The congressmen behind the Epstein Files Transparency Act on Thursday asked a federal judge to appoint a “special master and/or independent monitor” to ensure that the Trump administration actually releases the documents from the trafficking case against deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, as required by the new law.

Reps. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) and Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) led the monthslong congressional effort to pass the legislation, which Trump—a former friend of Epstein who’s repeatedly mentioned in the files—signed in November. Since then, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has published some heavily redacted materials but blown the December 19 deadline to release everything.

“We have offered for six months to meet with the Justice Department to help them get the right documents out, and we’re now going to be intervening with the Southern District of New York (SDNY) to ask those judges to appoint a special master and ensure that all the documents are released,” Khanna told NPR last week.

Khanna and Massie did so with a Thursday letter to Judge Paul Engelmayer, writing to the appointee of former President Barack Obama that “we have urgent and grave concerns about DOJ’s failure to comply with the act as well as the department’s violations of this court’s order.”

As MS NOW—which initially reported on the letter—explained, “Engelmayer oversees the case involving Ghislaine Maxwell, and last month, the Justice Department obtained Engelmayer’s permission to release grand jury materials and other evidence provided to Maxwell in discovery that were redacted or sealed per a court order.”

On December 24, the DOJ announced that it had received over a million more documents from the Federal Bureau of Investigation and SDNY “to review them for release, in compliance with the Epstein Files Transparency Act, existing statutes, and judicial orders.” The department added then that “due to the mass volume of material, this process may take a few more weeks.”

Khanna and Massie noted in their letter that the DOJ’s most recent court filing on Monday states the department has only produced “approximately 12,285 documents (compromising approximately 125,575 pages)” and there is still “more than 2 million documents potentially responsive to the act in various phases of review.”

As the lawmakers pointed out: “Other reports suggest that the DOJ may be reviewing more than 5 million pages. Because these figures are self-reported and internally inconsistent with prior representations, there is reasonable suspicion that the DOJ has overstated the scope of responsive materials, thereby portraying compliance as unmanageable and effectively delaying disclosure.”

According to their letter:

The conduct by the DOJ is not only a flagrant violation of the mandatory disclosure obligations under the Epstein Files Transparency Act, but as this court has recognized in its previous rulings, the behavior by the DOJ has caused serious trauma to survivors. In addition, the DOJ has not complied with Section 3 of the act, which requires the attorney general, within 15 days of the deadline for release, to submit a report to the House and Senate Judiciary committees identifying the categories of records released and withheld and summarizing all redactions and their legal bases. To date, no such report has been provided. Without it, there is no authoritative accounting of what records exist, what has been withheld, or why, making effective oversight and judicial review far more difficult.
Put simply, the DOJ cannot be trusted with making mandatory disclosures under the act.

Khanna and Massie added that “while we believe that criminal violations have taken place and must be addressed, the most urgent need now is for the DOJ to produce all the documents and electronically stored information required by the act.”

The pair has threatened to bring inherent contempt proceedings against US Attorney General Pam Bondi. Asked about that on Tuesday, Massie told MS NOW that they were assessing the situation and still hoped for DOJ compliance.

“Hopefully, we don’t have to do it,” the congressman said. “But when we feel like we need to do it, we’ll do it.”

Two Democratic leaders in the US Senate revealed Tuesday that they’re demanding answers from the White House chief of staff, Susie Wiles, about her access to federal files on deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein and whether she’s involved in their “bungled and potentially illegal partial release.”

President Donald Trump had a well-documented friendship with Epstein—at least until a reported falling out in 2004. Although the president ultimately signed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, it came after he faced intense criticism for his administration not willingly releasing the records, and congressional Republicans delayed passage of the bill, which requires the US Department of Justice (DOJ) to publish materials related to the late financier’s sex trafficking case.

Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), ranking member for the Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action, and Federal Rights, began their letter to Wiles by pointing to a two-part Vanity Fair series featuring interviews with Trump’s top advisers, including Wiles.

As Chris Whipple reported:

Wiles told me she’d read what she calls “the Epstein file.” And, she said, “[Trump] is in the file. And we know he’s in the file. And he’s not in the file doing anything awful.” Wiles said that Trump “was on [Epstein’s] plane… he’s on the manifest. They were, you know, sort of young, single, whatever—I know it’s a passé word but sort of young, single playboys together.”

Noting those remarks, the senators wrote to Wiles, “Please be kind enough to explain when and where and under what authority you gained access to this material.”

They also sent Wiles the list of questions below and requested her response by January 5:

1. What were the materials in “the Epstein file” you referred to in your Vanity Fair interview?
2. Had material in the file you reviewed been presented to a grand jury?
3. When did you first gain access to “the Epstein file” and what was the schedule of your review of it?
4. For what purpose did you gain access to this information?
5. Did you share with President Trump any information contained in the file you reviewed?
6. Please describe your role in any process related to the review, redaction, withholding, or release of material in the “Epstein file,” including any processes involving the Department of Justice or Federal Bureau of Investigation.

The letter is dated December 22, just three days after the deadline set by the Epstein Files Transparency Act. The DOJ has missed the deadline, released files in batches, and faced scrutiny for redactions.

A protester dressed as a priest confronted US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the Trump administration’s violent crackdown on immigrants during a Thursday hearing held by the House of Representatives’ Committee on Homeland Security.

The US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) chief has often spoken about her Christian faith—she said just two days ago on a government social media account that “I have relied on God and placed my faith in Him throughout my career in public service.”

During the Republican-led committee’s hearing on “Worldwide Threats to the Homeland,” a man in black and red religious attire began shouting about recent raids and other actions by DHS, including two department agencies: Customs and Border Protection, and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

“Stop ICE raids! The power of Christ compels you!” the man shouted. “End deportations! The power of Christ compels you! Love thy neighbor! The power of Christ compels you!”

