US President Donald Trump continued his "authoritarian takeover of our election system" over the weekend, threatening an executive order requiring every voter to present identification, which experts swiftly denounced as clearly "unconstitutional."

"Voter I.D. Must Be Part of Every Single Vote. NO EXCEPTIONS!" Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform late Saturday. "I Will Be Doing An Executive Order To That End!!! Also, No Mail-In Voting, Except For Those That Are Very Ill, And The Far Away Military. USE PAPER BALLOTS ONLY!!!"

Less than two weeks ago, Trump declared on the platform that "I am going to lead a movement to get rid of MAIL-IN BALLOTS, and also, while we're at it, Highly 'Inaccurate,' Very Expensive, and Seriously Controversial VOTING MACHINES." He claimed, without evidence, that voting by mail leads to "MASSIVE VOTER FRAUD," and promised to take executive action ahead of the 2026 midterms.

Those posts came as battles over his March executive order (EO), "Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections," are playing out in federal court. The measure was largely blocked by multiple district judges, but the president is appealing.

Trump's voter ID post provoked a new threat of legal action to stop his unconstitutional attacks on the nation's election system.

"Go ahead, make my day Mr. Trump," said Norm Eisen, who co-founded Democracy Defenders Fund and served as White House special counsel for ethics and government reform during the Obama administration.

"We at Democracy Defenders Fund immediately sued you and got an injunction on your first voting EO," he noted. "We will do the same here if you try it again. The Constitution gives this authority to the states and Congress, not you!"

In addition to pointing out that Trump is "an absentee voter himself," Democracy Docket explained Sunday that "the US Constitution gives the states the primary authority to regulate elections, while empowering Congress to 'at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations.' The Framers never considered authorizing the president to oversee elections."

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures: "Thirty-six states have laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls. The remaining 14 states and Washington, DC use other methods to verify the identity of voters."

Those laws already prevent Americans from participating in elections, according to the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University School of Law.

"Overly burdensome photo ID requirements block millions of eligible American citizens from voting," the center's voter ID webpage says. "As many as 11% of eligible voters do not have the kind of ID that is required by states with strict ID requirements, and that percentage is even higher among seniors, minorities, people with disabilities, low-income voters, and students."

NOW READ: There's a reason Trump 'loves the poorly educated'

In an effort reminiscent of US President Donald Trump using the Alien Enemies Act to send hundreds of migrants to a Salvadoran prison, his administration just tried to deport more than 600 unaccompanied children to Guatemala over Labor Day weekend—though for now, a federal judge's order appears to have halted the plan, unlike last time.

CNN exclusively reported Friday morning that the Trump administration was "moving to repatriate hundreds of Guatemalan children" who arrived in the United States alone and were placed in the custody of the Office of Refugee Resettlement. Subsequent reporting confirmed plans to deport the kids, who are ages 10-17.

Fearing their imminent removal after the administration reportedly reached an agreement with the Guatemalan government, the National Immigration Law Center (NILC) launched a class action lawsuit around 1:00 am Sunday, seeking an emergency order that was granted just hours later by a federal judge in Washington, D.C.

"Plaintiffs have active proceedings before immigration courts across the country, yet defendants plan to remove them in violation of the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act of 2008, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the Constitution," NILC's complaint explains.

Efrén C. Olivares, vice president of litigation and legal strategy at the NILC, said that "it is a dark and dangerous moment for this country when our government chooses to target orphaned 10-year-olds and denies them their most basic legal right to present their case before an immigration judge."

"The Constitution and federal laws provide robust protections to unaccompanied minors specifically because of the unique risks they face," Olivares noted. "We are determined to use every legal tool at our disposal to force the administration to respect the law and not send any child to danger."

Politico's Kyle Cheney and Josh Gerstein reported on the judge's moves:

U.S. District Judge Sparkle Sooknanan issued the order just after 4:00 am Sunday, finding that the "exigent circumstances" described in the lawsuit warranted immediate action "to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set."The judge, a Biden appointee, initially scheduled a virtual hearing on the matter for 3:00 pm Sunday, but later moved up the hearing to 12:30 pm after being notified that some minors covered by the suit were "in the process of being removed from the United States."

Sharing updates from the hearing on social media, Cheney reported that Sooknanan took a five-minute recess so that US Department of Justice attorney Drew Ensign could ensure that the details of her order reached the Trump administration—which is pursuing mass deportations. Ensign confirmed to the judge that while it's possible one plane took off and then returned, all the children are still in the United States.

Following the judge's intervention, NILC's Olivares said in a statement that "in the dead of night on a holiday weekend, the Trump administration ripped vulnerable, frightened children from their beds and attempted to return them to danger in Guatemala."

"We are heartened the court prevented this injustice from occurring before hundreds of children suffered irreparable harm," he added. "We are determined to continue fighting to protect the interest of our plaintiffs and all class members until the effort is enjoined permanently."

NOW READ: Donald Trump is doomed — and he knows it

As the Trump administration pushes to cut 7,000 jobs held by federal employees at the Social Security Administration, the agency that oversees the crucial anti-poverty program for senior citizens and people with disabilities has made numerous efforts to disguise the customer service crisis that the cuts have caused—and Democrats on Monday demanded answers about what one progressive lawmaker recently denounced as a "cover up" to hide long wait times.

U.S. Rep. Judy Chu (D-Calif.) led 18 Democratic members of the House Ways and Means Committee in writing to Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, urging the former Wall Street executive to explain why several customer service metrics were deleted from the SSA's website just as Americans were facing longer wait times and a reduced ability to speak with customer service representatives rather than having their claims and questions handled through automation.

Chu spearheaded the letter weeks after the SSA stopped publishing more than 30 metrics related to the performance of its 1-800 number, retirement claims processing times, and disability decision reconsideration wait times.

"Early last month SSA abruptly removed that comprehensive menu of data from its website and replaced it with a new webpage that provides much more limited and sometimes misleading information on the agency's customer service performance," wrote the Democrats. "We are concerned that this new menu is far less helpful for our constituents in knowing what to expect when interacting with SSA."

In addition to omitting crucial information about how long retirees and people with disabilities can expect to wait to receive their benefits or to talk to a representative, Chu noted that the metrics that are currently shown "seem designed to pressure beneficiaries to use online tools instead of talking to live people, an option that simply doesn't work for all beneficiaries, especially the very old and people in rural areas with poor Internet access."

"The agency's removal of comprehensive customer service data calls into question whether this administration seeks to hide from the public the negative customer service impacts of its staffing cuts," reads the letter.

"Early last month SSA abruptly removed that comprehensive menu of data from its website and replaced it with a new webpage that provides much more limited and sometimes misleading information on the agency's customer service performance."

The letter was sent days after The Washington Post reported that the SSA is pulling staff from its field offices to act as customer service representatives for its 1-800 number following a surge in complaints about dropped calls and website crashes.

That change is likely to slow down responses to complicated claims cases that are often handled by field office staff, Jessica LaPointe, president of Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees, told the Post.

"So it's just going to create a vicious cycle of work not getting cleared, people calling for status on work that's sitting because the claims specialists now are going to have to pick up the slack of the customer service representatives that are redeployed to the teleservice centers," LaPointe said last week.

Alex Lawson, executive director of the advocacy group Social Security Works, told the Post last month as the metrics were deleted from the SSA website that the Trump administration's attempts to conceal the effects of its mass layoffs would not succeed.

"People notice when they can't get an appointment because their local field office has lost half its staff. When checks and decisions are delayed. When they get the runaround from an AI chatbot on the phone, instead of getting to talk to a real person," said Lawson.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) criticized the agency for "playing musical chairs to try and fill in the gaps" and suggested Bisignano "stop gutting the critical workforce that helps Americans every single day."

Chu and the other Ways and Means Committee Democrats emphasized that the agency recently restored one metric to its new website: a chart showing the six-year trend of disability determination processing times.

"That the agency chose to cherry pick and restore only this metric," they wrote, "and not any of the others that had been removed, only deepens our concern about why your agency continues to keep hidden certain metrics that had previously been publicly available."

The Democrats demanded that the SSA restore "all the robust public data that the agency had previously reported prior to June 2025, including historical data, and to regularly update that data."

NOW READ: 'This is his king complex': Republicans split as Trump threatens to 'takeover' a 'pigsty'

A network of former intelligence, military, and national security officials on Tuesday launched the Profiles in Cowardice Award and urged the public to vote for nominees who are "silent in the face of the country's descent into fascism," a march led by U.S. President Donald Trump.

"We are in a constitutional crisis," says the Eisenhower Media Network's (EMN) website for the award. "Trump is amassing power in the executive branch, ignoring Congress and the courts. Meanwhile, leaders who have sworn an oath to support and defend the Constitution are sitting on their hands."

The new honor is the inverse of the John F. Kennedy Profile in Courage Award, created by the late president's family "to recognize and celebrate the quality of political courage that he admired most." This year's recipient is Trump's former vice president, Mike Pence, "for putting his life and career on the line to ensure the constitutional transfer of presidential power on January 6, 2021," when Trump incited an insurrection and his supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol.

"We, the American people, are here to remind them of who they serve, and that it's time to do their constitutional duty by standing up to this administration and its authoritarian bent."

Nominees for the inaugural Profiles in Cowardice Award are former President George W. Bush, former Secretary of State Anthony Blinken, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), Rep. Nancy Mace (R-S.C.), retired Gens. David Petraeus and Mark Milley, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Republican members of the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"The 'Profiles in Cowardice' Award was created to call out those weak souls who are failing to engage in efforts to keep our country from sleepwalking into fascism," said EMN's director, retired Maj. Gen. (ret.) Dennis Laich, in a statement.

"These leaders, both past and present, took an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic,'" he noted. "Through their actions, or inaction, they are violating that oath. We, the American people, are here to remind them of who they serve, and that it's time to do their constitutional duty by standing up to this administration and its authoritarian bent."

The public can vote at ProfilesInCowardice.org until August 1, after which the award will be presented to the winner "at the most inconvenient time possible," according to the website.

The site lays out why people were nominated as "cowards." For example, "Bush has a long and storied history of cowardice" and "is solidifying his legacy" by retreating rather than serving as a leader in the Republican Party and standing up to Trump.

In Congress, "Mace is a one-woman culture war content machine—exactly how the military-industrial complex and mainstream media like it," the site continues. Reed, the top Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, "has chosen to push through Trump's agenda of unfettered militarism and confirm unqualified MAGA loyalists like Pete Hegseth," the defense secretary. Republicans on that committee also "rubber-stamped Pete Hegseth to cater to Trump and his blindly loyal MAGA cronies."

Among former military leaders, the site says, "Milley attempted to make a principled stand after the January 6th insurrection—but cowardice won out in the end," and Petraeus said at a conference that "the world was in for 'exciting times' under Trump."

"The Joint Chiefs of Staff are tasked with defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic," the site notes. "But as reckless U.S. military actions push the world closer to nuclear catastrophe, they've chosen silence over service. No resignations. No public warnings."

As for Blinken, who served under former President Joe Biden, "he ignored a flood of real-time reports detailing Israeli human rights violations—and now we know his public claims of 'working overtime' on cease-fires were outright lies," the site adds. "With American diplomacy in free fall, Blinken chose complicity and cover stories over truth and action."

Christian Sorenson, EMN's associate director, said that "it takes courage to do the right thing... It takes even more courage to do the right thing when the system itself fosters militarism and war profiteering."

"Targeting 'leaders' in the nation's capital, Profiles in Cowardice highlights the craven and the pushovers, as well as those who eagerly abet authoritarianism and nonstop war for personal and professional gain," Sorenson added. "Virtue and public service will arrive in D.C. one way or another. Profiles in Cowardice is part of that broader effort."

Ahead of a vote on Republicans' budget reconciliation package expected as soon as noon Saturday, U.S. Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources Chair Mike Lee revived his effort to sell off public lands.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough has blocked multiple provisions of the GOP megabill, including several under the jurisdiction of the Utah Republican's panel. Among them is his attack on public lands.

"Here we go again," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said on social media after Lee released new text for his committee late Friday.

"Republicans are STILL trying to sell off public lands in their budget bill," Wyden continued. "Republicans are trying to get this over the finish line by the end of the weekend. If you care about keeping your public lands please make your voice heard."

"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever."

Athan Manuel, director of Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said in a Saturday morning statement that "the new version of Mike Lee's public lands sell-off is like cutting 'most' of the mercury out of your diet. The fact of the matter is that Mike Lee has spent the better part of a decade trying to privatize our public lands, and with his new power in the Senate, he's trying to push that agenda even further without public input, without transparency, and shame."

"Americans left, right, and center have come together with one voice to say these landscapes shouldn't be sold off to fund tax cuts for the uberwealthy—not now, not ever," Manuel added. "Congress needs to listen to their constituents, not billionaires and private developers, and keep the 'public' in public lands.”

A document from Lee states that his "amended proposal dramatically narrows the scope of lands to be sold for housing... in communities where it is desperately needed" in the U.S. West. The new version would exclude all Forest Service land and reduce the amount of Bureau of Land Management acres to be sold by half.

"It's still bulls----"responded Noelle Porter, government affairs director at the National Housing Law Project.

Sen. Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, has recently said: "This isn't about building more housing or energy dominance. It's about giving their billionaire buddies YOUR land and YOUR money."

