Major Healthcare Win: Hospitals Will be Forced to Disclose Pricing by 2021

Back in November, the Trump administration introduced new regulations aimed at curbing the seemingly uncontrollable rise in healthcare costs nationwide. In a departure from the political norm, this new piece of regulation targets procedure cost disclosure and increasing competition among healthcare providers.

According to Health Affairs, this new rule “introduces into federal price transparency requirements the concepts of service standardization, consumer-friendly organization and terminology, and bundling.” The medical field remains the only industry which does not have widely available pricing for the services consumers use, and because of that Americans are unable to shop around for healthcare.

Health Affairs adds, “the new rule supplements an existing requirement, from a rule published last year, which forced hospitals to post online all of their charge master rates starting in January of this year.”

The current rule does little to help consumers as most codes, pricing, bundles, and terminology is indecipherable to most Americans, and will often vary from clinic to clinic. Inconsistency in what each package and service listing means and includes makes shopping impossible. Hospitals are also known for not being upfront with which additional services will be charged for prior to, for example, a simple operation. Blood tests, antibiotics, anesthesia, etc. might be listed as separate line items and no included in the quoted price.

The new rule combats this by requiring healthcare providers to be more specific and provide real prices paid for all inclusive packages.

“Hospitals would be required to post their privately negotiated rates for a list of 300 shoppable services.” 70 of which were predetermined in the regulation while the remaining 230 are to be chosen at the facilities discretion. There will now be a standardization of some of the most common procedures so consumers can shop around for the medical services they need.

Not surprisingly, special interest is not on board with the new rules. Hospitals in California, Nebraska and Missouri joined forces to sue the department of Health and Human Services.

According to Healthcare Dive, “revealing negotiated rates will confuse patients, overwhelm hospitals and thwart competition and said it does nothing to help people understand their actual out-of-pocket costs and what they will owe a provider.”

However, a study by the National Center for Policy Research came to the opposite conclusion. Between 1992 and 2012 – a twenty year period – medical care costs increased in price by 118% while the overall consumer price basket increased by 64%. While this seems like common sense for anyone over 18 in the 90’s, the price increase for elective procedures – ones not covered by insurance or medicare and susceptible to market forces – only increased by 30%.

When looking to get liposuction or laser eye surgery, patients are forced to look around for the best service at the most competitive price. Because people are fully aware of the costs, they’re able to make more informed decisions about how they spend their money.

“Hospitals should be ashamed that they aren’t willing to provide American patients the cost of a service before they purchase it,” HHS spokeswoman Caitlin Oakley said.

The hospitals argue HHS is infringing on their 1st Amendment rights by compelling them to publish confidential information about their business.

A ruling has yet to be made on this case, but if the healthcare industry fails to stop the regulation, it will go into effect January 1st, 2021.

Bloomberg News is Barred From Investigating Bloomberg and Other Democrats

With multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg officially throwing his hat into the ring for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, many have raised concerns over how his global news outlet, Bloomberg News, will handle the coverage of their boss and founder.

In a revealing announcement which sheds some light on the overall treatment of candidates from each part, Bloomberg News released a statement blunting telling the world of their future – and possibly prior – political bias for the upcoming election.

“So Mike is running,” Bloomberg Editor-in-Chief John Mickletwait writes in a memo to staffers. While he acknowledges the difficulty which will come from the owner of a massive news organization running for president, a feat that has never been done before, Micklethwait attempts to outline a few changes which he feels will maintain Bloomberg’s editorial integrity.

First, they will be dissolving Bloomberg Opinion, as this is the section of the organization with the most direct ties and contact to the billionaire candidate. They will also no longer take op-eds from Bloomberg insiders, and no op-eds from anyone on the topic of the election.

They are also suspending the editorial board, meaning “there will be no unsigned editorials.” It goes to show that as they feel forced to cut these two branches from their supposedly independent news outlet when their boss becomes a presidential hopeful, the possibility of editorials being pure political activism rather than objective journalism from both Bloomberg News and other organizations seems all but certain.

“On News, we will write about virtually all aspects of this presidential contest,” Micklethwait writes, emphasizing they will cover policies, debates, interviews, and polls, but they will “continue [their] tradition of not investigating Mike… and we will extend the same policy to his rivals.”

