Politics
Trump issues first veto after rebuke of border order
WASHINGTON (AP) — Unbowed by a congressional rebuke, President Donald Trump issued the first veto of his presidency on Friday in a demonstration that he is not through fighting for his signature campaign promise, which stands largely unfulfilled 18 months before voters decide whether to grant him another term.
Trump rejected an effort by Congress to block the emergency declaration he’d used to circumvent lawmakers as he tried to shake loose funds for his long-promised wall along the U.S.-Mexico border. The monthslong confrontation now moves to the courts, but not before marking a new era of divided government in Washington and Republicans’ increasing independence from the White House.
“Congress has the freedom to pass this resolution,” Trump said, “and I have the duty to veto it.”
A dozen defecting Republicans joined Senate Democrats in approving the joint resolution on Thursday as both parties strained to exert their power in new ways. It is unlikely that Congress will have the two-thirds majority required to override Trump’s veto, though House Democrats will try nonetheless on March 26.
Despite the reproach, Trump seized the opportunity to publicly rebuff Congress and show his commitment to the border wall. In embracing the opportunity to deploy the constitutional power of the veto for the first time, he treated the occasion with all the traditional pomp of a bill-signing.
Trump was surrounded in the Oval Office by supporters, including law enforcement officials and the parents of children killed by people in the country illegally, who offered profuse thanks and frequent applause. Trump dramatically signed his veto message and then held the document up for the cameras to capture.
Trump wants to use the emergency order to divert billions of federal dollars earmarked for defense spending toward the southern border wall. It still faces several legal challenges from Democratic state attorneys general and environmental groups who argue the emergency declaration was unconstitutional.
Those cases could prevent Trump from diverting extra money to barrier construction for months or longer. American Civil Liberties Union, which filed one of the challenges, said the veto is meaningless, like the declaration in the first place.
“Congress has rejected the president’s declaration, and now the courts will be the ultimate arbiter of its legality. We look forward to seeing him in court and to the shellacking that he will receive at the hands of an independent judiciary,” said Executive Director Anthony Romero.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi called Trump’s veto a “lawless power grab” and railed that, even after both chambers tried to stop him, Trump “has chosen to continue to defy the Constitution, the Congress and the will of the American people.”
Trump, however, insisted the situation on the southern border is “a tremendous national emergency,” adding, “our immigration system is stretched beyond the breaking point.”
Many lawmakers said Thursday’s vote was not necessarily a rejection of the president or the wall, but protections against future presidents — namely a Democrat who might want to declare an emergency on climate change, gun control or any number of other issues.
It was the first direct challenge to the 1976 National Emergencies Act, just as a Wednesday vote on Yemen was the first time Congress invoked the decades-old War Powers Act to try to rein in a president. That resolution seeking to end U.S. backing for the Saudi Arabian-led coalition fighting in Yemen was approved in the aftermath of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul and is expected to be the subject of Trump’s second veto.
Despite the embarrassing defections of the 12 GOP senators, Trump’s grip on the party remains strong and the White House made it clear that Republicans resisting Trump could face political consequences. Ahead of the voting, Trump framed the issue as with-him-or-against-him on border security, a powerful argument with many.
But Friday, Trump said he had sympathy for the Republicans who voted against him and emphasized that he never truly twisted the arms of lawmakers, because he knew there were not enough votes to override the veto.
“Look, they were doing what they have to do,” Trump said, insisting he “put no pressure” on lawmakers to vote against the resolution because he realized that the measure was likely to pass.
Still, a White House official said Trump won’t forget when senators who opposed him want him to attend fundraisers or provide other help. The official was not authorized to speak publicly on internal deliberations so spoke on condition of anonymity.
Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump painted his usual portrait of a lawless and violent border. He cited “thousands and thousands” of gang arrests and claimed many of the asylum seekers released into the U.S. were “stone-cold killers,” ignoring data that shows immigrants are less likely to commit crime. He noted, correctly, a spike in the number of people coming to the border to claim asylum.
