak of national security. It is time for the CIA to face the public scrutiny it has been skirting since its inception.