"From the Sierra Club to Joe Rogan, everybody is pissed off about Republicans' public lands sell-off," he wrote on social media Friday. "This is the broadest coalition I've seen around public lands in my lifetime, so keep making sure your voices are heard because we're winning."

Jane Fonda's climate-focused political action committee similarly stressed on social media Friday that "Lee is committed to including a massive public land sale provision in the Big Beautiful Bill. We need you to keep up the pressure and reach out to your senators today and demand they reject any new sales of public lands in this legislation."

And it's not just the land sales in the Friday night text of what critics call the "big, ugly bill." It also "creates new fees for renewable energy projects on public lands, and cuts royalty rates for oil, gas, and coal production on public lands," noted Sam Ricketts, co-founder of S2 Strategies, which is working to build a clean energy economy. "Make it make sense."

As Manuel and Heinrich pointed out, some right-wingers are also outraged by Lee's push to sell off public lands. Benji Backer, founder of Nature Is Nonpartisan and the American Conservation Coalition, took aim at the committee chair on social media Friday night.

"Mike Lee just quietly doubled down on his mass public lands sel-loff by releasing new text," Backer said. "The Senate could consider it as soon as tomorrow. The secrecy is gross—and intentional. Lee knows it's his only path. America, we NEED to stand strong.

Tagging the Senate GOP account and Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.), Backer added that "Americans are entirely UNITED in opposition against this. Please ask Sen. Lee to let this provision... stand on its own—at the very least."

Even if the Senate somehow advances Lee's legislation, it could face trouble in the House of Representatives, which is also narrowly controlled by the GOP. On Thursday, Republican Reps. Ryan Zinke (Mont.), David Valadao (Calif.), Mike Simpson (Idaho), Dan Newhouse (Wash.), and Cliff Bentz (Ore.) warned that "we cannot accept the sale of federal lands that Sen. Lee seeks."

"If a provision to sell public lands is in the bill that reaches the House floor, we will be forced to vote no," warned the lawmakers, led by Zinke, who was the interior secretary during President Donald Trump's first term. Lee's provision, they wrote, would be a "grave mistake, unforced error, and poison pill that will cause the bill to fail should it come to the House floor."

"This is what people have feared."

That was how American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick responded on social media Monday to reporting that a man impersonating a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent zip-tied a woman working as a cashier at a cash-only auto repair shop in Philadelphia and stole around $1,000 on Sunday afternoon.

The incident comes as Republican U.S. President Donald Trump tries to deliver on his campaign promise of mass deportations, sparking protests, including in Los Angeles, where Trump has deployed Marines and federalized the California National Guard—a move the state's Democratic governor and attorney general are challenging in court.

"Expect many, many more stories like this. The Trump administration is a criminal enterprise, emboldening street crimes and white collar crimes."

"He kept saying he is immigration officer," the 50-year-old cashier in Philadelphia, a legal U.S. resident who is from the Dominican Republic, toldFox 29's Steve Keeley. Showing the journalist her bruises, she said that the man tied her arms behind her back, and "every time I tried to turn around to look at his face, he twisted me around roughly."

Although the shop is next to the Philadelphia Police 15th District, it took over two hours before the victim could connect with law enforcement. Police said in a Tuesday statement that the man, who escaped in a white Ford cargo van with red dashes around the middle, remains at large.

Police released surveillance photos of the van and the man, described as a white male in a "black baseball cap with U.S. flag on the front, black sunglasses, black long sleeve shirt, wearing gloves, black tactical vest with 'Security Enforcement Agent,' and dark green cargo pants."

In response to Keeley's social media posts about the robbery, journalist Ryan Grim said early Tuesday that "this type of crime is now possible because ICE agents insist on going around like masked thugs."

Author and Philadelphia native Robert A. Karl warned: "Expect many, many more stories like this. The Trump administration is a criminal enterprise, emboldening street crimes and white collar crimes."

The social media account of the Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party in Minnesota's Senate District 45 similarly said: "Any criminal can now put on a mask, say he is from ICE, and conduct any crime (including kidnapping and rape) and people are expected to just stand aside? Actual law enforcement DOES NOT conceal their identity and act like street thugs while doing their job. This must stop!"

NOW READ: '$10 trillion secret': Low-income voters are finally miffed at Republicans

Over 70 legal experts and a trio of organizations have sent the Florida Bar an ethics complaint calling for an investigation and "appropriate sanctions" against U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, accusing her of engaging in "serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice."

The 23-page complaint, filed Thursday, is signed by Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, Lawyers for the Rule of Law, and individual attorneys, law professors, and former judges. It was first reported by the Miami Herald.

"We file this complaint recognizing that Ms. Bondi currently serves as the attorney general of the United States, the highest-ranking lawyer in the United States government," the coalition wrote. "Indeed, we bring Ms. Bondi's misconduct to your attention precisely because Ms. Bondi holds this exalted position, with the attendant responsibilities for subordinate lawyers under her authority who carry out her directives, and because the complaint highlights for the entire legal profession the importance of ethical rules to our independent, self-regulating profession."

"Ms. Bondi, personally and through her senior management, has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy.'"

After former Florida Republican Congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew from consideration to lead the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) last November, then-President-elect Donald Trump swiftly announced Bondi as his new pick. Senate Republicans and Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) confirmed her in February, despite various concerns, including her lobbyist work for corporate giants.

On Bondi's first day, she moved to dissolve teams that probed foreign lobbying and threats posed by corporate misconduct, revive enforcement of the federal death penalty, investigate DOJ officials who prosecuted Trump, defund sanctuary cities, and end diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs. She also issued a memorandum highlighted in the new complaint.

"The gravamen of this complaint is that Ms. Bondi, personally and through her senior management, has sought to compel Department of Justice lawyers to violate their ethical obligations under the guise of 'zealous advocacy' as announced in her memorandum to all Department employees, issued on her first day in office, threatening employees with discipline and possible termination for falling short," the filing states.

The complaint details "three glaring examples of department lawyers being terminated or forced to resign as a result of demands that they act unethically issued by Ms. Bondi or a member of her senior management, including Emil Bove, initially the acting deputy attorney general (the No. 2 position in the department) and now the principal associate deputy attorney general (the No. 3 position); Todd Blanche, the current deputy attorney general; and Edward Martin, then interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia and now chief of the Justice Department's 'Weaponization Working Group' and the department's pardon attorney."

"Through her 'zealous advocacy' memorandum and its application in these three cases, Ms. Bondi has sent a message to all Justice Department lawyers that they must disregard the applicable rules of professional conduct, fundamental ethical principles, and long-standing norms of the Department in order to zealously pursue the president's political objectives—and, if they fail to do so, they will be disciplined or fired," the filing adds. "However, as Ms. Bondi and her senior staff are fond of saying, no one is above the law, and this includes Ms. Bondi."

The Florida Bar confirmed receipt of the complaint to the Miami Herald but did not comment further. The coalition noted that "we file this complaint notwithstanding the Florida Bar's recent reply to two previous ethics complaints filed against Ms. Bondi that it 'does not investigate or prosecute sitting officers appointed under the U.S. Constitution while they are in office.'"

"The purported rationale for declining to investigate or prosecute is that such action 'could encroach on the authority of the federal government concerning these officials and the exercise of their duties,'" the coalition continued. "The Florida Bar's dismissal is unsupported by history or precedent."

Chad Mizelle, DOJ chief of staff, suggested in a statement to the Miami Herald that the new call for a probe of Bondi will be unsuccessful, like the previous submissions.

"The Florida Bar has twice rejected performative attempts by these out-of-state lawyers to weaponize the bar complaint process against AG Bondi," said Mizelle. "This third vexatious attempt will fail to do anything other than prove that the signatories have less intelligence—and independent thoughts—than sheep."

Meanwhile, Norm Eisen, executive chair of Democracy Defenders Fund, said in a statement that "since her first day on the job, Pam Bondi has made clear that she plans to use the Department of Justice for political pursuits, and she has done just that."

"Especially as the nation’s highest ranking legal officer," Eisen added, "she must be held to account for her actions that threaten the rule of law and the administration of justice."

U.S. President Donald Trump worked to force the federal judiciary to the far right with 234 confirmed nominees during his previous term, and he continued that mission on Wednesday, when the first slate of his second-term selections attended a Senate hearing.

Trump has announced 11 nominees, but only Whitney Hermandorfer, his pick to serve on the Cincinnati, Ohio-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, and four candidates to be district court judges in Missouri—Zachary Bluestone, Joshua Divine, Maria Lanahan, and Cristian Stevens—came before the Senate Judiciary Committee, which considers them before a full floor vote.

Just hours before the hearing began, Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the advocacy group Demand Justice, wrote for Salon that "Trump's judicial nominees are key to the far right's crusade against our courts."

"If confirmed, these nominees would be expected to not only look the other way as the building blocks of America's democracy are gutted, but to pave the way for Trump's radical agenda—gutting reproductive freedoms and allowing the administration to take healthcare away from millions," she warned. "Many of them have histories of defending anti-choice legislation and other radical policies championed by Trump and his MAGA allies in Congress."

"Trump is picking up where he left off in his first term by using judicial nominees to advance an extreme agenda that undermines Americans' fundamental freedoms."

Buchanan wasn't alone in sounding the alarm about threats to healthcare. In anticipation of the hearing, the watchdog Accountable.US published a report detailing how "Trump's first judicial picks have a dangerous record of undermining fundamental freedoms, with a number of them who have a record of directly targeting reproductive rights."

Accountable.US cited Hermandorfer defending Tennessee's near-total ban on abortion as director of strategic litigation for the state attorney general's office, as well as Divine, Missouri's solicitor general, and his deputy, Lanahan, supporting extreme anti-choice efforts in their state.

"Trump is picking up where he left off in his first term by using judicial nominees to advance an extreme agenda that undermines Americans' fundamental freedoms," said Accountable.US president Caroline Ciccone. "But this time, Trump is selecting nominees with personal allegiances to the president, who will go even further in using the bench to cut off Americans' rights. Senators should know a vote to confirm Trump's judicial nominees is a vote to radically undermine reproductive freedom."

Reproductive rights aren't the only topical concern. Buchanan noted that "some of the nominees in this first slate have also supported Trump's attack on birthright citizenship, which has been widely viewed as unconstitutional. And in true loyalist fashion, one worked to defend Trump by seeking to interfere in New York's attempt to hold Trump accountable for state crimes."

The nominee who got involved in the New York case is Divine, who is also under fire for targeting the Biden administration's attempt to provide student debt relief. Student Borrower Protection Center legal director Winston Berkman-Breen said Wednesday that the nominee "built his political brand off the suffering of tens of millions of student loan borrowers across this country, and now the Trump administration is rewarding him with a position that will let him enshrine his personal ideologies into law."

"Time and time again in his lawsuits challenging legal student loan payment and relief programs, Divine took extreme positions at odds with traditional judicial interpretations related to injury, standing, and venue," Berkman-Breen pointed out. "Because of Divine, millions of student loan borrowers remain buried in crushing debt."

"Divine's actions exceeded the bounds of zealous advocacy and were a direct affront to judicial procedure," he added. "Americans deserve a judge who will review the facts of the case before them and apply the law under the Constitution and as passed by Congress—not an ideologue who will manipulate those laws to obtain the outcome he prefers."

The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, a coalition of more than 240 national organizations, similarly asserted in a Tuesday letter that "at a time when so many of our fundamental civil rights are under attack, we need to trust that our judges will impartially and fairly rule on cases without bias or animus."

The coalition specifically took aim at Trump's 6th Circuit nominee, writing that "unfortunately, a careful review of Ms. Hermandorfer’s record shows a demonstrated hostility towards our civil and human rights that is disqualifying for a judicial nominee. We strongly urge the Senate to oppose her nomination."

Earthjustice Action legislative director of the Access to Justice Program Coby Dolan stressed in a Wednesday statement that "we need principled judges who will uphold the law and serve as a bulwark against this administration's brazen attacks on the rule of law and our environment."

"It is the Senate's constitutional obligation to rigorously scrutinize these nominees, asking tough questions to determine whether they are impartial, believe in the government's ability to tackle our most pressing issues, and understand the difference between facts and politics," Dolan added. "We need oversight, not rubber stamps."

The Senate is controlled by the GOP, but only narrowly. Buchanan argued that "given what we are seeing out of the administration, there is no acceptable reason for Senate Democrats to assist their Republican colleagues in pushing through Trump's judicial nominees."

The committee's ranking member, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) on Wednesday pointed to U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent decision to limit the American Bar Association's (ABA) access to information about judicial nominees as proof that "the Trump administration is clearly just trying to cover for unqualified and extreme nominees."

Timereported last week that Bondi's "move against the ABA came a day after Trump announced six new judicial nominees, which included top Justice Department official Emil Bove being put forward to serve as a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit."

The other five newly announced nominees—Ed Artau, Kyle Dudek, Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, John Guard, and Jordan E. Pratt—are on track to serve as district judges in Florida.

"What could possibly go wrong?"

That's a questionNew York Times readers sarcastically asked on social media last Wednesday, after the newspaper reported that Erik Prince, founder of the notorious mercenary firm Blackwater and a key ally of U.S. President Donald Trump, is working with Haiti's interim government "to conduct lethal operations against gangs that are terrorizing the nation and threatening to take over its capital."