There will be no attempt to investigate the background, possible scandals, or past performance deficits of either Bloomberg or any of the dozen democrats competing for the nomination. Surely they’d carry the same policy for President Trump, as he’s technically running for the Republican nomination.

Wrong! They will not place any restriction on investigating the Trump administration, though he adds if both Bloomberg and Trump emerge as the nominees for their respective party’s, they will “reassess” this rule.

Guild at Bloomberg Industry Group, the company’s union was less than thrilled about this gag order, according to a statement released.

“We are extremely alarmed by management’s decision to silence the journalists we represent at Bloomberg Industry Group, as well as the unrepresented journalists at Bloomberg News,” the union wrote, adding, “we call on Bloomberg corporate management to rescind its policy and allow journalists throughout the Bloomberg family to do their jobs.”

The union, as well as many commentators, are calling on Mickelthwait to lift the ban on investigating Bloomberg and other Democratic candidates

‘Good Guy with a Gun’ Stops Oklahoma Walmart Shooting

Another hero emerges from a local tragedy, preventing even greater bloodshed. In the midst of public shooting at a Walmart located in Duncan, Oklahoma, an armed citizen subdues the attacker before he’s able to take claim lives.

Three months after a mass shooting inside an El Paso Walmart which left 22 people dead, and days after its reopening, another public attack took place at the superstore chain – this time in the parking lot of one located in the small town of Duncan, Oklahoma.

The attack began at around 9:45 am, according to one witness, where a man, whose identity will not be revealed by this new organization, opened fire on a man and woman, according to a police statement.

“One female and one male were deceased in (a) car and one male outside of the car. A handgun was found on scene,” the statement included.

According to Aaron Helton, local resident and Army veteran, nine shots were fired by the attacker before a bystander approached the madman, put their gun up to to the assailants head, and commanded they cease fire. It was at that point the gunman turned his handgun to himself, committing suicide on the spot.

Both victims and the gunman were pronounced dead at the scene.

Tera Mathis, spokeswoman for the Duncan Police Department, said names, ages and other personal details regarding the victims were not available.

The police department, the Oklahoma Highway Patrol and the Stephens County Sheriff’s Office participated in the investigation, Mathis said. She declined to comment on reports that the shooting was an act of domestic violence.

USA Today

Motives have not been determined, and identities of the victims are not available, but there’s reason to believe the attacker may have known the two victims. Though according to the Daily Mail, the attacker “shot and killed his estranged wife and her new boyfriend.”

Elizabeth Warren’s $52 Trillion Medicare for All Would Require Tax Hikes for the Middle Class

On Friday, Massachusetts Democratic Senator and Presidental candidate Elizabeth Warren released her plan for a massive Medicare for All system. Warren, who’s running on a message that she’s got a policy proposal for everything, claims her $52 trillion over the next 10-years proposal will not require tax hikes on the middle class.

Medicare and Medicaid already cost the American taxpayers over $1.3 trillion a year and comprise over 1/3 of the $4.4 trillion federal budget.

According to the National Review, “the proposal would be funded by roughly $20 trillion in taxes on employers, financial transactions, and super-wealthy corporations over the next decade. Existing federal and state spending would account for the remaining $30 trillion in costs.” With an already massive trillion-dollar deficit in federal spending, the question remains on whether Warren plans on addressing this revenue shortfall in her tax plan. The $20 trillion in new taxes, or roughly $2 trillion per year, would be on top of current spending.

On the subject of who will pay these new taxes, Warren wrote, “we don’t need to raise taxes on the middle class by one penny to finance Medicare for All.” She adds, “when fully implemented, my approach to Medicare for All would mark one of the greatest federal expansions of middle-class wealth in our history. And if Medicare for All can be financed without any new taxes on the middle class, and instead by asking giant corporations, the wealthy, and the well-connected to pay their fair share, that’s exactly what we should do.”

Warren received backlash from democrats and republicans alike when she refused to answer during debates whether he plan would include new taxes on the middle class. Instead of opting for a direct answer, Warren would comment on overall costs going down.

A health care expert at Emory University told the Washington Post, “there’s no question” a Medicare-for-all plan “hits the middle class” in some way.

Aside from the cost issues, Warren did appear to acknowledge this week that Medicare-for-all could result in substantial job losses, calling it “part of the cost issue” when confronted with an estimate that nearly 2 million jobs could be shed.

