In the modern world of rapid information and relentless punditry, one might think the mainstream media would prioritize factual reporting over sensationalism. Yet, here we are, once again embroiled in another media-crafted frenzy, this time surrounding the U.S.’s defense activities in Yemen. According to The Atlantic, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth supposedly tipped off a journalist about military actions prior to their execution. Instead of focusing on national defense successes, critics are zeroing in on who told whom, and when. This seems like yet another desperate attempt to undermine a government successfully keeping Americans secure both domestically and abroad.
The uproar over this alleged leak brings to mind that famous house of mirrors effect: those screaming the loudest about security breaches are often the ones with their skeletons rattling most noisily in their closets. Remember the hue and cry over classified documents found in less-than-secure locations in our current president’s home? Somehow, that’s conveniently forgotten when there’s an opportunity to whip up outrage over the administration’s handling of defense strategies. The skewed lens through which the media views these events speaks volumes about underlying biases.
Meanwhile, Senator Josh Hawley is making significant strides in trying to curb the more disturbing trend plaguing modern governance: activist judges using their gavel to thwart executive authority. These judges issue nationwide injunctions at the drop of a hat, often against crucial government policies. Hawley’s proposal to limit this judicial overreach is exactly what’s needed to rein in rogue courts. He argues that district courts shouldn’t wield the power to decide matters impacting the whole nation—only the Supreme Court should have such authority.
Could these judges be using their positions to advance political agendas, much to the detriment of the executive branch’s efficacy? It certainly seems so, especially given that President Trump faced a record number of these injunctions—more than we’ve ever seen in American history. It begs the question: if lower courts can freely interpret and act upon their personal ideologies, where does that leave structured and unbiased law and order?
Hawley’s legislation aims to eliminate this power imbalance by ensuring only a panel of judges, potentially rotated, can evaluate presidential orders, administrative policies, or legislative matters. Such a plan would prevent forum shopping and untimely delays and ensure that the ultimate arbitrator is the Supreme Court. Congress has the authority to act on this prerogative, and it’s past time for them to step in. The left’s initial support for limiting judges’ powers, which seems to have conveniently waned, should be held to account.
In a time where the letter of the law and the respect for due process should reign supreme, partisan entanglements and media bias threaten to reduce necessary governmental actions to nonsensical bickering. It’s time Congress took decisive action to put an end to these judicial excesses. Hawley’s legislation offers a balanced approach to ensure that our judicial system supports rather than impedes America’s progress. Let’s hope common sense prevails and the true intent of justice is restored in the American legal system.