The newspaper noted that Prince declined to comment, and while Blackwater is now defunct, the former Navy SEAL "owns other private military entities." The reporting is based on unnamed American and Haitian officials and other security experts.

"Haiti's government has hired American contractors, including Mr. Prince, in recent months to work on a secret task force to deploy drones meant to kill gang members," who "have been killing civilians and seizing control of vast areas of territory" in the Caribbean country, the Times detailed.

"Mr. Prince's team has been operating the drones since March, but the authorities have yet to announce the death or capture of a single high-value target," according to the paper. Pierre Espérance, executive director of the National Human Rights Defense Network in Haiti, said the drone attacks have killed more than 200 people.

American journalist Michael Deibert said on social media, "If this story is accurate, on what authority does Haiti's unelected, temporary interim [government] invite foreign forces into the country and by what means—with whose money—do they intend to pay them for their work there?"

The U.S. State Department has poured millions into Haiti's National Police but told the Times it is not paying Prince.

Deibert said that "as someone who has reported on Haiti's armed groups for 25 years, it's hard to overstate how badly wrong bringing in foreign mercenaries, such as those allied with Erik Prince, will likely go given the current security, social, and political dynamics in the country."

Also weighing in on social media, Keanu Heydari, a history Ph.D. candidate at the University of Michigan, said: "A lot's going on here! A majority-Black nation, hollowed out by decades of foreign intervention, 'turning to' a white war profiteer to restore 'order.' That is not about logistics, this is about coloniality."

Heydari continued:

This isn't a story about drones and gangs. It's about how the world has made it structurally impossible for Haiti to govern itself—then offers mercenaries as a "solution." Haiti's sovereignty has been chipped away by debt, coups, U.N. missions, and now private warlords.Why does Erik Prince show up where Black and Brown countries are in crisis? Because the global market rewards violence disguised as security, especially when it's sold by Westerners to postcolonial states. It's racial capitalism in full view.
The NYT missed the story: This isn't a desperate government making tough choices. It's a story of empire outsourcing control, where mercenaries profit from the very chaos empire helped produce. Haiti deserves justice, not occupation by other means.

The Times article follows The Economist's reporting earlier this month that Haiti's interim government, the Transitional Presidential Council, "is so desperate that it is exploring deals with private military contractors. It has been talking to Osprey Global Solutions, a firm based in North Carolina. The founder of Blackwater, Erik Prince, visited Haiti in April to negotiate contracts to provide attack drones and training for an anti-gang task force. The council declined to comment."

In response to that paragraph in the May 7 article, Jake Johnston, director of international research at the Center for Economic and Policy Research and author of Aid State: Elite Panic, Disaster Capitalism, and the Battle to Control Haiti, also asked, "What could possibly go wrong?"

As U.S. President Donald Trump and congressional Republicans' so-called "Big Beautiful Bill" heads to the Senate, a watchdog group on Tuesday released a report highlighting that dozens of GOP members of Congress worth a total of $2.5 billion are set to benefit from the package, which would cut food and healthcare benefits for millions of working-class Americans.

The group, Accountable.US, found that the top 10 richest Republican senators and top 25 richest GOP members of the House of Representatives have a collective net worth of over $1.1 billion and over $1.4 billion, respectively, "allowing them to take advantage of tax breaks granted by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 that they are currently seeking to extend."

"While pushing for more tax cuts to line their own pockets," the report notes, "many of the richest Republican members are pushing for draconian cuts to the very social programs that millions of their constituents rely on," including federal student aid, Medicaid, and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

According to Accountable.US, "6.3 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 2.1 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use SNAP and are at risk of losing their food security."

Additionally, "9.2 million constituents represented by the top 10 richest senators and 4 million constituents represented by the top 25 richest representatives use Medicaid and are at risk of losing critically needed healthcare," the report warns.

The watchdog also found that 3 million and 930,000 federal student aid grants were given to constituents within these lawmakers' states and districts, respectively, and proposed cuts threaten "to price students out of pursuing higher education."

The richest Republican senator, by a significant margin, is Sen. Rick Scott of Florida, who made his money from the nation's for-profit healthcare system before serving as governor of his state. As of mid-May, his estimated net worth was around half a billion dollars, according to the new report.

Nine of the 10 senators—all but Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah)—"sit on five committees instrumental in shaping budget reconciliation," the report points out, as the upper chamber takes up the package following its passage in the House last week.

"As Trump's Big Beautiful Bill moves to the Senate, we must make it clear: There is nothing 'beautiful' about giving huge tax breaks to billionaires while cutting healthcare, nutrition, and education for working families. It is grossly immoral and, together, we must defeat it," Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who has been traveling the country for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour, said on social media Tuesday.

Just two House Republicans, Reps. Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Warren Davidson of Ohio, joined Democrats in opposing the bill, and GOP Rep. Andy Harris of Maryland, chair of the House Freedom Caucus, voted present.

All other Republicans present voted in favor of the bill—even though, as Accountable.US detailed last week, a dozen wrote to GOP leadership last month saying that they represent "districts with high rates of constituents who depend on Medicaid," so they "cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations."

The watchdog stressed that six of those Republican lawmakers—Reps. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, Rob Wittman of Virginia, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, Young Kim of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey—could directly benefit from the expansion of the "pass-through deduction" in the package.

Meanwhile, Tuesday's report calls out the richest House GOP members, led by Rep. Vern Buchanan of Florida, and Rep. Darrell Issa of California, who are each worth nearly a quarter-billion dollars.

"The One Big Beautiful Bill Act is the definition of promises made and promises kept," Buchanan, vice chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, said in a statement after last week's vote. "This is a commonsense, pro-growth, pro-family, America First bill. We will not stop fighting until we get this bill across the finish line and to the president's desk."

Of the top 25 Republicans in the House, by estimated net worth, 19 sit on five key panels, the report states.

"The richest Republicans in Congress are happy to raise costs for millions of their own constituents and jeopardize healthcare for millions more, while they get a tax cut for themselves," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk in a statement. "The Trump tax scam is a grift for the ultrarich, including those who are in charge of passing this legislation themselves, and a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere."

Monday reporting from the Financial Times that U.S. President Donald Trump's family media company "plans to raise $3 billion to buy cryptocurrencies" sparked a fresh wave of alarm over his administration's policies and potential corruption.

After winning a second term last year, the Republican president transferred his stake in Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG)—which is behind the Truth Social platform—to a revocable trust overseen by his son Donald Trump Jr.

Citing six unnamed sources, FT reported that TMTG "aims to raise $2 billion in fresh equity and another $1 billion via a convertible bond," and "also plans to launch an exchange-traded fund focused on cryptocurrency."

According to the newspaper:

TMTG said in a statement that "apparently the Financial Times has dumb writers listening to even dumber sources" but did not comment further. Representatives for Donald Trump Jr. did not respond to requests for comment. A White House spokesperson declined to comment.

After Reuters also requested comment on the reporting, the news agency noted, TMTG called both Reuters and FT "fake news."

Responding on social media, Elizabeth Sheppard Sellam, director of the politics and international relations program at the University of Tours in France, said that "the most shocking thing is not the project itself, it is who benefits from it: those close to the president, through an opaque structure, and at the heart of the administration."

"The Trump administration has a very strong pro-crypto policy: favorable taxation, favorable regulation, promotion of investments. And meanwhile, his own family is preparing to raise $3 billion to go all-in on bitcoin," she wrote, highlighting Donald Trump Jr.'s role at TMTG.

Sheppard Sellam also noted that both he and the president's second-eldest son, Eric Trump, are set to speak at the Bitcoin 2025 conference, scheduled to start Tuesday in Las Vegas, Nevada. Other planned speakers include Vice President JD Vance, Trump's "Crypto Czar" David Sacks, and various Republicans in Congress.

"Where does politics end and business begin?" the professor asked. "He is a sitting head of state whose immediate entourage is organizing massive financial operations, with a direct effect on the markets... and on their wallets."

Florian Hollenbach, an economist at the Copenhagen Business School in Denmark, simply said, "So much corruption and all out in the open."

The FT reporting came just days after the president dined with the top investors in his meme coin at his Virginia golf club—an event that drew protesters whose chants included: "America's not for sale," "Lock him up," and "Trump is a traitor."

Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has also generated alarm with his crypto executive order. His administration faced further criticism last month for disbanding a U.S. Department of Justice unit tasked with investigating criminal actors in the digital asset space—a decision laid out in a memo authored by the president's former personal defense attorney.

The Trump administration on Friday faced swift backlash to the U.S. Department of Justice's deal to end a felony case against Boeing that stemmed from a pair of 737 MAX passenger jet crashes that collectively killed 346 people in Ethiopia and Indonesia.

Responses on social media included: "No accountability, no safety, just corruption." "Really gotta feel for the families here. Just awful." "Just utterly appalling that Boeing escape[s] real criminal penalties here. People should have gone to jail." "They don't want to set the precedent that powerful people should have to answer to the public for f------ up."

Some critics also pointed to U.S. President Donald Trump's controversial luxury Boeing plane from the Qatari government, asking: "Is Trump getting another free plane? Is that the deal?"

During the Biden administration, Boeing had agreed to plead guilty to a criminal fraud conspiracy charge and pay a fine of up to $487.2 million over the 2018 and 2019 crashes—a deal that was also criticized by some victims' relatives who wanted a trial. However, at a meeting last Friday, federal prosecutors told families the company's posture changed after a judge rejected the plea agreement in December.

That's according toReuters, which cited unnamed sources. The news agency also shared remarks from families' attorneys:

Paul Cassell, a lawyer for the families, said in a statement the government was intent on dropping the prosecution, saying "they conveyed their preconceived idea that Boeing should be allowed to escape any real consequences for its deadly lies." Another lawyer representing family members who attended the meeting, Erin Applebaum, said the DOJ's "scripted presentation made it clear that the outcome has already been decided."

Despite Cassell's conclusion, the lawyer wrote to the DOJ on Thursday to argue against the agreement. He wrote that "in this case any further concessions to Boeing would be utterly inappropriate. This case is the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history, as found by" Judge Reed O'Connor in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, who rejected the previous plea deal.

Also on Thursday, U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) urged Attorney General Pam Bondi not to sign an agreement that "would amount to a slap on the wrist, requiring Boeing to pay an additional fine and compensation to the victims' families, and hire an independent compliance consultant, in exchange for dismissal of the criminal fraud charge."

"DOJ must not sign a nonprosecution agreement with Boeing that would allow the company to weasel its way out of accountability for its failed corporate culture, and for any illegal behavior that has resulted in deadly consequences," argued Warren and Blumenthal, respectively the ranking members of the Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, and the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, in their letter to Bondi.

"Instead, DOJ should ensure that both the company and the executives that ran it are held accountable for any wrongdoing by thoroughly investigating the potential culpability of Boeing executives and holding criminally accountable any individuals that contributed to or allowed the pursuit of profits over people in violation of federal laws or regulations," they added.

Ignoring those urgings, the DOJ on Friday announced an "agreement in principle" that—if it receives final approval—will cost Boeing more than $1.1 billion, including an additional $445 million for families of those killed on Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 and Lion Air Flight 610. In exchange, the department would dismiss the fraud charge, and the company would not be subject to oversight by an independent monitor.

"Ultimately, in applying the facts, the law, and department policy, we are confident that this resolution is the most just outcome with practical benefits," a DOJ spokesperson said in a statement. "Nothing will diminish the victims' losses, but this resolution holds Boeing financially accountable, provides finality and compensation for the families, and makes an impact for the safety of future air travelers."

While Boeing hasn't commented, Cassell told Reuters that "this kind of nonprosecution deal is unprecedented and obviously wrong for the deadliest corporate crime in U.S. history. My families will object and hope to convince the court to reject it."

Fueling further alarm over the Trump administration's lurch toward authoritarianism, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not accurately describe the principle of habeas corpus when asked a question that may appear on a junior high school student's civics exam during a Tuesday morning Senate hearing.

"So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?" Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) asked during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing about the fiscal year 2026 budget request.

"Well," Noem responded, "habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to—"

At that point, Hassan cut her off, saying: "Let me stop you... That's incorrect... Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people."

"If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason," Hassan continued. "Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the 'Live Free or Die' state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans."

"So, Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?" the senator asked.

The secretary replied: "Yeah, I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not. Let us be clear, though, that this president—"

Hassan interjected again, pointing out that "it has never been done without approval of Congress," and even former President Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval for his suspension during the U.S. Civil War.

Lawyers, journalists, and other critics described Noem's remarks as "highly concerning," "embarrassing," and "jaw-dropping."

"This is extraordinary," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The secretary of Homeland Security doesn't know what the right of habeas corpus is (the ancient right to go to court to challenge government detention) and offers an incoherent definition which suggests she thinks it's a presidential power to deport people?"

Independent journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang declared that "the level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's Cabinet picks "is mindblowing."

Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body." As Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) explains: "In the U.S. system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful."

The U.S. Constitution states that "the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

LII notes that "only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the executive. The executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." Since the late 1700s, Congress has passed various related laws.

Later in Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) asked Noem, "Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?"

Noem said: "President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with a retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current-day president."