Fox News

However, despite Warren’s claims of no new taxes on the middle class, a new study by a nonpartisan budgetary watchdog group, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, says that plan is impossible. The group ran several scenarios with different means of paying the hefty bill by solely taxing the rich to no prevail.

The plans tested were:

  • A 32 percent payroll tax – This doubles the current payroll tax, and be split between both employers and employees of all income brackets. The $132,000 income cap for payroll tax would be eliminated. “A 32 percent payroll tax would raise the total payroll tax rate on most wage income to above 47 percent.”
  • A 25 percent income surtax – This plan adds a 25% tax to all income before deductions are applied. ” This surtax would effectively increase the bottom income tax rate from 10 to 35 percent, the top income tax rate from 37 to 62 percent, and the top capital gains and dividends rate from 24 to 49 percent.”
  • A 42 percent value-added tax (VAT)
  • A mandatory public premium averaging $7,500 per capita – the equivalent of $12,000 per individual not otherwise on public insurance
  • More than doubling all individual and corporate income tax rates – The top bracket for income tax would climb to 76%, corporate income tax would rise to 42%, and the capital gains tax would rise to 47.6%
  • An 80 percent reduction in non-health federal spending
  • A 108 percent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) increase in the national debt – If Medicare for All spending were not paid with new taxes, the national debt would be twice that of the GDP.
  • Impossibly high taxes on high earners, corporations, and the financial sector – “There is not enough annual income available among higher earners to finance the full cost of Medicare for All.” A 100% tax on all income over $204,000 would not be enough to fund the entirety of the program.
  • A combination of approaches

“Each of these choices would have consequences for the distribution of income, growth in the economy, and ability to raise new revenue,” the study concluded. Though the consequences could be reduced “by substantially scaling back the generosity or comprehensiveness of Medicare for All.”

Most of the options we present would shrink the economy compared to the current system. The 32 percent payroll tax hike, for example, would increase the effective marginal tax rate on labor by about 23 percent after accounting for various interactions. Penn Wharton Budget Model recently estimated that an 11.25 percent payroll tax increase used to pay for a Universal Basic Income (UBI) would reduce GDP by 1.7 percent. This suggests that financing Medicare for All with a payroll tax would shrink the size of the economy by about 3.5 percent by 2030 – though the actual effect may differ. This economic impact would be the equivalent of a $3,200 reduction in per-person income and would result in a 6.5 percent reduction in hours worked – a 9 million person reduction in full-time equivalent (FTE) workers in 2030.

Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Though every person may be covered, the real cost to GDP would be astronomical. If the spending were paid for via the payroll tax, GDP would take a 3.5% hit over the next 10-years, or nearly 2-years worth of stagnation based on current trends. financing it through debt would be even worse, causing a 5% loss in real GDP. Hours across the board would decrease by 6.5% under the direct payroll tax to add insult to injury.

Protesters Wore “Stand with Hong Kong” Shirts to NBA Game

As tensions between the NBA, the Chinese government, and Hong Kong supporters intensifies during the leagues preseason, protesters decided to hold the commission’s feet to the flames by highlighting their censorship of players and coaches commenting on the Communist nation’s human rights violations.

Following the Brooklyn Net’s return to the Barkley Center from their preseason games in China, over 100 peaceful protesters gathered along the court side, filling almost 8-rows of seats, dawning shirts that read Stand with Hong Kong. Nine fans also wore shirts with Free Tibet written on them.

People raise signs referencing Tibet and Hong Kong during the fourth quarter of a preseason NBA basketball game between the Toronto Raptors and the Brooklyn Nets, Friday, Oct. 18, 2019, in New York. 

Protests targeted towards the NBA came after Huston Rockets general manager Daryl Morey shared an image via Twitter which state he supported the Hong Kong protesters who have been fighting recently implemented extradition laws, and trying to implement democracy in the once Western colony turned territory of China.

After the NBA came out against Morey and his Tweet, Lakers player Lebron James told reporters the general manager was out of line for criticizing China, saying “I believe [Morey] wasn’t educated on the situation at hand and he spoke.”

Brooklyn Nets owner, Alibaba co-founder, and Hong Kong native Joe Tsai released a statement condemning Morey as well in a Facebook post stating:

What is the problem with people freely expressing their opinion? This freedom is an inherent American value and the NBA has been very progressive in allowing players and other constituents a platform to speak out on issues.

