Michelle Obama said in a new podcast episode today that therapy is helping her “work out” the eight years that she was in the White House as first lady.

Speaking on the podcast she co-hosts with her brother, “IMO with Michelle Obama and Craig Robinson,” the former first lady said she’s “at this stage in life where I have to define my life on my terms for the first time. So what are those terms? And going to therapy, just to work all that out.”

“Like, what happened that eight years that we were in the White House? What did that do to me internally, my soul. We made it through, we got out alive. I hope we made the country proud. My girls, thank God, are whole. But what happened to me?” she said. “And going through therapy is getting me to look at the fact that maybe, maybe finally I’m good enough.”

The remarks came during an interview with actor Taraji P. Henson that touched on the expectations placed on women and the challenges faced by Black women.

Show more

WASHINGTON – A provision in the House-passed package of President Donald Trump’s priorities would erect what one judge called a trillion-dollar barrier to challenging his policies in federal court.

At stake is whether judges can enforce their orders blocking Trump policies that are ruled unlawful, as they already have 180 times. The muscle behind court orders is that judges could find government officials in contempt if they disobey, threatening fines, sanctions or even jail.

But the obscure House provision, which even a Republican supporter of the legislation disavowed, would prevent judges from enforcing their orders unless litigants post a bond. The bond could match the amount at stake in the lawsuit, which in one case was trillions in federal grants.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

More: From gym memberships to gun silencers, Trump’s tax bill is full of surprises

Without the threat of contempt, legal experts say the Trump administration could ignore court orders with impunity.

“What this provision would do, is say that actually, no court of the United States could enforce an injunction or restraining order using their contempt authority,” Eric Kashdan, senior legal counsel for federal advocacy at the nonprofit Campaign Legal Center, told USA TODAY.

President Donald Trump speaks during a swearing in ceremony for interim U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Jeanine Pirro in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, DC, on May 28, 2025.

Judges, litigants and waiving bonds

The legislation deals with one of the rules governing federal civil lawsuits – known as 65(c). It calls for litigants to post a bond if they win a court order such as an injunction or a temporary restraining order to block something from happening, in case the defendant ultimately wins the case.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Judges have discretion about how much to set the bond. But the goal is to have the bond comparable to how much the defendant might lose while the case is litigated, such as a lost sale or blocked merger.

For decades judges have waived bonds in cases against the government because the lawsuits aren’t typically over money – they are about a disputed policy or the Constitution.

More: How Trump’s clash with the courts is brewing into an ‘all-out war’

In February, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan refused a request from Trump’s White House Office of Management Budget to require a bond from the National Council of Nonprofits when she blocked the government from freezing all federal grants.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

“The court declines,” Alikhan wrote.

She noted the government was “alleged to have unlawfully withheld trillions of dollars of previously committed funds to countless recipients.” But she said OMB would suffer no monetary injury from her injunction.

Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought talks to reporters outside the West Wing of the White House on May 22, 2025 in Washington, D.C. Vought talked about the “One, Big, Beautiful Bill” Act that was passed by the House of Representatives earlier in the day and how it will codify President Donald Trump’s tax cuts and spending goals.

Why is Trump pushing for this?

The legislative provision in the budget reconciliation bill prohibits federal courts from enforcing contempt citations unless a bond was posted when an injunction or temporary restraining order was issued.

It applies to court orders before, on, or after the legislation is enacted, meaning it would apply to all the orders already issued.

Judges would have to weigh proposals to determine what bonds should be required in each case, according to legal experts. With discretion, a judge could impose a nominal $1 bond but the process would still take time, experts said.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

“All temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and permanent injunctions where no bond had been posted no longer would be enforceable by contempt,” Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of law school at the University of California, Berkeley, told USA TODAY.

The legislative provision echoes a Trump memo signed March 11 that called for the Justice Department to request bonds in all lawsuits to protect against “potential costs and damages from a wrongly issued injunction.”

“Federal courts should hold litigants accountable for their misrepresentations and ill-granted injunctions,” the memo said.

Jennifer Vasquez Sura, the wife of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, speaks at a rally demanding the release of her husband, at Lafayette Park near the White House in Washington, D.C. on May 1, 2025. Garcia, a citizen of El Salvador who was legally residing in the United States on ‘withholding of removal status’, was illegally deported from the U.S. on March 15, 2025, despite never having been convicted of a crime, and is currently being held in the Center for Terrorism Confinement (CECOT), a maximum-security prison in El Salvador which has numerous human rights violations allegations against it.

