Staff Reports
The ongoing saga of “America First” and its nemesis, the judiciary, has taken another twist with a recent ruling from Judge Edward Chen, an Obama appointee whose definition of patriotism seems as warped as his legal reasoning. In the latest round, the judge blocked the Department of Homeland Security’s attempt to revoke Temporary Protected Status for hundreds of thousands of Venezuelan migrants. Apparently, the term “America First” is a little too spicy for Judge Chen, who has labeled it as rife with “animus” toward immigrants.
This ruling came right on the heels of Secretary Kristi Noem referencing the Trump administration’s stance on immigration, which apparently triggered Judge Chen’s sensibilities. He appeared to be clutching his pearls, suggesting that the phrase echoes dark, nefarious undertones rather than a simple, all-American priority of protecting citizens at home. The White House didn’t take this lying down, contesting that Trump’s policies are rooted in a genuine love for America rather than flavorful disdain for others. The spokesman for the administration was quick to clarify that putting Americans first is not synonymous with wishing harm upon anyone else.
Mike Davis, a conservative powerhouse and founder of the Article III Project, weighed in with fervor. He wasn’t shy in expressing his dismay, suggesting that if Judge Chen thinks putting America’s interests at the forefront amounts to illegal activity, one has to wonder which country is in his good graces. His assertion that Chen is another “unelected Democrat activist judge” highlights the perception that many in the judiciary are more engaged in social engineering than upholding the law.
Federal Judge Edward Chen finds Trump’s ‘America First’ slogan is racist toward immigrantshttps://t.co/c2Hraova2V pic.twitter.com/NBQg1H9msd
— The Washington Times (@WashTimes) April 4, 2025
Chen’s ruling isn’t just a theoretical exercise; it has real-life implications. He asserted that Noem didn’t justify her actions sufficiently and harbored some “unconstitutional animus” toward Venezuelans. According to his interpretation, this could leave around 350,000 individuals vulnerable to deportation, while he exploits his interpretive powers to paint a more favorable picture for migrants. But the irony is thick; a judge deciding what “America First” means based on his own biases showcases a disconnect with the American public that values lawful immigration practices.
Moreover, the case raises critical questions about how much weight a president’s words should carry in policy determinations. Trump’s past remarks, whether regarding “s—-hole” countries or comparing some migrants to “animals,” have continually been used against him. Chen’s judgement implies that political speech should somehow dictate legal outcomes, throwing into question the very notion of free speech in the context of governance. If a judge is going to dissect every metaphorical utterance, America might as well start preparing her ‘banter-free’ public discourse handbook.
The term “America First,” once a clarion call for the Trump administration, has become a cultural flashpoint. While critics historically link it to extremist ideologies, Trump himself insists on its aesthetic merit, suggesting that its allure lies not in the semantics but rather the message of prioritizing citizens. As this case unfolds, the battleground between political rhetoric and judicial interpretation will no doubt continue to spark debates, as America navigates the convoluted waters of immigration policy and the sometimes perplexing role of those tasked with interpreting it.