The problem is, there are certain topics that are third-rail issues in certain countries, societies and communities.

Supporting a separatist movement in a Chinese territory is one of those third-rail issues, not only for the Chinese government, but also for all citizens in China.

The one thing that is terribly misunderstood, and often ignored, by the western press and those critical of China is that 1.4 billion Chinese citizens stand united when it comes to the territorial integrity of China and the country’s sovereignty over her homeland. This issue is non-negotiable.

Joe Tsai on Daryl Morey’s support of Hong Kong protesters.

Regardless of how much pro-athletes tell people they’re uninformed on the issue, the 100 protesters who assembled in the Barkley’s Center last night, doing something that would’ve gotten them sent to a modern day concentration camp, Hong Kong natives who made up the majority of the protesters had another story.

People raise signs referencing Tibet and Hong Kong during the fourth quarter of a preseason NBA basketball game between the Toronto Raptors and the Brooklyn Nets, Friday, Oct. 18, 2019, in New York. (AP Photo/Sarah Stier)

Several protesters spoke with reporters at the New York Post, saying:

“We want to use our performance art to show our support for Hong Kong and the NBA,” one organizer, author Chen Pokong, 55, told The Post.

“They want to take away freedom of speech and now spread dictatorship to America,” he said of China.

“It seems like NBA people cannot choose their words. So if we don’t stop them, they not only will do bad things in China, they will do bad things in America.”

Another organizer, Andrew Duncan, took Lebron James to task criticizing Rockets GM Daryl Morey for tweeting his support for the Hong Kong protesters.

“Lebron needs to take time on this issue,” Duncan said. “Why is he not supporting Democracy? I think the King has made a royal mistake.”

The human rights violations by mainland China is no secret to the Western world. However the likely reason why NBA stars like Lebron James refuses to come out against the atrocities despite supporting Colin Kaepernick’s kneeling protests is due to the massive amounts of money China shells out to the NBA; over half a billion by some estimates.

Trump to Release Transcript of Call With Ukrainian President Amid Impeachment Proceedings

After a ‘whistle blower’ submitted a request to report what they saw as gross misconduct from President Trump with a world leader to Congress, the biggest scandal of Trump’s presidency could sputter out before it even began.

The ‘whistle blower,’ who did not have first hand knowledge of the conversation, had alleged President Trump made an inappropriate deal with a world leader that they felt was worthy of immediate review by Congress. After more leaking and an explanation by the White House, we learned the president had asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden’s involvement in the firing of a prosecutor who was investigating his son, Hunter Biden.

President Trump had blocked hundreds of million dollars in foreign aid to Ukraine in the weeks prior to the allegedly inappropriate call. The claim remains that Trump had blocked the aid in order to coerce Zelensky into investigating a 2016 incident in which Biden had threatened to halt over $1 billion in US loan guarantees to protect his son from potential legal trouble. Oddly enough, Trump wanted to investigate exactly what he’s being accused of.

Democrats are attempting to make the case that President Trump acted corruptly by using federal funds to force a foreign nation into doing opposition research against his biggest political opponent for his campaign.

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced the start of formal impeachment proceedings earlier today in response to Trump’s handling of Ukraine.

President Trump admits asking, through his attorney Rudy Guilliani, Zelensky to investigate the nature of a Ukrainian Prosecutor’s firing. Biden had, according to the Trump campaign, used the billion dollars in loan guarantees to protect his son.

Trump told the press that he withheld military funding because European nations needed to pay their fair share, which is backed by his overall stance on NATO spending laid out over the last several years.

The only problem is no one calling for impeachment has actually seen the transcript. President Trump has announced on Twitter that he has “authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelensky of Ukraine,” adding that “you will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call.”

He added in a later Tweet that ” Secretary of State Pompeo received permission from Ukraine Government to release the transcript of the telephone call I had with their President.”

Trump asserts the release of the transcript will reveal “no quid pro quo,” the main case being made against him. Whether or not the cries for impeachment are valid, we will know tomorrow.

According to Politico, along with the call transcript, “the White House is preparing to release to Congress by the end of the week both the whistle blower complaint and the Inspector General report that are at the center of House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, according to a senior administration official, reversing its position after withholding the documents from lawmakers.”