Which Trump policies have been blocked in federal courts?

Trump signed 157 executive orders by May 23 – an unprecedented number four months into a presidential term – to put sweeping policies in place quickly, without waiting for legislation through Congress.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

The orders led to 250 lawsuits challenging Trump’s dismantling of federal agencies and firing federal workers, swiftly deporting immigrants, ending diversity initiatives and imposing tariffs. The rulings in deportation cases include:

U.S. District Judge James Boasberg in Washington, D.C., found probable cause April 16 the government acted with criminal contempt for his order blocking the deportation of Venezuelans who were accused of being gang members before they had a chance to fight the designation in court. The government appealed his ruling.

U.S. District Paula Xinis in Maryland has held repeated hearings asking for updates from the government on the deportation of a Salvadoran immigrant who was mistakenly deported despite an immigration court order preventing his removal. Government officials have argued they no longer have custody of the migrant to return him because he is in a Salvadoran prison.

U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Massachusetts ruled May 21 the government violated his order temporarily halting deportations to countries other than where migrants were from, after six migrants were flown to South Sudan. The government asked the Supreme Court on May 27 to lift Murphy’s block.

Trump and his allies have argued that judges are infringing on his authority to protect national security and negotiate foreign affairs with other countries.

More: Trade whiplash: Appeals Court allows Trump to keep tariffs while appeal plays out

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

“We hope that the Supreme Court will weigh in and rein them in,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said May 29 of “rogue judges.” Trump directed the administration to comply with court orders, Leavitt said, “but we’re going to fight them in court and we’re going to win on the merits of these cases because we know we are acting within the president’s legal and executive authority.”

But legal experts said requiring the deported immigrants to post a bond would likely prohibit them from having cases heard in federal courts. If courts are no longer able to enforce their orders under the legislation, experts said the government might just ignore the orders.

“If they can simply ignore the order, they don’t have to appeal it. They can simply not do it,” said Mark Foley, a 43-year lawyer in Milwaukee. “It’s a heads they win and tails I lose.”

President Donald Trump, left, greets Chief Justice of the United States John G. Roberts, Jr as he arrives to deliver an address to a joint session of Congress at the U.S. Capitol on March 4, 2025 in Washington, D.C.

Fight over injunctions ‘a huge separation of powers issue’: Legal experts

The dispute over enforcing court orders adds Congress’ legislative branch to the raging debate the separation of powers between Trump’s executive branch carrying out laws and judges interpreting some of his actions as unlawful.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Trump has blasted judges who ruled against him but said he will obey court orders and appeal the ones he doesn’t like. As Trump appeals, the Supreme Court faces an unprecedented 14 emergency requests from the administration to green-light his policies, including four that are still pending.

In the legislative debate, legal experts say Trump’s fellow Republicans leading Congress will decide whether to hinder courts at the president’s request from enforcing orders against the executive branch.

“This is Congress saying, ‘No, we don’t think you can enforce these orders’ and they’re doing that at the strong demands of the executive branch,” Kashdan said. “It’s a huge separation of powers issue for what underlies our democracy, and all the checks and balances we’re supposed to have.”

Rep. Mike Flood, R-Neb., arrives at a House Republican candidates forum where congressmen who are running for Speaker of the House will present their platforms in the Longworth House Office Building on Capitol Hill on October 23, 2023 in Washington, D.C.

‘I do not agree’: GOP lawmaker who supported legislation

The provision was obscure enough in the 1,100-page legislation that some who supported the bill were unaware of it.

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Rep. Mike Flood, R-Nebraska, told a raucous town hall May 27 that he was unaware of the provision and didn’t support it. He added that he would urge the Senate to drop it.

More: Who are the GOP senators balking at Trump’s tax bill?

“I do not agree with that section that was added to that bill,” Flood said. “I do believe that the federal district courts when issuing an injunction, it should have legal effect. This provision was unknown to me when I voted for the bill.”

Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, told a town hall May 30 in Parkersburg that the bond provision “will not be” in the Senate version of the bill because she expects the parliamentarian to rule that it doesn’t have a financial impact on the budget, which is required for this type of legislation.”I don’t see any argument that could ever be made that this affects mandatory spending or revenues,” Ernst said. “It will not be in the Senate bill.”

Advertisement Advertisement

Advertisement Advertisement

Senators will begin next week reviewing the legislation with a goal of sending any changes back to the House and to Trump before July 4.