"This president has never said that he's going to do this," Noem continued. "He's never communicated to me or his administration that they're going to consider suspending habeas corpus, but I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it."

Trump's second administration has framed unauthorized immigration as "the invasion at the southern border."

White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told reporters earlier this month that the "the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion, so it's an option we're actively looking at" as part of the Trump administration's pursuit of mass deportations.

Miller suggested the possible suspension of habeas corpus—or attempt at it—depends on what courts do. The Trump administration has targeted multiple legal immigrants who have been critical of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip for deportation. Some of them have recently been freed from detention by federal judges in response to their legal teams filing habeas corpus petitions.

Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, but it's not clear all GOP members would support a suspension.

"I was a conservative Republican long before Donald Trump became a Republican, joined the Reform Party, became a Democrat, became a Republican again, became an Independent, and finally returned to the Republican Party," David Chung, an editorial fellow at Iowa's The Gazette, wrote Sunday. "But after reading this column, I'm sure some of my Republican friends will accuse me of being a RINO—a Republican in Name Only."

Chung highlighted that after Miller's remarks, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing last Wednesday, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) asked Noem if the current state of illegal immigration into the United States met the "invasion" requirements for a suspension. The secretary said, "I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does."

Recalling the case of Mollie Tibbets, a University of Iowa student murdered by an undocumented man, Chung wrote that "I want to see violent, criminal aliens (legal or illegal) imprisoned, deported, or both, just as much as the next Republican. But I believe that our Constitution and laws are robust enough to accomplish this without trampling on fundamental rights."

While Republicans on Capitol Hill—including the leaders of both chambers of Congress—have long argued for reducing the national debt, the GOP is now pushing a tax bill that would not only fund giveaways to the rich by gutting programs that serve the working class, but also add $3.8 trillion to the U.S. deficit.

The national debt is currently $36.2 trillion. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) on Tuesday released an analysis showing that the Republican bill would cost $3.8 trillion through 2034, or 1.1% of gross domestic product.

The JCT document notes that some estimates—such as the impact of modifications to de minimis entry privilege for commercial shipments and to Medicare, including limiting coverage—will be provided by the Congressional Budget Office.

The JCT's release coincides with a key meeting in the U.S. House of Representatives. As Politicodetailed:

The newly revised estimate released Tuesday afternoon is up slightly from the $3.7 trillion price tag budget forecasters had previously put on the plan, and it comes as the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee began formally debating the package. Additional changes are possible there, and also later, when Republicans are preparing to take the legislation to the House floor." [...]
Under the House GOP's budget, the size of their tax cuts is contingent on lawmakers simultaneously cutting spending, and Republicans are hoping to match $4 trillion in tax cuts with $1.5 trillion in spending reductions.

Ahead of the markup, Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), said in a statement that "this bill gives enormous additional tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations, spikes the deficit, and strips healthcare from millions of Americans."

"Reckless tax cuts for the top and new corporate loopholes appear to be the big features of this bill, and they're paid for by cutting our healthcare and making American communities more vulnerable to floods, fires, and storms," she stressed. "The revenue raisers—which don't stop this from being extremely expensive—seem to be about picking winners and losers, rather than passing rational, consistent policies."

ITEP's statement also lists the bill's major provisions, including making changes to personal income tax rates and brackets from the GOP's 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act permanent; making permanent and increasing the "pass-through" business deduction; increasing the estate tax exemption; and temporarily increasing the child tax credit, but excluding millions of children.

Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) similarly listed provisions on social media Tuesday—and highlighted their impacts.

What's the result of maintaining the top income tax rate cut? "25% of the benefits go straight to the top 1%," the group noted. "The average top 1% household makes $2.5 million a year. They would get a $55k tax break. The top 400 taxpayers would get an $800 MILLION tax cut each year."

"Since they're deficit-financing most of this, every penny of the 'savings' DOGE has found... is paying for tax breaks for the wealthy."

What about widening the "pass-through" loophole? "Half of this break goes to millionaires," ATF continued. "The top 0.1% would get a $107,000 tax cut. The top 1% would get an average $22,500 tax cut. Working families would get around $40 to $50. White households get 90% of the benefit."

The group pointed out that "the package doubles how much rich heirs can inherit without paying taxes. That means a couple could pass on $30 MILLION without paying a penny in taxes. This tax break ONLY benefits the richest 0.2% of households. Weakening the estate tax is projected to cost $200 BILLION."

"It also gives corporations $642 BILLION in tax breaks," ATF said. "Most of the benefit of corporate tax cuts goes to CEOs, rich shareholders, and foreign investors. One provision gives Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, and Tesla alone a $75 BILLION tax cut. Another encourages offshoring."

ATF also tied the proposal to supposed cost-cutting efforts by President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and its de facto leader, Elon Musk—who also happens to be the CEO of Tesla and the richest man on Earth.

"The part they won't say out loud?" the group wrote. "Since they're deficit-financing most of this, every penny of the 'savings' DOGE has found by cutting the [the Department of Veterans Affairs], Department of Education, and Social Security Administration is paying for tax breaks for the wealthy. Really."

Although Republicans control both chambers and the White House, their majorities are slim, meaning absences and disagreements over issues like increasing the deficit or cuts that will anger constituents in swing districts could slow or even impede their ability to send "one big, beautiful bill" to Trump's desk.

As Common Dreams reported earlier Tuesday, U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) is deploying organizers to mobilize opposition against the GOP's emerging reconciliation package, focusing on districts he has visited as part of his Fighting Oligarchy Tour.

Materials that organizers plan to distribute encourage constituents to call their representatives and request they vote no "on a bill to cut Medicaid, nutrition assistance, and education to pay for hundreds of billions of dollars in more tax breaks for billionaires."

NOW READ: Inside the big lie at the heart of Trump's huge tariff hoax

U.S. President Donald Trump—no stranger to allegations of blatant corruption—faced an onslaught of criticism on Sunday in response to ABC Newsreporting that his administration is preparing to accept "what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government."

Ahead of Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, sources told ABC that the administration "is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar—a gift that is to be available for use by... Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation."

The unnamed sources also explained that "lawyers for the White House counsel's office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution's prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts 'from any king, prince, or foreign state.'"

"Even in a presidency defined by grift, this move is shocking. It makes clear that U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump is up for sale."

ABC's revelations about the $400 million "flying palace" follow The Wall Street Journal reporting earlier this month that "the U.S. government has commissioned L3Harris to overhaul a Boeing 747 formerly used by the Qatari government... into a presidential jet."

The White House, Boeing, and L3Harris declined to comment on the Journal's report. Similarly, on Sunday, the White House, Justice Department, and a spokesperson for the Qatari Embassy did not respond to ABC's inquiries.

However, as The Associated Pressreported Sunday:

Hours after the news, Ali Al-Ansari, Qatar's media attaché, in a statement said, "Reports that a jet is being gifted by Qatar to the United States government during the upcoming visit of President Trump are inaccurate.""The possible transfer of an aircraft for temporary use as Air Force One is currently under consideration between Qatar's Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense," the statement said. "But the matter remains under review by the respective legal departments, and no decision has been made."

Amid the uncertainty, a range of people across the internet blasted the supposed plan, slamming it as "indefensible," "incredibly illegal," and "comically corrupt." Some critics pointed out that the reporting comes after the Trump Organization, the Saudi partner DarGlobal, and a company owned by the Qatari government last month reached a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar.

Journalist Mike Rothschild said that "this is spectacularly corrupt, a level of greed and depravity that is breathtaking, even for Trump. Air Force One—the people's plane—is going to be a flying palace donated by Qatar. No American should accept this."

Some critics highlighted security concerns. One legal expert declared, "An emolument and security risk all wrapped up in one!"

Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "Trump's plan to accept a luxury plane from Qatar is blatantly unconstitutional, a textbook violation of the emoluments clause. The concern with foreign gifts is that they can sway a president's policy and predilections—and there's little doubt that Qatar wants to gift Trump a 'palace in the sky' for exactly that reason."

Weissman continued:

"The legal counsel who advised that this gift is OK because Trump will take personal control of it (through his library) only after leaving office should resign immediately, in shame and disgrace. The situation is no different than if the Qataris gave $400 million in cash to Trump and told him to keep it under his bed until 2029, when he could spend it freely. Except possibly it's worse, because he will use the plane in the interim, at great cost to the U.S. taxpayer, who will have to upgrade it.Even in a presidency defined by grift, this move is shocking. It makes clear that U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump is up for sale. The juxtaposition with cancelled foreign aid grants and programs for poor and vulnerable people—cancellations that will cost millions of lives unless reversed—could not be starker or more morally grotesque.

"Is taking a gift from a foreign government this big a bribe or bad judgment? Or just Trump?" Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) asked on social media. "Wish the MAGA movement cared about ethics in their president."

Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said: "The level of corruption from President Trump and his White House is unlike anything we have ever seen in American history. It is appalling and criminal. Openly taking bribes."

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) noted that the reporting comes amid issues at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

"While ordinary Americans' flights are grounded because of problems at the FAA, Trump is taking a $400 million bribe in the form of a 'palace in the sky' from a foreign government," Casar said. "Over and over: He gets paid. Everyone else gets screwed."

This article has been updated with comment from Ali Al-Ansari, Qatar's media attaché.

NOW READ: This is the only way to defeat the morbidly rich

Since Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives on Friday evening released tax-related legislative language and announced a markup for President Donald Trump's "One, Big, Beautiful Bill," economic justice advocates have sounded the alarm.

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Jason Smith (R-Mo.) scheduled a Tuesday afternoon hearing, shared 28 pages of legislative proposals for the reconciliation package, and positively framed the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) that congressional Republicans passed and Trump signed in 2017. The tax reform push comes just months away from parts of that law—which critics call the "GOP tax scam"—expiring.

"So far this costly bill appears to double down on trickle down, with huge tax cuts that will further enrich the rich and not much for the rest of us," said Amy Hanauer, executive director of the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP), in a Saturday statement. "What's more, many of the modest improvements for lower- and middle-income families are proposed to be temporary, whereas the benefits for the wealthiest are proposed to be permanent."

Hanauer's group specifically noted that "the 2017 changes to personal income tax rates and brackets would be made permanent," as would the deduction that individuals receive from "pass-through" businesses, which would also increase from 20% to 22%. Republicans also want to hike the estate tax exemption from $13.99 million per spouse to $15 million and have it continue to rise with inflation.

"The very generous version of a tax break for offshore profits (the GILTI deduction) would be made permanent, effectively taxing the foreign profits of American corporations half as much (at most) as their domestic profits are taxed," the think tank highlighted.

ITEP also flagged that "the 2017 change to the standard deduction would be made permanent, and a temporary four-year boost would bump it up to $16,000 for individuals, $24,000 for taxpayers filing as head of household, and $32,000 for married couples."

"The child tax credit would temporarily increase to $2,500 per child from $2,000 per child for four years, but 4.5 million citizen kids would lose access to the... CTC due to a requirement that both their parents have Social Security numbers," the group warned.

Chuck Marr, vice president of federal tax policy at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, similarly said in a series of Friday social media posts that the emerging "bill appears highly skewed to the wealthy, [with] several regressive expansions of 2017 tax cuts and full of costly timing gimmicks, while, despite their rhetoric, failing to deliver for millions of working-class families."

Like ITEP, Marr blasted House Republicans for their "glaring failure" on the CTC as well as for continuing to push the pass-through deduction and estate tax exemption, the latter of which he called "the most skewed provision of the 2017 law."

"On Tuesday, House Republicans in one committee will be taking away people's health insurance and in another taking away food assistance, while in a third they will be permanently increasing the amount the wealthiest heirs in the country can inherit tax-free," he said, stressing that the GOP aims to pay for its tax giveaways to the rich by gutting Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).

"It also looks like House Republicans are repeating a brazen pattern from 2017: Make the provisions for rich people permanent (recall the 2017 massive corporate rate cut) while making the broader provisions temporary—backwards priorities," Marr declared.

"So tonight we've learned—despite all the Trump bluster—House Republicans are proposing more tax cuts for the wealthy, increasing its already bloated costs, while harshly failing to deliver for millions of families he promised to help," he concluded.

Smith's legislative text notably does not include letting the top tax rate revert from 37% to 39.6% for taxable income greater than $5 million for married couples and $2.5 million—an idea that Trump floated this week but, as NBC Newsput it, "is running into a buzz saw of opposition in the Republican Party."

Trump said on his Truth Social Platform early Friday: "The problem with even a 'TINY' tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, 'Read my lips,' the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I'm OK if they do!!!"

While Trump's comments this week have generated headlines about the president proposing "to raise income taxes on wealthy Americans," ITEP's Steve Wamhoff and Carl Davis argued in a blog post that "nobody should be deceived: The wealthiest taxpayers got enormous tax breaks from Trump's 2017 law and are getting additional large tax breaks in what Trump and Republicans are proposing now."

"We need legislation that requires rich people to pay more taxes, not less," they added. "The Republican legislation will do the opposite, regardless of whether or not Congress includes this latest suggestion from Donald Trump."

Just a day after Senate Republicans confirmed U.S. President Donald Trump's Social Security Administration commissioner, Frank Bisignano, the chamber's Democrats on Wednesday announced a series of letters about outstanding questions and concerns regarding the federal agency—including one that demands an investigation into what they call attempted "financial murder."