New NY Law Requires Schools to Hold ‘Moment of Silence’ for 9/11

Earlier this week, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a bill into law which would require public schools to host a moment of silence in the classroom on the anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attack which resulted in nearly 3,000 civilian and first responder deaths across four separate strikes.

According to the NY Governor site, the bill established “September 11th Remembrance Day” which “allows for a brief moment of silence in public schools across the state at the beginning of the school day every September 11th to encourage dialogue and education in the classroom.”

In a statement released by Governor Cuomo, “9/11 was one of the single darkest periods in this state’s and this nation’s history, and we owe it to those we lost and to the countless heroes who ran toward danger that day and the days that followed to do everything we can to keep their memory alive. By establishing this annual day of remembrance and a brief moment of silence in public schools, we will help ensure we never forget — not just the pain of that moment but of the courage, sacrifice and outpouring of love that defined our response.”

In a time of political and social divide, the spirits of the lives lost that tragic day and in the years following due to the various cancers caused by the rubble can at least rest easy knowing this horrific event brings people together in solidarity.

On the 18th anniversary of the largest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor, it became apparent there are now adults who were not alive during the event. many millennial’s for that matter were too young to even know what was going on, let alone remember the day. Never Forget is losing it’s meaning, many fear.

New York Assembly Member Stacey Pheffer Amato said in a statement, “soon enough there will be no students in the national public school system born at the time of 9/11. By mandating a brief moment of silent reflection every year, we may ensure that future generations will better understand this day and its significance in our history.”

AG William Barr Announces Investigation into Jeffery Epstein’s ‘Suicide’

The day after over 2,000 pages worth of court documents were released tying notorious pedophile and child sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein to several high ranking former government officials and business elites, Epstein was found unresponsive in his cell, and later pronounced dead at the hospital of an apparent suicide, officials said.

Virginia Roberts Giuffre, one of the many victims of Epstein’s pedophile ring, accused him in a 2016 deposition of forcing her to have sexual relations with “modeling agent Jean Luc Brunel, money manager Glenn Dubin and the late MIT professor Marvin Minsky — as well as a ‘foreign president’ and ‘a well-known prime minister,'” according to NBC. She would go on to add that these men were just a small fraction of the many men she was forced to satisfy.

The list also included Former Maine Senator George Mitchell, and Former New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson. Both men are denying the allegations.

The deposition was released mere hours before Epstein’s lifeless body was discovered in his cell at the Metropolitan Correctional Center.

His suicide should not have surprised anybody as Epstein had previously attempted suicide last month, but survived. According to officials, despite being a high risk of self-harm, Epstein was taken off suicide watch days before the second and successful suicide attempt by the pedophile monster.

“For them to pull him off suicide watch is shocking,” Cameron Lindsay, a former warden who worked at three federal facilities, told NBC News. “For someone this high-profile, with these allegations and this many victims, who has had a suicide attempt in the last few weeks, you can take absolutely no chances. You leave him on suicide watch until he’s out of there.”


It remains unknown as to the reasoning why Epstein, the most high profile individual within the Federal Prison system, was under such a low level of observation, especially when there was still so much to learn about the child sex ring he ran for decades across several countries.

Jeffery Epstein (Middle) was found Dead earlier today

The public was not the only ones outraged by what seems to be a clear act of negligence on the part of the prison staff. Attorney General William Barr released a statement in which he announced an investigation into Epstein’s death.

“I was appalled to learn that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead early this morning from an apparent suicide while in federal custody. Mr. Epstein’s death raises serious questions that must be answered. In addition to the FBI’s investigation, I have consulted with the Inspector General who is opening an investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Epstein’s death,” Barr wrote.

In a time of massive political division, it seems gross the mishandling of Epstein’s security may be the only nonpartisan issue of the years as everyone from Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez to Rep. Ben Sasse are demanding answers from the correctional system.

The only clear thing is that it appears many of the secrets held by Epstein may have died along with him.

STUDY: Green New Deal Would Cost the Average Household $70,000 in Year 1

The latest estimate for the total cost of the Green New Deal, a radically ambitious environmental proposal made by Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY14), seems to reaffirm the notion that this policy being costly is an under statement.

According to the Daily Wire, every estimate for the 10-year plan which would replace all gasoline cars with electric vehicles, replace all coal and non-renewal energy with green technology, provide a federal jobs guarantee, and establish Medicare for all, just to name a small portion of the project, has a price tag that ranges in the tens of trillions of dollars. “One study put the cost at $51 trillion, another at $93 trillion.”

