ActBlue looks worse by the minute; Medical service employee gets trial on her company's refusal to allow her a vaxx exemption; another Biden judge goes wild.

This week, in Congressional testimony, the CEO of ActBlue—the powerful Democrat fundraising machine that has accepted potentially millions in foreign contributions in violation of federal law—repeatedly “took the Fifth.” An appeals court allows a medical employee to sue over her employer’s denial of her request for a medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine; and an unhinged Biden-appointed federal judge decides to control the signage in property under the authority of the Department of Interior—requiring re-installation of displays regarding climate change and LGBTQ rights in national parks.

And, be sure to shop our America250 sale at DefendingtheRepublic.org. Everything is 50% off. LICENSED TO LIE: Exposing Corruption in the Department of Justice is on sale for only $4.99. These are high-quality paperbacks using the same paper and print as the hardbacks. Hardbacks are sold-out. Rush Limbaugh recommended this book repeatedly. Get yours now—and they make great gifts too.

This week in the law:

Image by Geoff Harris

ActBlue CEO Pleads the Fifth

ActBlue CEO Regina Wallace-Jones testified before the House Administration Committee on June 10, 2026. Her appearance before the Committee came after lengthy investigations – detailed below – into ActBlue’s subversion of its own security protocols that allowed foreign contributions to be made to Democrat candidates for office. Her testimony was illuminating, if only for the fact that she refused to answer any question—instead invoking the Fifth Amendment right to refuse to testify pursuant to advice of counsel.

In total, Wallace-Jones “invoked her Fifth Amendment right not to testify 22 times in response to questions from House Republicans.” Not only did she refuse to answer specific questions concerning ActBlue’s potential federal crimes, she also refused to answer even the simplest of questions, such as: “How much fraud is too much fraud?

Her appearance follows an April 20, 2026 report from the House of Representatives detailing how ActBlue weakened its fraud-prevention policies that “left the door open for large-scale fraud campaigns” on the Democrats” top fundraising platform. As that House investigation was ongoing, there were multiple high-level ActBlue staff members, including its “highest-ranking legal officer,” who were either terminated or resigned. One ActBlue lawyer alleged he was retaliated against after “blowing the whistle on internal misconduct.”

According to the House report, ActBlue’s legal team left the platform after the 2024 election “because of its knowing and willful acceptance of illegal foreign contributions and the subsequent cover-up.” Due to ActBlue’s intentionally weak fraud-prevention measures, political donations were allowed to be made by foreign nationals – a violation of federal law. The House further concluded that “ActBlue may have processed up to $38 million in foreign contributions during the 2024 election cycle.”

In sworn depositions, ActBlue employees invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination “in response to every single one of the Committees’ substantive questions – 146 times in total.” Moreover, ActBlue failed to fully produce documents responsive to the Committees’ subpoenas.

During the House investigation, Wallace-Jones claimed that “passport information is required from donors providing an address outside of the United States.” That was not accurate. She further claimed that ActBlue contacts donors and requests passport information “if a contribution appears to be from a foreign address.” That also wasn’t true.

It is obvious that Wallace-Jones took the Fifth not only to protect ActBlue but to also protect herself from criminal exposure. But with the House obtaining evidence that ActBlue willfully accepted foreign funds along with the false statements provided by Wallace-Jones, that should be sufficient for the Department of Justice to open a grand jury investigation into the organization and its leadership – if it hasn’t already.

Our opinion: James O’Keefe exposed ActBlue for “smurfing” long ago. We do not understand why there have been no prosecutions. The people whose names they used for “contributions” had no idea they had made any. Doesn’t DOJ understand money-laundering?

Image by USA Today

Court of Appeal rules in favor of a trial on a COVID-19 vaccine medical exemption

The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has reversed reinstated a nurse’s lawsuit, which alleged her employer (CentraCare) failed to accommodate her medical disability and wrongly required her to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

The nurse, Christine Klimek suffers from Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), which developed after a 2010 workplace injury. In 2021, “CentraCare implemented a new policy requiring the COVID-19 vaccination for every employee unless the employee obtained a medical or religious exemption.” Klimek applied for the medical exemption and noted to her employer that she was previously granted a permanent medical exemption for vaccines by CentraCare in 2016. CentraCare denied her covid exemption, put her on unpaid leave, and effectively terminated her employment.

In its opinion, the Eighth Circuit found noted that Klimek showed that “her position involved no physical patient care and that she was working entirely from home electronically preparing records.” The Court of Appeals further called “into question whether CentraCare made a reasonable effort to determine whether” Klimek’s disability could be accommodated.

Concluding that Klimek presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact, the Eighth Circuit “reversed the district court’s grant of summary judgment” and remanded the case to the district court for a trial.

Image by Carlos Barria

Federal judge orders Trump Administration to restore liberal opinions in Department of Interior Signage

A Massachusetts federal district court judge has concluded the Trump Administration’s removal of signs and exhibits that demonstrated liberal points of view to be unlawful.

President Trump, by Executive Order, sought to remove from federal properties materials that rewrote our Nation’s history and replaced “objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than the truth.” As part of that directive, the Secretary of the Interior, ordered removal of signs, exhibits, and displays that voiced liberal opinions on climate change, slavery, and LGBTQ pride.

A number of groups sued, seeking an order requiring the Department of the Interior and the National Park Service to restore all national park sites to how they existed prior to the order of removal. Judge Angel Kelley, a Biden appointee, granted that relief, concluding the plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable injury absent the injunction and that the actions of the defendants were “contrary to law and arbitrary and capricious.”

The judge labeled President Trump’s Executive Order as “unreasoned” and “lawless.” She found the Secretary of the Interior’s order implementing President Trump’s directive as an “arbitrary and capricious” departure from the practices of prior Administrations.

It is difficult to imagine any type of serious injury or harm from the removal of a climate change sign. Even the court admitted that the harms are “nonquantifiable by nature.” But the court somehow found “irreparable injury” anyway, partly relying on the fact that the plaintiffs alleged the removal of the signs deprived the children of a certain educational material on “civil rights, climate change, and slavery.” She reached that conclusion despite the fact that the plaintiffs waited over seven months after the removals to file their lawsuit – a fact which puts the “irreparable injury” in serious doubt.

Our opinion: We expect the Trump Administration’s appeal of this decision ultimately to be successful. Yet another judge substituted her judgment on running the Department of Interior for that of the President. Here’s to another great waste of time and taxpayer resources caused by the Left and its activist judges.