This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: House bill could limit power of court orders against Trump policies

A “warrior” would probably know better than to share sensitive information about a U.S. military attack in multiple group chats or bring along his spouse to classified meetings with foreign military officials. People aren’t mad at the 44-year-old defense secretary because they haven’t served in the military; they’re mad because he’s causing utter chaos as the Pentagon’s lead and putting the country’s national security at risk while he’s at it.

But Van Orden is a staunch Trump loyalist, and he’ll clearly use whatever weird excuse he can come up with to defend the president’s wildly inexperienced defense secretary, even as other GOP members begin to to turn on him.

“The military should always pride itself on operational security. If the reports are true, the secretary of defense has failed at operational security, and that is unacceptable,” Republican Representative Don Bacon told Axios about Hegseth Monday. X users in Van Orden’s comments shared similar concerns.

CNN —

Pete Hegseth didn’t become defense secretary because he had the resume of a great statesman.

But President Donald Trump spent huge political capital getting Hegseth confirmed because the Pentagon chief mirrors Trump’s own riotous political identity and instincts. The point of his selection was to show the conventions and traits that normally define top national security officials don’t apply in the president’s tear-it-down second term.

This is why Hegseth seems safe for now despite stunning new revelations that he shared sensitive military plans in a group chat that included his wife and brother, among others, following an earlier scandal over his communicating details about strikes on Yemen in a chat with top officials.

It’s not entirely surprising that the former Fox News anchor isn’t acting like the kind of national security official who guards sensitive information with their life.

“It’s what you get when you don’t really care about qualifications for jobs like that, when you’re not picking people who are experienced, when your major qualification is personal fealty to Donald Trump,” Trump first-term national security adviser John Bolton said Monday on “CNN News Central.” “That’s what he’s got in Hegseth. That’s why he’s sticking with him. But it’s not what you need to do the job.”

Everyone in a Trump Cabinet operates on borrowed time. The phrase “serving at the pleasure of the president” feels particularly apt given the capricious nature of this commander in chief.

But firing Hegseth three months into a tenure that started with national security experts warning he was dangerously unprepared to lead the Pentagon would force an embarrassed Trump to admit he’d made a mistake.

And, critically, Hegseth has not yet committed the unpardonable transgression that led to the departure of two Trump first-term defense secretaries – trying to thwart the president. The first, retired Marine Gen. James Mattis, fought a long battle to rein in the president’s “America first” foreign policy instincts. The final straw came when Trump demanded the withdrawal of US troops from Syria. Another former defense secretary, Mark Esper, wrote his resignation letter months before a departure that was made inevitable when he publicly said he’d oppose the use of troops to quell domestic political protests.

Fresh drama around Hegseth is another reminder that 47th president’s orbit doesn’t follow the rules of normal administrations, in which the breach of sensitive information would be a career-ending disgrace.

Those ejected from the chaotic Trump political inner circle, by contrast, usually committed a transgression that offends or contradicts the president himself.

New questions raised about Hegseth’s approach

The latest controversy concerns detailed plans about a military operation against the Houthis in Yemen that were shared on a second Signal group chat. This one was on the former Fox News anchor’s personal phone and included his wife, lawyer and brother, three people familiar with the chat told CNN. The chat was set up during Hegseth’s confirmation hearing process, two of those familiar with the matter said. But Hegseth continued using the chat to communicate after he was confirmed, the sources said.

As a national security matter, Hegseth’s lack of discretion mocks the standards and laws that his civilian and military subordinates must follow. It’s even possible that active-duty US personnel engaged in strikes against the Iran-backed militants in Yemen might have been put at risk.

If Hegseth’s alarmingly cavalier approach – which could leave conversations about military operations sensitive to penetration by hostile intelligence agencies – had caused a military disaster, Trump would have no option but to act. That point has not yet been reached. But if his stewardship of the military as a whole reflects his carelessness so far, alarm will mount about the quality of advice reaching the president.

There will also be questions of morale and the defense secretary’s authority, since lower-level staffers or military personnel would almost certainly face discipline, dismissal or even prosecution for such lax handling of sensitive material.

News of the second Signal chat came as some of Hegseth’s closest former advisers issued warnings about turmoil at the Pentagon. They included his former spokesman John Ullyot and three former senior officials Hegseth fired last week – top adviser Dan Caldwell; deputy chief of staff Darin Selnick; and Colin Carroll, who was chief of staff to the deputy secretary of defense.