This latest study by the Competitive Enterprise Institute breaks down an estimated cost by region. Each of the five states – Alaska, Florida, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Pennsylvania – were chosen because combined their environment and geography are representative of the US at-large. The study found that households in each of the five states “will be on the hook for more than $70,000 in increased costs for electricity, upgrading vehicles and housing, and shipping in just the first year under the Green New Deal.”

Chart by Power The Future

It is estimated that Florida households alone will foot half a trillion dollar bill in Year 1.

The average cost per household in each state, except Alaska, will be greater than $70,000 in the first year alone. Years 2-5 will cost households about $45,000 per year where as costs decrease to a modest $37,000 per year every year after year 6.

Alaska is substantively more expensive due to its remote location and harsh climate.

In a nation of 126 million households, Year 1 will cost the country $8,820,000,000,000. Years 2-5 will cost a combined $22,680,000,000,000. Years 6-10, as the GND is a 10-year plan, will cost a combined $18,648,000,000,000. All together, we are looking at a total cost to households of $50,148,000,000,000.

The $50 trillion price tag only measures the added costs to households, not other businesses, overall lost growth, or tax burdens.

“Economists and experts have been warning us for months about the devastating effects of the Green New Deal, and now we have the numbers to prove it,” said Daniel Turner, Executive Director of Power the Future. “This study only calculates a fraction of the cost of Alexandria-Ocasio Cortez’s radical plan, which amounts to a socialist free-for-all with no regard for the American taxpayer. No family should be forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars in the first year alone to fund AOC’s ideological wish list. Thankfully, Americans see through the Green New Deal and are beginning to fight back.”


You can read the full study here.

BREAKING: SCOTUS Allows Trump Administration to Build Border Wall using Pentagon Funds

At what seems to be the climax of a several year fight between President Donald Trump and Congressional Democrats, the Supreme Court just gave the administration a huge win. A few hours ago, the highest court overturned an injunction by an appeals court which blocked the President’s executive order to divert defense funds away from the Pentagon and towards the construction of the long awaited Border Wall.

The gridlock between Republicans, and Democrats over President Trump’s key campaign promise, a wall across the Southern border, started when Trump took office, but after many unsuccessful attempts to obtain funding from a Republican controlled Congress, things heated up in January of this year.

The battle resulted in the longest government shutdown in American history, which ended with a highly restrictive allocation of just $1.375 billion of the $5 billion requested. Trump would later declare a National Emergency and divert an additional $2.5 billion away from the Pentagon in order to stem the flow of illegal aliens crossing the border.

Not surprisingly, this was quickly slapped with an injunction by federal judges after law suits were filed, primarily by the ACLU and ‘Blue States.’

Injunctions are typically used to halt a government action, in this case, while the dispute has the opportunity to work its way through the courts. However, they’re now used as a way to indefinitely block policies people don’t like.

In a 5-4 decision – with Thomas, Alito, Roberts, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh voting to remove the injunction, and Ginsberg, Breyer, Kegan, and Sotomayor voting to preserve the injunction – the Supreme Court narrowly blocked the injunction while the case properly worked its way through the court system.

Though rulings of this nature typically result in the administration winning, like with the travel ban, the decision is not an absolute victory for Trump. It merely removes restrictions on the policy prior to it being heard by the Supreme Court.

Image result for border wall construction

President Trump, nonetheless, is calling this ruling a “big VICTORY on the wall,” and overall a “big win” on Twitter.

The Court said “because the government had made a ‘sufficient showing’ that the challengers did not have the legal right to bring the case,” they will remove said injunction, according to CNN.

Opponents of the wall funding, including the ACLU, were far less than angered with the decision:

“This is not over. We will be asking the federal appeals court to expedite the ongoing appeals proceeding to halt the irreversible and imminent damage from Trump’s border wall. Border communities, the environment, and our Constitution’s separation of powers will be permanently harmed should Trump get away with pillaging military funds for a xenophobic border wall Congress denied,” said Dror Ladin, a staff attorney with the ACLU’s National Security Project.


With this sudden and unexpected ruling by the Court, the Trump Administration will now be allowed to continue the construction of the Southern Border Wall until a final ruling is made.