Two of the letters unveiled Wednesday were dated April 30. Both were led by Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) and signed by a dozen members of the Democratic Caucus: one was to Leland Dudek, then acting commissioner of the SSA, and another was to Michelle Anderson, assistant inspector general for audit at the agency.

The latter asks the SSA Office of the Inspector General to probe reports that the administration "is taking steps to place certain categories of immigrants who have lawfully obtained Social Security numbers (SSNs) in its Death Master File (DMF)," which contains data on more than 141 million people whose deaths were reported to the agency, in an effort to make them "self-deport."

The letter to Dudek declares that "this inhumane, illegal, and unconstitutional action will inflict—and already has inflicted—irreparable harm on these individuals, undermines trust in and accuracy of the Social Security programs, and sets a dangerous precedent in allowing the government to take away Americans' access to their earned Social Security benefits."

"If living number-holders are improperly transferred to the DMF, they lose their ability to legally work in the United States, as well as access to any earned Social Security benefits, healthcare, banking and credit cards, and access to virtually every other exchange with a third-party that is verified by a valid SSN," the letter explains. "The result is, as former SSA Commissioner Martin O'Malley put it, 'tantamount to financial murder.'"

"Changing the name of the database to the 'Ineligible Master File' as a clumsy attempt to evade public criticism or legal exposure does not mitigate these consequences to these individuals, as has already been reported," the letter asserts, urging Dudek "to immediately cease this practice and remove all individuals placed on the DMF through this initiative."

In addition to Wyden, the letters were signed by Sens. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Patty Murray (D-Wash.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

Warren and Wyden also partnered with the chamber's New York Democrats, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, for a Wednesday letter to Bisignano, who was confirmed Tuesday with a 53-47 vote along party lines.

"Since President Trump took office, we have—prompted by the administration’s attacks on Social Security—sent 17 letters to the Social Security Administration," they wrote. "These letters have sought answers for why the Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appear to be dismantling the SSA, potentially depriving Americans of their hard-earned benefits."

As the letter details:

We have not received responses to the vast majority of our questions. In fact, acting Commissioner Leland Dudek has reportedly instructed staff to not respond to public or congressional inquiries. The limited answers we have received have been unsatisfactory," they continued. We have also requested information from you directly. Through direct inquires, your hearing before the Senate Committee on Finance, and post-hearing questions for the record, we have sought to determine whether you intend to continue DOGE's disastrous efforts to hollow out the SSA. In response, you repeatedly claimed that, because you were not yet working at SSA, you did not have sufficient information to answer. You made these claims despite the fact that a former SSA employee whistleblower has reported that you have been participating extensively in high-level operational, management, and personnel decisions at SSA.

Now that Bisignano has been confirmed, the senators are demanding answers to their nearly 200 questions.

"We are extraordinarily concerned about the future of the SSA under the Trump administration, and Americans deserve information about the fate of their benefits under your watch," the senators wrote. "We therefore ask that you provide full and complete answers to all of our questions no later than May 21, 2025."

NOW READ: 'Our new woke pope': Newly minted pontiff’s post slamming JD Vance lights up social media

Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ended a week of speculation on Monday by announcing that she will not seek the ranking member position on the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

The New York Democrat, who last year ran for ranking member and lost to Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.), told reporters, "It's actually clear to me that the underlying dynamics in the caucus have not shifted with respect to seniority as much as I think would be necessary, so I believe I'll be staying put at Energy and Commerce."

Ocasio-Cortez has recently been crisscrossing the country with U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) for his Fighting Oligarchy Tour. Nationally, the 35-year-old progressive is seen as a possible primary challenger to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and even a potential future presidential candidate.

Politico's Nicholas Wu noted last week that if Ocasio-Cortez declined to run for the committee post, "a number of young, ambitious members could mount bids, including Reps. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, Ro Khanna of California, Maxwell Frost of Florida, and Robert Garcia of California."

Connolly, now 75, sought the House leadership role despite an esophageal cancer diagnosis he disclosed in November. Last Monday, he said in a letter to constituents that "I want to begin by thanking you for your good wishes and compassion as I continue to tackle my diagnosis. Your outpouring of love and support has given me strength in my fights—both against cancer and in our collective defense of democracy."

"When I announced my diagnosis six months ago, I promised transparency," Connolly continued. "After grueling treatments, we've learned that the cancer, while initially beaten back, has now returned. I'll do everything possible to continue to represent you and thank you for your grace."

"The sun is setting on my time in public service, and this will be my last term in Congress," he added. "I will be stepping back as ranking member of the Oversight Committee soon. With no rancor and a full heart, I move into this final chapter full of pride in what we've accomplished together over 30 years. My loving family and staff sustain me. My extended family—you all have been a joy to serve."

The panel's far-right chair, James Comer (R-Ky.), said in response to last week's announcement that "I'm saddened to hear that Ranking Member Connolly's cancer has returned. He is a steadfast public servant who has spent his career serving Northern Virginians with honor and integrity. It's an honor to serve the American people alongside him and I am rooting for him as he battles cancer once again. Our prayers are with Ranking Member Connolly and his family."

Faced with two primary challengers and growing public support for impeaching U.S. President Donald Trump a historic third time, Congressman Shri Thanedar on Monday filed seven articles of impeachment against the second-term Republican.

"Donald Trump has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unfit to serve as president and represents a clear and present danger to our nation's constitution and our democracy," Thanedar (D-Mich.) said in a statement. "His unlawful actions have subverted the justice system, violated the separation of powers, and placed personal power and self-interest above public service. We cannot wait for more damage to be done. Congress must act."

Thanedar explained the seven articles of impeachment included in his resolution in a brief video, which he shared on social media.

As a statement from the congressman's office details, Trump's alleged constitutional violations are:

1. Obstruction of Justice and Abuse of Executive Power: Including denial of due process, unlawful deportations, defiance of court orders, and misuse of the Department of Justice.
2. Usurpation of Appropriations Power: For dismantling congressionally established agencies and impounding federal funds.
3. Abuse of Trade Powers and International Aggression: Including imposing economically damaging tariffs and threatening military invasion against sovereign nations.
4. Violation of First Amendment Rights: Through retaliatory actions against critics, media, and attorneys exercising constitutionally protected speech.
5. Creation of an Unlawful Office: By establishing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and unlawfully empowering Elon Musk to unilaterally violate the Constitution.
6. Bribery and Corruption: Involving dismissing criminal cases, soliciting foreign emoluments, and extortionate settlements for personal and political gain.
7. Tyrannical Overreach: Seeking to consolidate unchecked power, erode civil liberties, and defy constitutional limits on presidential authority.

Earlier this month, Thanedar called for Trump's impeachment over his administration's failure to comply with a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling about facilitating the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a prison in El Salvador to the United States.

"We must take action now," he said at the time. "Donald Trump and members of his administration are deporting people with limited evidence and no due process to horrific megaprisons in a foreign nation. As a member of Congress, I have a responsibility to uphold the checks and balances that safeguard the integrity of our democracy and prevent a slide into authoritarianism. This must be a red line. Otherwise, we risk Donald Trump continuing to defy the Constitution in his own interest, rather than the interest of the nation."

"Enough is enough," Thanedar declared. "We can not allow this obvious authoritarian power grab to continue. I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to stand up for the Constitution and the American people and join the call for impeachment."

While Thanedar had expressed support for impeachment prior to Monday, his resolution came as a second primary challenger announced his candidacy for Michigan's 13th Congressional District. State Rep. Donavan McKinney (D-11) joined former state Sen. Adam Hollier (D-2), who has twice tried to oust the congressman and is trying to do so again next year.

McKinney is backed by the progressive group Justice Democrats, whose executive director Alexandra Rojas said in a statement earlier Monday that "Democratic voters in the face of unprecedented attacks on our livelihoods and liberties are fed up with a Democratic Party overrun by do-nothing career politicians who are totally unequipped to lead in this moment. Donavan represents the future the Democratic Party should be fighting: working-class people taking our power back from multimillionaires to deliver for everyday people."

After Thanedar announced the impeachment resolution, Business Insider senior politics reporter Bryan Metzger said on social media Monday that it is "always interesting to see how primary challenges affect members' behavior, though usually it's a bit more subtle than this."

Recent polling has found that a majority of voters disapprove of how Trump is handling his job and would support a historic third impeachment. In response to one survey, Free Speech for People's Alexandra Flores-Quilty—whose group is leading a nonpartisan Impeach Trump Again campaign—declared Friday that "it's up to Congress to do their job, defend the Constitution, and impeach and remove Donald Trump from office for his grave abuses of power."

Trump is the only president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives—though in both cases during his first term, he was acquitted by the Senate. Republicans now narrowly control both chambers of Congress.

While Republicans haven't yet signaled a willingness to stand against the president, U.S. Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) told attendees of an early April anti-Trump rally that "within the next 30 days, I'm bringing articles of impeachment."

Axios noted Monday that "Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) also privately floated impeaching Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, National Security Adviser Mike Waltz, and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard over Signalgate."

NOW READ: Only one thing is going to stand in Trump's way — and he knows it

The Trump administration has not only sent Kilmar Abrego Garcia to a Salvadoran megaprison due to an "administrative error" and so far refused to comply with a U.S. Supreme Court order to facilitate his return to the United States, but also shared on social media the home address of his family in Maryland, forcing them to relocate.

The news that Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, and her children were "moved to a safe house by supporters" after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt posted to X a 2021 order of protection petition that Vasquez Sura filed but soon abandoned was reported early Tuesday by The Washington Post.

"I don't feel safe when the government posts my address, the house where my family lives, for everyone to see, especially when this case has gone viral and people have all sorts of opinions," said Vasquez Sura. "So, this is definitely a bit terrifying. I'm scared for my kids."

A DHS spokesperson did not respond Monday to a request for a comment about not redacting the family's address, according to the newspaper's lengthy story about Vasquez Sura—who shares a 5-year-old nonverbal, autistic son with Abrego Garcia and has a 9-year-old son and 10-year-old daughter from a previous relationship that was abusive.

On Wednesday, The New Republicpublished a short article highlighting the safe house detail and noting that "the government has not commented on the decision to leave the family's address in the document it posted online," sparking a fresh wave of outrage over the Trump administration endangering the family.

"The Trump administration doxxed an American citizen, endangering her and her children," MSNBC contributor Rotimi Adeoye wrote on X Wednesday. "This is completely unacceptable and flat-out wrong."

Several others responded on the social media platform Bluesky.

"These fascists didn't stop at abducting Abrego Garcia, they've now doxxed his wife, forcing her into hiding," said Dean Preston, the leader of a renters' rights organization. "The Trump administration is terrorizing this family. Speak up, show up, resist."

Jonathan Cohn, political director for the group Progressive Mass, similarly declared, "The Trump administration is terrorizing this woman."

Katherine Hawkins, senior legal analyst for the Project On Government Oversight's Constitution Project, openly wondered "if publishing Abrego Garcia and his wife's home address violates federal or (particularly) Maryland laws."

"Definitely unconscionable and further demonstration of bad faith/intimidation," Hawkins added.

While Abrego Garcia's family seeks refuge in a U.S. safe house, he remains behind bars in his native El Salvador—despite the Supreme Court order from earlier this month and an immigration judge's 2019 decision that was supposed to prevent his deportation. Multiple congressional Democrats have flown to the country in recent days to support demands for his freedom.

Social Security advocates celebrated a hard-fought win on Wednesday while still stressing that the Trump administration poses a dire threat to millions of Americans' earned benefits.

The Social Security Administration on Tuesday seemingly walked back plans to require beneficiaries to verify their identities using an online system and force those who couldn't do so to provide documentation at an SSA field office—some of which may soon be targeted for closure.

"Beginning on April 14, Social Security will perform an anti-fraud check on all claims filed over the telephone and flag claims that have fraud risk indicators," the agency wrote Tuesday on X, the social media platform owned by billionaire Elon Musk, head of President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

"Individuals that are flagged would be required to perform in-person ID proofing for the claim to be further processed. Individuals who are not flagged will be able to complete their claim without any in-person requirements," the SSA explained. "We will continue to conduct 100% ID proofing for all in-person claims. 4.5 million telephone claims a year and 70K may be flagged. Telephone remains a viable option to the public."

The Trump administration was previously accused of trying to "sabotage" SSA by cutting phone services and forcing people who could not verify their identity online through "my Social Security" to do so in-person. That policy was initially set to take effect at the end of March, a rapid rollout reportedly pursued at the request of the White House.

Then, late last month, SSA delayed the start date until April 14, and said that people applying for Medicare, Social Security Disability Insurance, or Supplemental Security Income would be exempt from the rule and could complete their claims by phone.

Reporting on the policy's apparent full rollback on Wednesday, Axiosshared an email from a White House official who said that "because the anti-fraud team implemented new technological capabilities so quickly, SSA can now perform anti-fraud check on all claims filed over the phone."

Those who are flagged "would be required to perform in-person ID proofing for the claim to be further processed," the official told the outlet, echoing the X posts. "The administration remains committed to protecting our beneficiaries from fraud. There will no disruptions to service."

Welcoming the development on X, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said: "We sounded the alarm, and they're backing off. But the fight's not over. Trump and Musk still want to fire thousands of Social Security workers, close offices, and cut services. We'll keep fighting back."

