(Daily Signal)—The deep state and its allies have launched a judicial insurrection against President Donald Trump, and Chief Justice John Roberts effectively just admitted he’s not doing his job to stop it.
Roberts made a rare public statement back in March, criticizing Trump and other Republicans who have suggested impeaching judges to prevent them from taking it upon themselves to make national policy through injunctions. Yet Roberts refused to address the underlying issue, and he dodged again in public remarks Wednesday.
“What do you think of these calls for impeachment of judges based on the decisions that they’ve made?” Judge Lawrence Vilardo asked Roberts in an interview in Buffalo, New York.
“Impeachment is not how you register disagreement with decisions,” the chief justice said, repeating the substance of his comments in March.
“That’s what you’re there for,” Vilardo responded.
“That’s what we’re there for,” Roberts agreed.
Again, Roberts overlooked the underlying issue. Republicans aren’t calling for the impeachment of justices because they disagree with one particular decision—they’re exasperated because judge after judge after judge is effectively usurping the president’s authority by issuing so many nationwide injunctions.
The Judicial Insurrection
When woke bureaucrats stared down the barrel of a second Trump term, they strategized about how best to tie the new president’s hands. Public-sector unions made new collective bargaining agreements to protect work-from-home perks. Employees changed their titles to hide “diversity, equity, and inclusion.” Perhaps most importantly, bureaucrats and their allies outside the administration geared up to sue the Trump administration, targeting friendly judges.
Sure enough, the ink was barely dry on the president’s executive orders rooting woke ideology out of the government before public-sector unions (which represent federal bureaucrats) and leftist groups had taken the new administration to court. Many of these groups also hand-picked jurisdictions with judges more likely to give them the injunctions they seek.
According to the Congressional Research Service, judges issued 86 nationwide injunctions against President Trump in his first administration, with 36 of them involving immigration and 10 involving federal funding related to immigration. By contrast, judges issued only 28 nationwide injunctions against Biden. Between Jan. 20 and March 27 of this year, judges issued 17 injunctions—more than half of the number in Biden’s entire term.
Many of the unions and leftist groups filing these lawsuits also staffed and advised the Biden administration, as I expose in my book, “The Woketopus: The Dark Money Cabal Manipulating the Federal Government.” The ACLU, for instance, pushed the Biden administration to open the border, and now the ACLU is filing lawsuits to block Trump’s border policies.
The judges—many of them appointed by Democrats, surprise surprise!—have taken the opportunity to issue “nationwide injunctions.” While temporary injunctions allow a judge to protect one of the parties in a case from harm while the court considers the case, judges have weaponized this power, claiming to protect people across the country who aren’t parties to the suit.
This practice of “judge shopping” enables activist groups to succeed in early stages of litigation before ultimately failing when the case reaches the Supreme Court. This gives judges a chance to carry out a judicial insurrection. It also gives the case the appearance of success, motivating the leftist groups and their supporters, while tying up the government in the meantime—all in pursuit of a vain claim.
The Supreme Court Acts
For instance, judges blocked Trump’s order removing gender ideology from the military and ordered the government to re-hire probationary employees after they had been fired.
The Supreme Court rightly struck down these injunctions, but the judges only handled them on a case-by-case basis.
Judges have blocked the State Department’s move to restructure the U.S. Agency for International Development, ordered the administration to halt its freeze on federal spending, demanded the government restore deleted websites, and more.
This deluge of injunctions calls for a robust response from the nation’s highest court—or, at the very least, direction from the man who heads the entire U.S. judicial system, Chief Justice Roberts.
Trump, Congress Consider Other Solutions
Roberts only got involved after Trump expressed exasperation over the injunctions.
Trump has pledged to comply with the judges’ orders, though he has rightly contested them in court.
He responded angrily to a judge’s order directing him to turn around planes carrying alleged members of the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, however. The president noted that he won the 2024 presidential election in part by promising to oppose illegal immigration.
“I’m just doing what the VOTERS wanted me to do,” Trump wrote. “This judge, like many of the Crooked Judges’ I am forced to appear before, should be IMPEACHED!!!”
Rep. Brandon Gill, R-Texas, introduced articles of impeachment against the judge in question, but Trump and other Republicans have taken efforts to address the systemic issue, as well.
The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing on the injunctions last month.
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, introduced the Restraining Judicial Insurrectionists Act of 2025, establishing a three-judge panel to swiftly review injunctions or other forms of declaratory relief against the president and the executive branch, with a quick appeal process to the Supreme Court.
Lee said the judges “have presumed to run the military, the civil service, foreign aid, and HR departments across the Executive Branch—blatantly unconstitutional overreach.”
Meanwhile, Trump issued a memo in March directing the heads of executive agencies to request that judges follow the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), which requires the party requesting an injunction to put up “security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Rule 65(c) may not apply to every legal case, however.
John Roberts’ Job
Each of these efforts addresses one aspect of the problem, and Lee’s bill would likely address the issue most effectively. However, there is one person who has authority over the U.S. judiciary and could direct judges to be more circumspect before they issue nationwide injunctions that effectively make policy.
His name is… drumroll please… John Roberts.
When Roberts says reversing lower court mistakes is “what we’re there for,” he’s exactly right. In fact, as head of the judiciary, addressing major nationwide issues like the judicial insurrection is what he’s there for, specifically.
Perhaps, instead of complaining about Trump’s call to impeach judges, Roberts could solve the underlying problem himself by outlining how judges should act when considering temporary injunctions.
If he wants Trump and others to stop talking about impeaching judges, maybe he should step up and address the root problem.
Bypass Big Tech Censors
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