“It’s been a month of total chaos at the Pentagon. From leaks of sensitive operational plans to mass firings, the dysfunction is now a major distraction for the president — who deserves better from his senior leadership,” Ullyot said in a statement obtained by CNN. Ullyot also wrote a Politico op-ed.

Signs of disorder at the Pentagon are especially worrying, since they are building at a moment when sober, careful leadership of the world’s most lethal military seems more important than ever.

The administration’s effort – for example – to try to end the war provoked when Russia, the world’s largest nuclear power, invaded Ukraine appear to be reaching a make-or-break point and could cause unpredictable geopolitical consequences. Trump’s team is in the middle of critical nuclear talks with Iran. If they fail, the president will face a fateful choice over whether to launch risky military strikes to thwart the Islamic Republic’s alleged pursuit of a nuclear weapon. And the president’s wild tariff war sharpened an already simmering standoff with China. Even a minor incident between forces in close quarters in tense East Asian waters could trigger a superpower conflict.

President Donald Trump, left, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth listen during an event in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington on March 21, 2025. AP

A classic case of Trumpian politics

As is often the case, the dynamics at play in the new Hegseth crisis were laid bare in the administration’s public statements.

The secretary of defense displayed the pugilism that convinced Trump he was the man to carry out an “anti-woke” purge at the Pentagon in the incongruous setting of the White House South Lawn, where hundreds and kids and families enjoyed the annual Easter Egg Roll.

Hegseth slammed the “fake news” media, anonymous sources and “hoaxsters,” who he claimed concocted the new story to distract from his MAGA revolution across the river at US military headquarters to put “the Pentagon back in the hands of war fighters.” Looking directly into the camera, like he once did on “Fox and Friends,” he complained, “This is what the media does. They take anonymous sources, disgruntled former employees and they try to slash and burn people and ruin their reputations.”

This is classic Trumpian practice: deflecting a damaging controversy by creating a new fight with forces despised by the MAGA base and claiming any criticism is motivated by swampy forces opposed to the revolution.

Trump came to Hegseth’s aid at the same event, having spoken with the defense secretary after the story was first reported by The New York Times on Sunday.

“Pete’s doing a great job. Everybody’s happy with him,” Trump said. “It’s just fake news. They just make up stories. I guess it’s – sounds like disgruntled employees. He was put there to get rid of a lot of bad people, and that’s what he’s doing. You don’t always have friends when you do that.”

Trump’s stance showed he is loath to hand what his staffers would regard as a victory to journalists, whom they regard as adversaries in a bitter struggle.

This was not the first time the president has rescued Hegseth’s nascent political career. Trump strongly backed his then-nominee when his confirmation prospects were rocked by allegations related to drinking and sexual misconduct, which Hegseth denied, late last year. Many Washington pundits thought the nomination was toast. But the president’s refusal to lose Hegseth, an Iraq and Afghanistan war veteran, was picked up by conservative media and activists who launched a fierce support campaign. The pressure forced several Republican senators who had reservations about Hegseth to move into line.

There’s no sign yet that support for Hegseth is beginning to crack again on Capitol Hill. But Republican senators were no doubt grateful for the Easter recess that had them back in their districts and away from Washington media.

There were some signs of disquiet, however.

Florida GOP Rep. Carlos Giménez told CNN’s Pamela Brown that the new allegations around Hegseth “should be a lesson to everybody” in the administration. “A lot of the federal agencies use Signal because it’s supposed to be an encrypted, very secure application. The fact that these things are being leaked now call into question how secure Signal really is,” Giminez said. But he did not weigh in on Hegseth’s fate.

In Trump’s world, everything revolves around leverage and loyalty. And the latest Hegseth scandal suggests he will be left in even greater debt to the president. He will presumably be even more keen to do whatever the president wants. So Trump may enjoy having him around a bit longer.

But even Trump might be forced to rethink if it emerged that Hegseth continued to post sensitive military details on messaging apps after the first Signal storm was reported by the Atlantic.

There’s one other rule from the president’s first term that might apply. Every under-fire subordinate has Trump’s confidence – right up until the moment they don’t.

Vance, Wiles and others have looked for job candidates in some of the traditional places, including inside the White House and on Capitol Hill, according to the second former U.S. official, a defense official and a congressional aide.

Some candidates have been judged politically problematic, the former U.S. official and others familiar with the process said. For example, the White House personnel office has disqualified some for not being MAGA enough, according to the former U.S. official and a current U.S. official familiar with the process.

In addition to trying to assist him with hiring, the White House has taken multiple other steps to help — and manage — Hegseth.