Trump initiated the showdown months ago when he all but dared Congress not to give him the $5.7 billion he was demanding to build the U.S.-Mexico wall, by threatening a federal government shutdown.
Congress declined and the result was the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Against the advice of GOP leaders, Trump invoked the national emergency declaration last month, allowing him to try to tap about $3.6 billion for the wall by shuffling money from military projects, and that drew outrage from many lawmakers. Trump had campaigned for president promising Mexico would pay for the wall.
Florida
Democratic Leaders Condemned Susan Valdés’ GOP Switch; Orange Democrats Later Appear Alongside Her
Florida
[COURTS & LAW] Paula Stark Court Record Could Impact Daisy Morales, James Bush III Defamation Lawsuits Against FHDCC
Stark’s Leon County Election Fight, Bush’s $1 Million Default Battle in Miami-Dade and Morales’ Orange County Defamation Lawsuit Could Put FHDCC’s Legal Status Under Scrutiny in Three Florida Courts
ORLANDO, Fla. (FNN) — Three Florida court cases. Three counties. One political committee — and an unresolved legal question that could affect two pending defamation lawsuits.
Court records obtained and reviewed by Florida National News show the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee (FHDCC) sought permission to become a Party Defendant in Republican state Rep. Paula Stark’s Leon County election lawsuit in June 2026.
Less than a month later, FHDCC took a different procedural position in former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III’s Miami-Dade defamation lawsuit, arguing that it is an unincorporated political organization that lacks the capacity to be sued in its own name.
That position is supported by a sworn affidavit submitted by State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, chair of FHDCC, describing her authority over committee funds and legal matters and stating the committee’s position that it cannot be sued as a political committee.
Now, former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales has named FHDCC as a defendant in a separate defamation lawsuit in Orange County.
The cases involve different parties, claims and legal issues. FHDCC’s attempt to intervene in Stark’s case does not establish that the committee has capacity to be sued in Bush or Morales.
But the developing record presents a significant question: FHDCC affirmatively asked one Florida circuit court to allow it to become a Party Defendant, then later argued in another that its organizational structure prevents it from being sued in its own name.
FHDCC Asked to Become a Party Defendant in Stark Case
Stark, a Republican state representative from St. Cloud, sued after election officials determined she failed to qualify for reelection to House District 47.
Her case, Paula Stark v. Cord Byrd, et al., Case No. 2026-CA-1311, was filed in the Second Judicial Circuit in Leon County before Circuit Judge Joshua M. Hawkes.
On June 25, 2026, attorney Mark Herron filed a motion on behalf of FHDCC and Democratic House District 47 candidates Jorge Figueroa and Anthony Nieves.
The filing was expressly titled “Motion to Intervene as a Party Defendants in Pending Election Case” and asked Hawkes to permit FHDCC, Figueroa and Nieves to intervene as Party Defendants under Florida Rule of Civil Procedure 1.230.
FHDCC also described itself in the motion as an affiliated party committee established under Section 103.092, Florida Statutes, to support Democratic candidates for the Florida House.
The committee asserted that the outcome of Stark’s lawsuit would affect the resources FHDCC would expend in the House District 47 election.
Herron signed the filing as “Attorney for the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee.”
Herron also serves as FHDCC treasurer. His dual role could become relevant if the Bush or Morales defamation lawsuits reach discovery concerning the committee’s organization, finances or decision-making. Any potential testimony would depend on Herron’s firsthand knowledge and applicable attorney-client and other legal protections.
Hawkes Denied FHDCC Intervention
FHDCC did not succeed in becoming a party to Stark’s case.
In his July 8 Order on Petition for Mandamus, Hawkes explained that he denied FHDCC intervention because the committee’s asserted interest amounted to “just a financial stake.”
Hawkes instead allowed Figueroa and Nieves to intervene because their candidacies and political positions were directly affected by whether the primary would remain closed. The written order consequently identifies Figueroa and Nieves — not FHDCC — as intervenors.
That distinction is critical.