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly said in a statement: "Organizing and mobilizing works. From the moment DOGE announced its dangerous plan to eliminate SSA telephone services, our members sprang into action—making thousands of calls to elected officials, organizing rallies and demonstrations, and demanding the protection of the services they have earned and paid for."

"We are grateful that our voices were heard. As of today, most Americans will still be able to apply for their earned retirement, survivor, or disability benefits through the method that works best for them—whether by phone, in person, or online," Fiesta continued. "Forcing millions of seniors and people with disabilities to rely solely on an understaffed network of closing field offices or an online-only system would have placed an unreasonable burden on vulnerable people and done little to curb fraudulent claims."

Like Warren, he vowed that "we will continue to fight to ensure that SSA is fully staffed and that local field offices remain open and accessible to the public."

Social Security Works also celebrated the news, writing on X: "After a massive public outcry, Elon Musk's DOGE is backing away from cuts to Social Security phone service that would have forced millions of Americans into overcrowded field offices. Your voice matters!"

"But DOGE is still making other huge cuts to the Social Security Administration," the advocacy group added. "These cuts are already making it far harder for Americans to claim their earned benefits. We need to stay loud! Plan or join a rally on April 15th."

"Trump's 'will he, won't he' tariff chaos is just one more con on working people."

That's what Melinda St. Louis, Global Trade Watch director at the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a Wednesday statement after U.S. President Donald Trump announced a 90-pause for what he has called "reciprocal" tariffs, excluding China.

"He claimed that the so-called 'reciprocal tariffs' would protect American jobs, but these reckless tariffs were never designed to do that," she said of Trump. "He just wants to wield threats as a schoolyard bully while giving his billionaire buddies sweetheart deals."

St. Louis warned that "when he says he's going to 'negotiate,' he means more harmful free trade agreements that double down on the failed trade model he claims to oppose and that force countries to gut public interest protections for the benefit of Big Tech, Big Pharma, and other corporate giants."

"Who's left out of his megalomaniacal game? The workers he claimed to support."

"And he wants U.S. companies to beg for exemptions from his tariffs, as they did in his first term. This is all part of Trump's authoritarianism and corruption, forcing countries and businesses to bend the knee just as he is doing with law firms and universities," she stressed. "Who's left out of his megalomaniacal game? The workers he claimed to support. All he has shown is that he'll cave to Wall Street's hand-wringing and prioritize his own power over real people's plight."

St. Louis wasn't alone in continuing to blast Trump's tactics around tariffs, which have led some economists to conclude that the president does not actually even understand how international trade works.

"It took a month to 'negotiate a deal,' but it only took one day for Trump to hit the brakes on his nonsensical new tax on autos from Canada and Mexico," Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a Wednesday statement. "This endless flip-flopping and bluster is just further proof that Donald Trump has no economic strategy beyond slapping tariffs on our trading partners."

"Instead of coming up with a real plan to get American workers a fair shake, he's making the United States into an international joke and driving up prices for U.S. consumers," he added. "If Republicans in Congress allow him to keep this up, Trump will keep yo-yoing on tariffs and using threats to pressure U.S. companies to stay in line instead of fighting back against this senseless economic war on American families."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a longtime critic of "disastrous unfettered free trade deal," said in a lengthy statement that "targeted tariffs can be a powerful tool to stop corporations from outsourcing American jobs... But Trump's chaotic across-the-board tariffs are not the way to do it."

"What Trump is doing is unconstitutional. Trump has claimed supposed 'emergency' powers to bypass Congress and impose unilateral tariffs on hundreds of countries... This is another step toward authoritarianism," the senator asserted. "And let's be clear about why Trump is doing all this: to give massive tax breaks to billionaires."

"These tariffs will cost working families thousands of dollars a year, and Trump plans to use that revenue to help pay for a huge tax break for the richest people in America. That is what Trump and Republicans in Congress are working on right now: If they have their way on the tariffs and their huge tax bill, most Americans will see their taxes go up, while those on top will get a huge tax break," he added. "Enough is enough. We need a coherent trade policy that puts working people first."

Despite warnings that the costs of his planned tariffs would be passed on to consumers, Trump unveiled the duties last week, causing stocks to plummet and fueling recession warnings and speculation that he's tanking the economy on purpose.

Trump's tariffs took effect at midnight Wednesday. By the early afternoon, the president declared a partial pause via his Truth Social platform. He said that more than 75 countries have reached out "to negotiate a solution."

In clarifying comments to reporters on Wednesday, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Bessent said that the 10% baseline tariffs will remain in effect, but higher duties targeting various nations are suspended. He also reiterated that the administration's message is, "Do not retaliate, and you will be rewarded."

The exception to the pause is China, which initially hit back by announcing 34% import duties on American goods last Friday. Faced with Trump's 104% rate on Wednesday, China hiked that to 84% and imposed restrictions on 18 U.S. companies.

Trump wrote on social media Wednesday that "based on the lack of respect that China has shown to the World's Markets, I am hereby raising the Tariff charged to China by the United States of America to 125%, effective immediately."

The Chinese government issued a travel advisory on Wednesday, saying in a statement, "Recently, due to the deterioration of China-U.S. economic and trade relations and the domestic security situation in the United States, the Ministry of Culture and Tourism reminds Chinese tourists to fully assess the risks of traveling to the United States and be cautious."

The Hill reported that during a Wednesday press briefing, Lin Jian, China's Foreign Affairs spokesperson, said that "the U.S. is seeking hegemony in the name of reciprocity, sacrificing the legitimate interests of all countries to serve its own selfish interests, and prioritizing the U.S. over international rules. This is typical unilateralism, protectionism and economic bullying."

"The abuse of tariffs by the United States is tantamount to depriving countries, especially those in the Global South, of their right to development," he added.

Before Trump announced the pause, the European Union was planning to respond to Trump's steel tariffs with "levies of up to 25% on a sweeping list of U.S. products," The Washington Postreported. "There was no immediate comment from the European Union, and it was unclear how Trump's latest announcement might affect the E.U. countermeasures approved Wednesday."

Although stocks soared after Trump's pause announcement, many experts remain skeptical and demanded transparency around the administration's global trade talks.

"Absent transparency about what is being demanded, we could end up with the worst of all outcomes—a bunch of bad special interest deals, all of the economic damage caused by tariff uncertainty and no trade rebalancing, U.S. manufacturing capacity, or goods jobs," said Lori Wallach, director of the Rethink Trade program at the American Economic Liberties Project, in a Wednesday statement.

"The Trump administration could be striking deals with dozens of countries, but absent transparency, the public will not know whether their interests or Trump's billionaire Cabinet and friends on Wall Street or his family are being served," she pointed out. "Deals must focus on addressing the mercantilist practices that some countries employ, which fuel the extreme global trade imbalances that have deindustrialized the United States and today deny the benefits of trade to numerous countries worldwide."

Wallach emphasized that "the Trump administration must not use these talks to bully countries into gutting their online privacy and Big Tech anti-monopoly policies or undermining their food safety, health, or environmental laws."

"The chaos of these whipsaw tariffs flip-flops is already causing economic chaos and losses, undermining confidence in America and our markets," she added. "Cutting deals in secret only adds to that uncertainty and risks corruption, which won't just hurt Trump's stated goal of investment in U.S. manufacturing but the economy as a whole."

While experts like Wallach call for transparency in the tariff process, many congressional Republicans are working to further empower Trump. Nearly all GOP members of the U.S House of Representatives voted Wednesday for a rule that blocks lawmakers' ability to force a vote on repealing the president's import duties for 90 days.

Republican-appointed justices handed the second Trump administration its first win at the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, allowing the Department of Education to temporarily freeze millions of dollars in grants intended to help states combat K-12 teacher shortages while a legal battle over the money plays out.

The emergency order was unsigned, but the three liberals—Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor—all dissented, and Chief Justice John Roberts noted that he "would deny the application" without offering further explanation. That means the decision came from the other five right-wingers, including three appointees of President Donald Trump.

The decision stems from a federal lawsuit filed in the District of Massachusetts by a coalition of Democratic state attorneys general last month after the U.S. Education Department "arbitrarily terminated approximately $600 million in critical grants" for two programs: the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED).

The coalition's initial complaint explains that Congress authorized the funding "to address nationwide teacher shortages and improve teacher quality by educating, placing, and supporting new teachers in hard-to-staff schools, especially in rural and other underserved communities, and in hard-to-staff subjects, such as math and special education."

"The department's actions appear to encompass 'policy objectives' of ending disfavored but lawful efforts to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion—objectives that Congress expressly directed grantees to carry out in creating these programs, including by identifying that these teacher preparation programs should assist 'traditionally underserved' local education agencies... and ensure 'general education teachers receive training in providing instruction to diverse populations, including children with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and children from low-income families," the document details.

U.S. District Judge Myong Joun—an appointee of former President Joe Biden—found that the coalition was likely to succeed on the merits of its claims under the Administrative Procedure Act and issued the temporary restraining order sought by offiicals in California, Colorado, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Wisconsin.

However, the country's high court granted a stay on Friday, concluding that the Trump administration "is unlikely to recover the grant funds once they are disbursed," the plaintiff states "have the financial wherewithal to keep their programs running" during the legal fight, and if they "ultimately prevail, they can recover any wrongfully withheld funds through suit in an appropriate forum."

In a dissent that was under two pages, Kagan wrote that "nothing about this case demanded our immediate intervention. Rather than make new law on our emergency docket, we should have allowed the dispute to proceed in the ordinary way."

Jackson argued in her longer dissent, joined by Sotomayor, that "this court's eagerness to insert itself into this early stage of ongoing litigation over the lawfulness of the department's actions—even when doing so facilitates the infliction of significant harms on the plaintiff states, and even though the government has not bothered to press any argument that the department's harm‐causing conduct is lawful—is equal parts unprincipled and unfortunate. It is also entirely unwarranted."

In a footnote that drew attention from court watchers, Jackson accused the majority of handing the Trump administration "an early 'win'—a notch in its belt at the start of a legal battle in which the long-term prospects for its eventual success seem doubtful," and expressed concern that "permitting the emergency docket to be hijacked in this way, by parties with tangential legal questions unrelated to imminent harm, damages our institutional credibility."

Trump's billionaire education secretary, former wrestling executive Linda McMahon, welcomed the ruling as "an important step towards realizing the president's agenda to ensure that taxpayer funds that support education go toward meaningful learning and serving our students—not to train teachers in radical racial and gender ideologies."

Meanwhile, Steve Vladeck, CNN's Supreme Court analyst and a Georgetown University Law Center professor, said that Friday's decision "is unquestionably a win for the Trump administration, but on remarkably narrow and modest terms."

"It leaves open the possibility that the plaintiffs are going to win not just this case, but a bunch of other challenges to the government's cancellation of grants, while freezing the order in this specific case. And even that was a bridge too far for Chief Justice Roberts and the three Democratic appointees," he added. "It's a victory for the government, but a short-lived one that may soon be overtaken by far more significant losses in the other pending cases in which Trump has asked the justices to intervene."

CNN noted that the Supreme Court "has already resolved two emergency appeals from the Trump administration" and is still considering others on topics including Trump's efforts to end birthright citizenship and to invoke the Alien Enemies Act for mass deportations.

Alarm over U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs continues to grow, with stocks plummeting and JPMorgan warning that "the risk of recession in the global economy this year is raised to 60%, up from 40%."

After China announced new 34% tariffs on all American goods beginning next week, The Associated Press reported Friday that "the S&P 500 was down 4.8% in afternoon trading, after earlier dropping more than 5%, following its worst day since Covid wrecked the global economy in 2020. The Dow Jones Industrial Average was down 1,719 points, or 4.3%, as of 1:08 p.m. Eastern time, and the Nasdaq composite was 4.9% lower."

Noting the state of Wall Street this week, Groundwork Collaborative executive director Lindsay Owens declared in a Friday statement that "Trump has officially brought the economy to its knees."

"The president single-handedly wiped out Americans' retirement savings overnight and subjected businesses to intense whiplash with his increasingly erratic and chaotic policies that continue to drive consumer and business uncertainty," she said. "To call this an economic downturn is an understatement; Trump is marching us straight into a depression."

Political and economic observers have been publicly wondering for weeks if Trump is intentionally crashing the economy. Further fueling those fears, he ramped up his trade war on Wednesday by announcing a minimum 10% tariff for imports, with higher levies for dozens of countries. Although he claimed those steeper duties are "reciprocal," his math "horrified" economists and has been called "crazy."

Responding in a Thursday note titled, There Will Be Blood, head of global economic research Bruce Kasman and other experts at JPMorgan wrote that "if sustained, this year's ~22%-point tariff increase would be the largest U.S. tax hike since 1968."

"The effect of this tax hike is likely to be magnified—through retaliation, a slide in U.S. business sentiment, and supply chain disruptions," states the note, which came before China's announcement.

As Bloombergreported:

Several Wall Street firms on Thursday warned of a U.S. recession, with some making it their base case, after... Trump announced major levies on goods imported from countries around the world. Other economists, including those at JPMorgan, said the hit could be big, though they are taking a wait-and-see approach before revising their projections. The announcement rocked global financial markets, and the S&P 500 suffered its worst day since 2020. Trump, speaking on Air Force One on Thursday afternoon, said he was open to reducing tariffs if trading partners were able to offer something "phenomenal."