“Vice President Vance has had Secretary Hegseth’s back since the day President Trump nominated him, and he fully supports the incredible work Pete’s doing at the Pentagon to improve military readiness and drive recruitment numbers to record highs,” Vance spokesman William Martin said in a statement.

Another White House official it was typical for the White House to be involved in staffing for key roles across government. Anna Kelly, a spokeswoman for the White House, said Hegseth enjoys “the full support” of Trump.

But last month White House officials directed Hegseth to cancel a trip to the Middle East after they learned he planned a stop in Israel, according to a current and a former official.

Instead, they put Hegseth on Air Force One to travel with President Donald Trump, who did not include Israel in his itinerary.

A different Cabinet official, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, visited Israel several weeks later and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at Trump’s request. A person familiar with Hegseth’s planning said Noem’s trip reflected the White House’s desire to have Netanyahu meet with a trusted messenger.

Pete Hegseth is flanked by members of his team, including senior adviser Dan Caldwell, right rear, at the Pentagon on Feb. 24. U.S. Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Alexander Kubitza / Department of Defense / Reuters

An unexpected purge

When they arrived at the Pentagon early this year, two senior advisers to Hegseth, Dan Caldwell and Darin Selnick, were seen as his close allies — previous colleagues of his, even friends, whom he had brought in to staff key roles. Caldwell was a senior adviser to Hegseth; Selnick was Hegseth’s deputy chief of staff.

But in April, security escorted Caldwell and Selnick, as well as Colin Carroll, the chief of staff to Deputy Defense Secretary Stephen Feinberg, out of the Pentagon in connection with an investigation into allegations of a leak of sensitive information.

In a joint statement, the three men called the way were treated “unconscionable” and argued that they were not given any information about the investigation, any leak allegations against them or any evidence that had been found.

A little less than a week later, the turmoil around Hegseth worsened. The New York Times reported that he had shared sensitive information about an ongoing U.S. military operation in Yemen on a Signal chat that included his wife, his personal attorney and his brother, along with others close to him.

The revelation came a month after national security adviser Mike Waltz mistakenly added the editor of The Atlantic to a separate Signal group chat with Hegseth, Vance and other senior administration officials focused on the same military operation in Yemen.

Two days after the Times’ story was published, Hegseth went on Fox News and accused Caldwell, Selnick and Carroll not only of leaking information while they were employed at the Pentagon, but also of having given the paper the information about the Signal chat. Hegseth did not publicly describe the evidence against them.

Darin Selnick, the undersecretary of defense for personnel and readiness. Leroy Council / U.S. Army / Department of Defense

The drama continued in May when White House officials removed Hegseth and his personal attorney, Tim Parlatore, also a Navy official, from overseeing the investigations into the three suspended aides, according to a current official and a person familiar with the probe.

White House officials shifted responsibility for the probe to the deputy defense secretary, Stephen Feinberg, with whom such an investigation would normally reside. That move, according to two sources familiar with the investigation, was a sign that there is a growing lack of confidence in Hegseth’s ability to objectively oversee the investigation of his former aides.

After no evidence against the former aides emerged and it became increasingly clear that the three men were not guilty of leaking, administration officials began to question whether their firings had been hasty, two former administration officials and a current official said.

Infighting among the Hegseth advisers who remain continued, meanwhile, according to the defense official and a former administration official. And Hegseth himself remains largely isolated, relying on a small group of advisers, the defense official said.

Hegseth now leans heavily on a former military aide, Ricky Buria, who retired from the military in April hoping he could serve as Hegseth’s chief of staff, a civilian position. But White House and Pentagon officials view Buria as a political novice who had reportedly been critical of Trump and Vance in private. (A Defense Department spokesman did not respond to a request for comment from Buria.)

As a result, White House officials rejected Hegseth’s plan to hire Buria as his chief of staff, one of the defense officials and an administration official said. Despite that, Buria was seen with Hegseth during his recent trip to Asia in a workout video posted on social media.

Successes and setbacks

Since Hegseth joined the administration in January, he has had successes.

He expunged diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs from the Pentagon and the military services. Recruiting, particularly in the Army, is up on his watch, continuing a trend that began before Trump’s election but gained strength under Hegseth, according to Trump administration officials.

“There has never been more enthusiasm to serve under Secretary Hegseth’s leadership at the DoD,” said Parnell, the chief Pentagon spokesman.

And during his recent trip to Asia, Hegseth was seen as effective in messaging to Beijing to stop any potential aggression in the region, according to current and former administration officials.