The Stark record establishes that FHDCC asked to become a Party Defendant. It does not establish that the court accepted FHDCC in that capacity. Hawkes expressly denied the committee’s request.
Hawkes ultimately denied Stark’s request for ballot relief. In his analysis, he also referenced an argument advanced by “counsel for Intervenors.”
The Stark litigation was subsequently closed.
Why Stark Matters
Hawkes did not decide whether FHDCC has legal capacity to sue or be sued.
He rejected FHDCC’s intervention because its asserted interest in the election dispute was insufficient.
But the underlying motion remains significant because it establishes that FHDCC, through counsel, affirmatively invoked a Florida court’s jurisdiction and asked to participate as a Party Defendant.
That record could become relevant if FHDCC maintains in other courts that its organizational structure prevents it from being sued in its own name.
Bush’s $1 Million Default Battle in Miami-Dade
While Stark’s election litigation was unfolding in Leon County, FHDCC was facing a different legal battle in Miami-Dade.
Former Democratic state Rep. James Bush III filed a defamation lawsuit in August 2025 against Edge Communications, LLC, Strong Community, FHDCC and state Rep. Ashley Gantt.
The case, James Bush III v. Edge Communications, LLC, et al., Case No. 2025-015569-CA-01, was assigned to Section CA31 of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit and Circuit Judge Migna Sanchez-Llorens, according to the court’s Case Management Order.
The order, signed Oct. 11, 2025, established July 8, 2026, as the deadline for summary judgment and dispositive motions, resolution of certain pretrial matters and mediation. It projected an Oct. 6, 2026 trial date.
On July 8 — the same day Hawkes issued his Stark ruling in Leon County — clerk defaults were entered against FHDCC and other defendants in Bush’s lawsuit, according to filings previously reviewed by FNN.
FHDCC moved to set aside its default on July 15.
Bush then filed a Motion for Final Default Judgment on July 29 seeking $1 million, plus costs, against the defaulted defendants.
The distinction is important: Bush is seeking a $1 million final default judgment. The court has not entered a $1 million judgment based on the records reviewed for this report.
FHDCC Argues It Cannot Be Sued in Its Own Name
FHDCC’s response to the Miami-Dade default creates the central comparison with the Stark record.
In its Motion to Set Aside Default, FHDCC argued that it is a 527 political unincorporated organization that lacks capacity to be sued in its own name.
The committee cited Larkin v. Buranosky, a 2008 Florida appellate decision involving unincorporated political organizations.
That remains FHDCC’s legal position, not a determination by the Miami-Dade court.
But the timing creates a significant comparison:
June 25 — Leon County: FHDCC asks to enter litigation as a Party Defendant.
July 8 — Leon County: Hawkes denies FHDCC intervention.
July 15 — Miami-Dade County: FHDCC argues that its organizational status prevents it from being sued in its own name.
Those positions are not automatically contradictory. Intervention and capacity to be sued are distinct legal questions, and Hawkes did not decide whether FHDCC possessed capacity to sue or be sued.
But the records could invite scrutiny of how FHDCC characterizes its legal identity and litigation authority in different proceedings.
FHDCC Chair Hunschofsky Submits Sworn Affidavit
The Miami-Dade dispute took on added significance when State Rep. Christine Hunschofsky, chair of the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, submitted a sworn affidavit supporting FHDCC’s effort to set aside the default.
Hunschofsky described FHDCC as a Florida registered political committee affiliated with the Florida Democratic Party but not controlled by it.
She also described her authority within the organization, stating that she is responsible for the allocation of FHDCC funds and for legal actions against the committee and its defense.
Hunschofsky further stated that FHDCC is an unincorporated entity and that the committee understands it “cannot be sued as a political committee.”
She said that after learning Bush had obtained a default, she immediately instructed attorney Juan-Carlos Planas to seek to set aside the default and have the case dismissed based on FHDCC’s position that it cannot be sued under Florida law.