"We are not making immediate changes to our forecasts and want to see the initial implementation and negotiation process that takes hold," the JPMorgan note says. "However, we view the full implementation of announced policies as a substantial macroeconomic shock not currently incorporated in our forecasts. We thus emphasize that these policies, if sustained, would likely push the U.S. and possibly global economy into recession this year."

The team also pointed out that the United States is in potential danger no matter how other countries are ultimately impacted, calling a "scenario where rest of world muddles through a U.S. recession possible but less likely than global downturn."

As Common Dreams reported last week, in anticipation of Trump's tariff announcement, Goldman Sachs published a research note projecting that the odds of a recession in the next year are 35%, up from 20%.

Other financial industry research firms that have recently warned of a possible recession include Barclays, BofA Global Research, Deutsche Bank, RBC Capital Markets, and UBS Global Wealth Management, according toReuters.

"This is a game-changer, not only for the U.S. economy, but for the global economy. Many countries will likely end up in a recession," Olu Sonola, head of U.S. economic research at Fitch Ratings, said in a late Wednesday note about the levies. "You can throw most forecasts out the door, if this tariff rate stays on for an extended period of time."

Experts have made similar comments to the press in the wake of the president's Rose Garden remarks on Wednesday. Time on Friday shared some from Brian Bethune, a Boston College economics professor:

"[Consumers] are not even going to the grocery store and paying more for vegetables because there's none available from Mexico, or going to Whole Foods, for example, and finding the big sections of fresh fruit are being shut down. They haven't really felt the full impact [yet], and they're already saying something isn't right," Bethune says. However, while some economists... are more cautious in their discussion about a possible recession, Bethune says it's "inevitable." The question, he says, is just how long until it happens and for how long will it occur? He sees Trump's admission of there being " some pain" on the horizon as only proof of the inevitability.
"At least they [the Trump administration] are not pretending that it's not disruptive, but they're basically soft-selling it, reflecting their ignorance about the way business operates," Bethune claims.

Also on Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released the latest U.S. jobs data. Although the unemployment rate rose from 4.1% to 4.2% in March, the economy added 228,000 jobs, which was better than expected.

However, economists warn of what lies ahead. As University of Michigan economics professor Betsey Stevenson put it, "Today's jobs report is like looking at your vacation photos after you had a horrible car crash on the way home."

Allison Riggs, a Democratic associate justice on the North Carolina Supreme Court, vowed to continue a legal battle over her narrow November victory after a state appeals panel on Friday took a major step toward invalidating more than 60,000 votes.

Riggs' GOP challenger, Judge Jefferson Griffin, lost by 734 votes—but rather than conceding, he has sought to have select ballots thrown out. In Friday's 2-1 decision, Republican Judges Fred Gore and John Tyson gave the targeted citizens 15 days to provide documentation to election workers confirming their eligibility to vote. If they don't do so, their votes could be discarded.

"We will be promptly appealing this deeply misinformed decision that threatens to disenfranchise more than 65,000 lawful voters and sets a dangerous precedent, allowing disappointed politicians to thwart the will of the people," Riggs said in a statement.

"North Carolinians elected me to keep my seat, and I swore an oath to the Constitution and the rule of law—so I will continue to stand up for the rights of voters in this state and stand in the way of those who would take power from the people," she added.

Since Riggs has recused herself from the case, only six of the North Carolina Supreme Court's justices will hear her appeal, "raising the possibility of a 3-3 deadlock," The News & Observer reported Friday.

As the Raleigh newspaper detailed:

If that were to happen, the most recent ruling of a lower court prevails, which means Friday's decision from the Court of Appeals could stand. Riggs has said that if she loses at the state court level, she intends to return the case to federal court.
Republicans already hold a 5 to 2 majority on the state Supreme Court. If Griffin ultimately wins his case and replaces Riggs, that majority will grow to 6 to 1, further complicating Democrats' hopes to retake control of the court in coming elections.

Although the court fight is far from over, Griffin spokesperson Paul Shumaker and North Carolina GOP Chair Jason Simmons cheered Friday's decision, from which Democratic Judge Toby Hampson dissented.

Hampson's dissent begins by pointing out that Griffin "has yet to identify a single voter—among the tens of thousands petitioner challenges in this appeal—who was, in fact, ineligible to vote in the 2024 general election under the statutes, rules, and regulations in place in November 2024 governing that election."

"Changing the rules by which these lawful voters took part in our electoral process after the election to discard their otherwise valid votes in an attempt to alter the outcome of only one race among many on the ballot is directly counter to law, equity, and the Constitution," Hampson argued.

Democratic leaders in North Carolina and beyond also blasted the majority's decision. State Democratic Party Chair Anderson Clayton said that "Judge Tyson and Gore put party affiliation above the rights of North Carolina voters" when they "legitimized Jefferson Griffin's unconstitutional challenge" to tens of thousands of legally cast votes.

North Carolina House of Representatives Minority Leader Robert Reives (D-54) declared: "We cannot mince words at this point: The North Carolina Republican Party is one step closer to stealing an election in broad daylight. Justice Allison Riggs won her election—full stop. Our democracy continues to be tested, but we cannot allow it to break."

Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin warned that "this partisan decision has no legal basis and is an all-out assault on our democracy and the basic premise that voters decide who wins their elections, not the courts. If upheld, this could allow politicians across the country to overturn the will of the people."

"North Carolinians chose Allison Riggs to be their North Carolina Supreme Court justice," Martin stressed. "They won't stand for Republicans trying to take their votes away or those of active duty North Carolina military. It's six months past time for Jefferson Griffin to concede this race that he lost."

Bob Phillips, executive director of the nonpartisan voting rights organization Common Cause North Carolina, was similarly engaged, saying: "Today's ruling is a disgrace. This poorly conceived decision is an extreme overreach and sides with a sore loser candidate over the citizens of our state. If allowed to stand, the ruling would inject chaos into North Carolina's elections in ways that could disenfranchise tens of thousands of lawful voters and invite similar challenges nationwide."

Phillips continued:

Let's be clear: these North Carolina voters did absolutely nothing wrong. They followed the rules and cast ballots that should count. To say otherwise now is an affront to the rule of law and our Constitution. If Griffin gets his way, never again will the people of North Carolina be able to have confidence in the outcome of our elections. Instead, Griffin's reckless lawsuit will open the door to an endless stream of other sore loser candidates who will attempt to throw out enough votes until they can cheat their way into office.
This fight is not over. We are confident that the courts will ultimately see Griffin's ploy for what it is: an unconstitutional attack on our freedom to vote.

"The people of North Carolina will continue to protest against Griffin's outrageous attack on our rights," he added, "as we continue our work to protect our family members, friends, and neighbors who are targeted by Griffin's disgraceful scheme."

Dozen of advocacy organizations on Wednesday joined the growing call for U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership position after caving to Republicans on a stopgap spending measure last month.

Given GOP control of Congress and the White House, people across the country saw the looming government shutdown as a rare opportunity for Democratic lawmakers to fight against President Donald Trump's agenda. However, Schumer (D-N.Y.) led 10 caucus members in partnering with Senate Republicans to force through the spending legislation.

Since then, polling has made clear that voters are frustrated with the Democratic Party and Schumer in particular, and want political leaders to challenge the GOP's agenda, which is primarily passing more tax giveaways for the wealthy and gutting the federal government—an effort led by Trump adviser Elon Musk, the richest person on Earth.

"As Trump and Musk seek to dismantle not just the key public health and safety functions of our federal government, but also the fundamental pillars of our democracy itself, we require the unflinching, bold and strategic resistance of every single Democrat in Washington—especially party leaders such as Senator Schumer," said Mitch Jones, managing director of policy and litigation at Food & Water Watch, in a statement.

"Schumer's inexplicable surrender and support for a dangerous and cruel MAGA spending bill amounted to a complete dereliction of duty and failure of leadership. For this simple reason, Schumer must step down as Senate majority leader immediately," added Jones, whose group led the letter with Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) and the Center for Biological Diversity (CBD).

"Sen. Schumer, you have lost the confidence of elected Democrats, and you have lost the confidence of our organizations."

Ultimately, over 50 other groups signed on to the letter to Schumer, which begins, "We write to urge you in the strongest terms to step down as Senate minority leader so that someone more prepared and willing to fight the disastrous Musk-Trump agenda can step up and lead."

Pointing to the shutdown battle, or lack thereof, the letter asserts: "You surrendered one of the very few points of leverage Democrats have to stop the full-scale dismantling of key government functions and Musk-Trump's complete disregard for congressional actions. Further, it was evident throughout the process that there was no plan, no message, and no strategy. We face an existential crisis for our food, water, health, communities, and climate. We simply cannot afford more of the same."

"Trump, Musk, and the Republican Congress are engaging in an assault on basic government functions," the letter stresses. The Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) "is cutting or eliminating many critical programs that include consumer protection from corporate fraud, clean water and food safety and assistance, education, renewable energy, and healthcare and retirement and access to them including Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

With the spending bill, "is clear there was no strategy around the fight and no communication plan. Frankly, there hasn't been since the start of the Trump administration," the groups argued. "You simply gave your vote and support, receiving nothing in return except praise from Trump. This is inexcusable."

"Sen. Schumer, you have lost the confidence of elected Democrats, and you have lost the confidence of our organizations," the coalition continued. "We need strong leadership to really fight the Musk-Trump agenda. We need a leader who will tell a clear story about what Musk and Trump are doing, who will hold daily briefings with key messages, who will rally the people and organize in congressional districts across the country, and who will engage forcefully and clearly in the media—including alternative media."

"Allow a Democratic senator who can do all these things to step up and lead," the organizations implored. "It's time to do the right thing. It's time to step down as Senate minority leader."

While the groups did not put forth any alternative names to fill the role, PDA executive director Alan Minsky said Wednesday that "we need a fearless Senate minority leader who will seize every opportunity to disrupt Trump's plans. Chuck Schumer has never been a strong negotiator, and his capitulation last month over the budget showed he is not the right leader for this moment. Democrats need a new minority leader—one who understands the stakes and will never back down."

Brett Hartl, government affairs director at CBD, warned that if Schumer remains, "the best Democrats can hope for is permanent minority status in the Senate, the worst will be the end of our democracy, complete ruin of the climate, and the evisceration of all our bedrock environmental protections."

The letter came a day after Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.), a 2020 presidential candidate, broke the record for the longest Senate speech with over 25 hours of remarks decrying Trump and Musk's assault on the government. Multiple Democrats, including Schumer, asked Booker questions, to give him opportunities to rest and shift topics.

Meanwhile, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.)—who caucuses with Democrats and sought the party's 2016 and 2020 presidential nominations—is in the midst of a "Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here" tour across the United States. Multiple Democratic lawmakers have joined him, including New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who faces mounting pressure to primary Schumer in the 2028 cycle.

commondreams.org

Judge Dismisses Adams Corruption Case But Aims to Kill Trump's Leverage Over NYC Mayor | Common Dreams

A federal judge in Manhattan dismissed the corruption case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams on Wednesday but also tried to ensure that going forward, the Trump administration cannot use the charges as leverage over the Democrat—who had agreed to help with the White House's mass deportation agenda in exchange for what opponents blasted as an "openly corrupt legal bailout."

In February, just weeks after Republican President Donald Trump returned to office, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) instructed prosecutors to drop federal charges against Adams, triggering widespread outrage over the attempted "illegal quid pro quo," as some congressional critics have called it.

"DOJ's motion states that dismissal of this case is justified for several reasons, including because 'continuing these proceedings would interfere with" the mayor's ability to govern, thereby threatening 'federal immigration initiatives and policies,'" Judge Dale Ho, appointed to the Southern District of New York by former President Joe Biden, wrote Wednesday in a 78-page opinion and order.

Ho explained that "a critical feature of DOJ's motion is that it seeks dismissal without prejudice—that is, DOJ seeks to abandon its prosecution of Mayor Adams at this time, while reserving the right to reinitiate the case in the future. DOJ does not seek to end this case once and for all. Rather, its request, if granted, would leave Mayor Adams under the specter of reindictment at essentially any time, and for essentially any reason. The court declines, in its limited discretion under Rule 48(a), to endorse that outcome."

"Instead, it dismisses this case with prejudice—meaning that the government may not bring the charges in the Indictment against Mayor Adams in the future," he continued. "In light of DOJ's rationales, dismissing the case without prejudice would create the unavoidable perception that the mayor's freedom depends on his ability to carry out the immigration enforcement priorities of the administration, and that he might be more beholden to the demands of the federal government thanto the wishes of his own constituents. That appearance is inevitable, and it counsels in favor of dismissal with prejudice."

Ho noted that "various groups that have submitted friend-of-the-court briefs urge this court to go further and deny DOJ's motion altogether, arguing that the reasons DOJ has given to justify dismissing this case are unsubstantiated or contrary to the public interest. The court ultimately declines their invitation to deny the motion. But it concludes that many of their arguments have merit."

However, as the judge detailed, he ultimately did not deny the DOJ's motion for two reasons: "The first is that a court's principal role in deciding a motion of this nature is to protect the rights of the defendant... The second and perhaps more fundamental reason is that a court, if it were so inclined, would have no way to compel the government to prosecute a case in circumstances like those presented here."

As The Citypointed out, "The dismissal comes just weeks before the June 24 mayor primary and a day before the mayor is required to file petition signatures his campaign is collecting to get on the ballot."

In the crowded Democratic primary contest, Adams' challengers include former Gov. Andrew Cuomo—who resigned in 2021 in the face of sexual harassment allegations he has denied—and state Rep. Zohran Kwame Mamdani, a Democratic socialist who represents New York's 36th Assembly District in Queens.

A 2024 Democratic National Convention delegate known as Candidly Tiff on social media said Wednesday that "the judge actually helped Eric Adams with this ruling. He should be thankful the [White House] can no longer dangle this case over his big head. Should be a sign for him to walk away from politics but his ego is too damn big."

The development also sparked calls for Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James to bring state charges against Adams. Attorney Tristan Snell said that she "can and should" do so "immediately."

A pro-voter coalition on Monday sued to block U.S. President Donald Trump's recent executive order that critics warn would make it harder for tens of millions of eligible citizens to cast their ballots in state and federal elections.

The Campaign Legal Center (CLC) and State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF) sued the executive office of the president and members of Trump's administration in a Washington, D.C. federal court on behalf of three advocacy groups: the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), Secure Families Initiative (SFI), and Arizona Students' Association (ASA).

"The president's executive order is an unlawful action that threatens to uproot our tried-and-tested election systems and silence potentially millions of Americans. It is simply not within the president's authority to set election rules by executive decree, especially when they would restrict access to voting in this way," said Danielle Lang, senior director of voting rights at CLC.

"Donald Trump is attempting to wrongfully impede voting by millions of Americans with this latest unlawful executive order."

As the complaint puts it: "Under our Constitution, the president does not dictate election rules. States and Congress do... Through the order, the president attempts to exercise powers that the Constitution withholds from him and instead assigns to the states and to Congress. The order violates and subverts the separation of powers by lawlessly arrogating to the president authority to declare election rules by executive fiat."

Trump's order includes provisions enabling the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and Department of Homeland Security to subpoena voting records for "list maintenance," restricting mail-in voting, and requiring the Election Assistance Commission to include documentary proof of citizenship on the federal voting form.

"Donald Trump is attempting to wrongfully impede voting by millions of Americans with this latest unlawful executive order. But it will not work. In America voters get to pick their president—presidents don't get to pick their voters, declared SDDF co-founder and executive chair Norm Eisen. "We are proud to stand up for the ability of every American voter to cast their ballots freely and fairly through this litigation."

Advocacy group leaders detailed how provisions in Trump's order would impact various communities if the directive isn't struck down.

"Military families, veterans, caregivers, and overseas voters deserve secure access to the very democracy we serve to protect—no matter where we're stationed or how we serve," said SFI executive director Sarah Streyder. "This new order would mean that the veteran who is a full-time caretaker at home, who has done everything right, may now be shut out of the ballot box due to outdated paperwork."

"This new order would mean that the military family stationed on the other side of the world from home, who crossed every t and dotted every i—their military ID will no longer suffice, and due to mail delays outside of their control, their ballot will never count," Streyder warned.

Roman Palomares, LULAC's national president, declared that "this executive order, based on nothing but years of disinformation, is blatantly unlawful and a naked attempt to suppress the votes of targeted communities—disproportionately impacting the Latino community."

"We are proud to join this coalition seeking to stop the effort to silence the voice and votes of the U.S. electorate—and particularly of voters of color," Palomares continued. "Our democracy depends on all voters feeling confident that they can vote freely and that their vote will be counted accurately."

Kyle Nitschke, co-executive director of Arizona Students' Association, highlighted that some states have imposed voter suppression laws similar to Trump's executive order (EO).

"The Arizona Students' Association has seen firsthand what these egregious citizenship requirements really are, an attempt to suppress the vote. In Arizona we have a dual-track federal registration system, and the voters being affected by citizenship requirements are college students registering to vote for the first time, unsheltered voters, and Native voters, Nitschke said. "There are already extensive citizenship checks in place when registering to vote, Trump's EO is a clear attack on our voting rights. Our student members believe we should live in a country where it's accessible and convenient to be a part of democracy."

The Associated Press noted that "Monday's lawsuit against Trump's elections order could be just the first of many challenges. Other voting rights advocates have said they're considering legal action, including the American Civil Liberties Union and Democratic attorney Marc Elias. Several Democratic state attorneys general have said they are looking closely at the order and suspect it is illegal."

Monday evening, the Democratic National Committee, Democratic Governors Association, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) announced that they also filed a suit against the order in the D.C. court. They are represented by Elias Law Group.

"This executive order is an unconstitutional power grab from Donald Trump that attacks vote by mail, gives DOGE sensitive personal information, and makes it harder for states to run their own free and fair elections," they said in a joint statement. "It will even make it harder for military members serving overseas and married women who have changed their name to have their votes count."

"Donald Trump and DOGE are doing this as an attempt to rationalize their repeatedly debunked conspiracy theories and set the groundwork to throw out legal votes and ignore election outcomes they do not like," they added. "It's anti-American and Democrats are using every tool at our disposal—including taking Trump to court—to stop this illegal overreach that undermines our democracy."

The pro-voter lawsuits are also among several legal challenges to Trump's long list of executive actions since January 20. As Common Dreamsreported earlier Monday, the National Treasury Employees Union filed a federal suit in the same D.C. court over Trump's recent order that aims to strip collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of government workers.

It's not just the Trump administration that's working to make it more difficult for Americans to participate in democracy. Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives are also planning to hold a vote on the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act this week.

"If the bill passes, more than 21 million Americans could be blocked from voting," the Brennan Center for Justice warned on social media Monday. "The SAVE Act would be the first voter suppression bill ever passed by Congress. Lawmakers should be protecting the freedom to vote—not restricting it. We urge Congress to reject the SAVE Act."

This article has been updated to include the Democratic lawsuit.

The Washington Postreported Thursday that a White House document shows U.S. officials are preparing to cut 8-50% of agency staff in "the first phase" of President Donald Trump and billionaire adviser Elon Musk's effort to gut the federal bureaucracy—eliciting a fresh wave of outrage directed at them and their Department of Government Efficiency.

The document only covers 22 agencies and, according to the Post, "several people familiar with the document stressed that planning remains fluid," a sentiment echoed by Harrison Fields, White House principal deputy press secretary, in an email.

"It's no secret the Trump administration is dedicated to downsizing the federal bureaucracy and cutting waste, fraud, and abuse. This document is a pre-deliberative draft and does not accurately reflect final reduction in force plans," Fields told the newspaper. "When President Trump's Cabinet secretaries are ready to announce reduction in force plans, they will make those announcements to their respective workforces at the appropriate time."

When Trump took office, there were around 2.3 million federal workers. The leaked document—last updated Tuesday—includes the following potential personnel cuts:

• 30% at the Department of Commerce;
• 50% at the Department of Housing and Urban Development;
• 25% at the Department of the Interior;
• 8% at the Department of Justice;
• 30% at the Department of the Treasury;
• 10% at the Environmental Protection Agency;
• 33% at the Internal Revenue Service;
• 43% at the Small Business Administration; and
• 28% at the National Science Foundation.

"Cuts have already been announced at some agencies, including the Education Department, which said this month that it would be reducing its staff by half. The document did not list those reductions among its totals," according to the paper. "It also did not specify staff reduction goals for certain agencies, such as the Department of Veterans Affairs."

Trump and Musk's "DOGE-Manufactured chaos" is already impacting both federal employees and Americans who rely on them. At the Social Security Administration—which aims to oust roughly 7,000 staffers, bringing the agency down to 50,000—beneficiaries are dealing with website problems and hourslong wait times for phone services.

Responding to the Post's reporting on social media, writer and podcaster Wajahat Ali asked: "How does this help the economy become great again, MAGA? I'll wait..."

Brian Donlon, the retired head of programming at Scripps News, tied the looming job cuts to Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led agenda for a far-right takeover of the federal government, from which Trump unsuccessfully tried to distance himself while on the campaign trail.

"I have been rewatching Trump campaign rallies (I watched most live while running programming at Scripps News)," he said. "I can't find any references to an austerity budget or a downsized federal government. Project 2025 however does. Will keep looking."

Bluesky user J. Offir, who has a Ph.D. in social psychology, said that "my main concerns are health, education, and the environment (all of which relate to public health) but the casualties of this war are everywhere."

Offir also noted "the hell" at agencies under the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)—which is now led by conspiracy theorist Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who earlier Thursday announced a major restructuring and 20,000 job cuts, including employees who took the administration's infamous "Fork in the Road" offer.

"This announcement is shocking. There is no way that HHS will be able to continue providing the lifesaving services and research it is mandated to provide after losing a quarter of its workforce between the layoffs and early separation packages," said Jennifer Jones, the director of the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists, in a statement.

Jones explained that "these are people who ensure our medications and food supplies are safe, help protect us against infectious diseases, and conduct research to treat disease and help people live longer, healthier lives. HHS staff also oversee Medicaid and Medicare, the health insurance programs critical for low-income and elderly Americans as well as those with disabilities."

"Keep in mind, these cuts are brought to you by a man who has made a career out of peddling fringe conspiracy theories and misinformation. He is part of an administration that is incompetent and corrupt. He's known for his debunked anti-vaccine rhetoric, and his response to the deadly measles outbreak in Texas, which has spread to other states, has been nothing short of inept," she added. "Secretary Kennedy minimizes this action as 'a painful period' for the agencies, ignoring the pain that will be inflicted on everyone in this country."

Defenders of the Social Security Administration on Friday blasted acting Commissioner Leland Dudeks' threat to shut down the agency in response to a federal judge cutting off the Department of Government Efficiency's access to SSA data.

U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander wrote Thursday that "the DOGE team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA." She issued a temporary restraining order targeting affiliates of the government-gutting entity created by Republican President Donald Trump and led by Big Tech CEO Elon Musk, the richest person on the planet.

While the advocacy and labor groups behind the lawsuit celebrated the order from Hollander—who was appointed to the District of Maryland by former President Barack Obama—Dudek responded to the ruling with a threat to shut down the agency entirely.

"My anti-fraud team would be DOGE affiliates. My IT staff would be DOGE affiliates," Dudek told Bloomberg. "As it stands, I will follow it exactly and terminate access by all SSA employees to our IT systems."

"Now, like a child who didn't get his way, he is threatening to shut down Social Security."

Dudek—who is leading the SSA until the U.S. Senate decides whether to confirm Trump's nominee, former Fiserv CEO Frank Bisignano—said he would ask the judge to immediately clarify her order, adding: "Really, I want to turn it off and let the courts figure out how they want to run a federal agency."

Lee Saunders, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME)—which filed the suit with the Alliance for Retired Americans and the American Federation of Teachers—said in a Friday statement that "for almost 90 years, Social Security has never missed a paycheck—but 60 days into this administration, Social Security is now on the brink."

"Acting Commissioner Leland Dudek has proven again that he is in way over his head, compromising the privacy of millions of Americans, shutting down services that senior citizens rely on, and planning debilitating layoffs, all in service to Elon Musk's lies," he continued. "Now, like a child who didn't get his way, he is threatening to shut down Social Security. Rather than comply with a lawful court order, he wants to see millions of families, retirees, and disabled individuals go hungry, suffer, and potentially lose their homes all to curry favor with anti-worker billionaires. It's despicable."

"Even for this administration, this is a new low. Project 2025 didn't dare mention Social Security, but we always knew they would put it on the table," he added, citing a Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for remaking the government. "We've fought back efforts by anti-union extremists and billionaires to privatize and gut Social Security before, and we'll do it again. Workers paid into this program; it belongs to us."

Groups that are not part of the case also took aim at Dudek on Friday. Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, called the threat "to hold hostage" the earned benefits of over 70 million people "inexcusable" and "yet another example of the Trump administration's hostility to American seniors."

"Dudek is throwing a temper tantrum—claiming that if DOGE can't access American's data, neither can anyone else," he said. "No one in the federal government has the breadth of access to data that Elon Musk has demanded. Social Security employees' access is compartmentalized and only made available on a 'need-to-know' basis, and those with access to the data go through rigorous screening, training, and are subject to fines and/or jail time for violating this policy."

Richtman asserted that "Musk's continued effort to justify his actions by doubling down on thoroughly debunked claims of 'massive fraud' at SSA are being laid bare as a mere pretext for acquiring every American's personal information—which could then be used as weapons against anyone who disagrees with the Trump administration's actions."

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, declared that "Dudek's leadership has been the darkest in Social Security's nearly 90-year history. He has sown chaos and destruction... His highest loyalty is to Elon Musk and Donald Trump, not to the beneficiaries that the agency is meant to serve. Singlehandedly, he has taken the security out of Social Security."

"Members of Congress who remain silent are complicit. The Trump-nominated commissioner, who will have his confirmation hearing next week, is no better. In fact, he proudly calls himself 'a DOGE person,'" she warned of Bisignano.

"Every member of Congress, Republicans and Democrats alike, must condemn the destruction of our Social Security system and demand that the Trump administration follow Judge Hollander's order," Altman added. "They must make it clear that no president—even one who thinks he is a king—can shut down our Social Security system."