The affidavit represents sworn statements by FHDCC’s chair concerning the committee’s structure and her responsibilities. Her assertion concerning whether FHDCC can be sued is the committee’s legal position; it does not establish that Sanchez-Llorens has accepted that interpretation.
Morales Defamation Lawsuit Brings Question to Orange County
The third case brings the issue to Orange County.
On Aug. 14, former Democratic state Rep. Daisy Morales filed a defamation lawsuit against FHDCC and Democratic House District 43 nominee Samuel Vilchez Santiago.
The case, Daisy Morales v. Samuel Vilchez Santiago and Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee, Case No. 482026CA008697A001OX, is pending in the Ninth Judicial Circuit before Circuit Judge Michael Deen.
Morales asserts claims for defamation/libel and defamation by implication arising from political mailers distributed during the Democratic primary campaign.
Among the disputed statements was a representation that Morales endorsed Republican candidates and was expelled from the Orange County Democratic Party.
Morales alleges the statements were false and defamatory.
Those allegations remain pending. Neither Vilchez Santiago nor FHDCC has been found liable for defamation.
Vilchez Santiago defeated Morales in the Aug. 18 Democratic primary, but the election result does not resolve the civil lawsuit.
Could Stark and Bush Affect Morales?
The Stark intervention record makes the potential Orange County issue clearer.
If FHDCC raises the same capacity defense against Morales that it raised against Bush, the Orange County court could be asked to consider a broader record concerning the committee’s legal identity and structure.
That record could include FHDCC’s request to become a Party Defendant in Stark; Herron’s representation of the committee; Hawkes’ denial of FHDCC intervention; FHDCC’s Miami-Dade capacity argument; Hunschofsky’s sworn affidavit; and state records governing the committee’s organization and operations.
None of that evidence establishes the merits of Morales’ defamation claims.
But it could become relevant to a threshold question:
Is FHDCC itself a proper defendant?
And if Florida law ultimately says it is not, another question follows:
Who is the proper party for allegedly actionable conduct undertaken through the committee?
Three Courts, Different Consequences
The issue carries different consequences in each court.
Leon County: FHDCC affirmatively sought Party Defendant status, but Hawkes denied its intervention. Stark’s case is closed, and nothing in the Bush or Morales litigation currently changes that outcome.
Miami-Dade County: The consequences are immediate. Bush is seeking a $1 million final default judgment while FHDCC is attempting to set aside its default and arguing that it cannot be sued in its own name.
Orange County: The issue is prospective. If FHDCC raises the same capacity defense against Morales, Deen could be asked to examine the developing Stark and Bush records in determining whether FHDCC is a proper defendant.
One Political Committee, Three Florida Courts
The court records do not establish wrongdoing by FHDCC, Herron, Hunschofsky or their attorneys. Nor do they establish the merits of the Bush or Morales defamation claims.
What they do establish is an unusual litigation record involving the same political committee across three Florida circuit courts.
In Leon County, FHDCC asked to become a Party Defendant — and Hawkes denied the request.
In Miami-Dade County, FHDCC is fighting a clerk’s default and Bush’s request for a $1 million final default judgment while arguing that it cannot be sued in its own name.
In Orange County, FHDCC is now a named defendant in Morales’ defamation lawsuit.
The cases could ultimately put a fundamental question under scrutiny:
What is the Florida House Democratic Campaign Committee’s legal status — and if FHDCC cannot be sued in its own name, who may be held legally accountable for actionable conduct undertaken through the committee if that conduct is ultimately proven?
Florida4 days ago[COURTS & LAW] Paula Stark Court Record Could Impact Daisy Morales, James Bush III Defamation Lawsuits Against FHDCC
Florida2 days agoDemocratic Leaders Condemned Susan Valdés’ GOP Switch; Orange Democrats Later Appear Alongside Her
Sports2 days agoRyan Preece Captures Checkered Flag in Dramatic Coke Zero Sugar 400 Victory at Daytona
Sports2 days agoJaguars Shut Out Buccaneers 19-0 in Preseason Finale