As police removed that man from the room, another protester stood and shouted similar messages: “Stop ICE! Get ICE off our streets! Stop terrorizing our communities!”

The second man—who displayed a sign that read, “No ICE, No Troops,” and noted an affiliation with the peace group CodePink—was also swiftly forced from the room by police.

In a statement from CodePink, Bita Iuliano, another activist who attended the hearing, took aim at Noem: “How dare she sit there and talk about ‘threats to our homeland’ when she’s the one using OUR tax dollars to terrorize our communities. If she really wants to protect our homeland, which by the way is stolen land, she should stop asking for more and more of our tax dollars for a department that is making our neighbors afraid to leave their homes.”

“ICE should be abolished, and that money should be used to fund what our communities actually need—healthcare, schools, housing, the fight against climate change, to name a few,” Iuliano argued, also calling out Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

“Noem, along with Hegseth, Rubio, and the rest of the war criminal crew, are the ones terrorizing our communities, from our streets here to Palestine, Venezuela, and all over the world,” she said. “They are the ones making it unsafe, and they’re using our dollars to do it. All we have are our voices, and we’re going to make sure we’re heard.”

Various faith leaders have also spoken out against the Trump administration’s attacks on immigrants, including Pope Leo XIV, whose hometown of Chicago has been a key target of DHS action since President Donald Trump returned to power in January.

Pointing to Christian scripture, the first-ever American pontiff said in early November: “How did you receive the foreigner, did you receive him and welcome him, or not? I think there is a deep reflection that needs to be made about what is happening.”

Pope Leo also advocated for allowing religious leaders to access people who have been detained, saying that “many times they’ve been separated from their families. No one knows what’s happening, but their own spiritual needs should be attended to.”

Shortly after that, more than 200 US Catholic bishops released a rare joint statement last month stressing that “human dignity and national security are not in conflict” and calling for “meaningful reform of our nation’s immigration laws and procedures.”

The pope then urged “all people in the United States to listen” to the bishops and said that while “every country has a right to determine who and how and when people enter,” the way immigrants are being treated in the US “is extremely disrespectful.”

A leading economist and key congressional Democrat on Wednesday pointed to the Federal Reserve’s benchmark interest rate cut as just the latest evidence of the havoc that President Donald Trump is wreaking on the economy.

The US central bank has a dual mandate to promote price stability and maximum employment. The Federal Open Market Committee may raise the benchmark rate to reduce inflation, or cut it to spur economic growth, including hiring. However, the FOMC is currently contending with a cooling job market and soaring costs.

After the FOMC’s two-day monthly meeting, the divided committee announced a quarter-point reduction to 3.5-3.75%. It’s the third time the panel has cut the federal funds rate in recent months after a pause during the early part of Trump’s second term.

“Today’s decision shows that the Trump economy is in a sorry state and that the Federal Reserve is concerned about a weakening job market,” House Budget Committee Ranking Member Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said in a statement. “On top of a flailing job market, the president’s tariffs—his national sales tax—continue to fuel inflation.”

“To make matters worse, extreme Republican policies, including Trump’s Big Ugly Law, are driving healthcare costs sharply higher,” he continued, pointing to the budget package that the president signed in July. “I will keep fighting to lower costs and for an economy that works for every American.”

Alex Jacquez, a former Obama administration official who is now chief of policy and advocacy at the Groundwork Collaborative, similarly said that “Trump’s reckless handling of the economy has backed the Fed into a corner—stuck between rising costs and a weakening job market, it has no choice but to try and offer what little relief they can to consumers via rate cuts.”

“But the Fed cannot undo the damage created by Trump’s chaos economy,” Jacquez added, “and working families are heading into the holidays feeling stretched, stressed, and far from jolly.”

Thanks to the historically long federal government shutdown, the FOMC didn’t have typical data—the consumer price index or jobs report—to inform Wednesday’s decision. Instead, its new statement and projections “relied on ‘available indicators,’ which Fed officials have said include their own internal surveys, community contacts, and private data,” Reuters reported.

“The most recent official data on unemployment and inflation is for September, and showed the unemployment rate rising to 4.4% from 4.3%, while the Fed’s preferred measure of inflation also increased slightly to 2.8% from 2.7%,” the news agency noted. “The Fed has a 2% inflation target, but the pace of price increases has risen steadily from 2.3% in April, a fact at least partly attributable to the pass-through of rising import taxes to consumers and a driving force behind the central bank’s policy divide.”

The lack of government data has also shifted journalists’ attention to other sources, including the revelation from global payroll processing firm ADP that the US lost 32,000 jobs in November, as well as Gallup’s finding last week that Americans’ confidence in the economy has fallen by seven points over the past month and is now at its lowest level in over a year.

The Associated Press highlighted that the rate cut is “good news” for US job-seekers:

“Overall, we’ve seen a slowing demand for workers with employers not hiring the way they did a couple of years ago,” said Cory Stahle, senior economist at the Indeed Hiring Lab. “By lowering the interest rate, you make it a little more financially reasonable for employers to hire additional people. Especially in some areas—like startups, where companies lean pretty heavily on borrowed money—that’s the hope here.”Stahle acknowledged that it could take time for the rate cuts to filter down to employers and then to workers, but he said the signal of the reduction is also important.
“Beyond the size of the cut, it tells employers and job-seekers something about the Federal Reserve’s priorities and focus. That they’re concerned about the labor market and willing to step in and support the labor market. It’s an assurance of the reserve’s priorities.”

The Federal Reserve is now projecting only one rate cut next year. During a Wednesday press conference, Fed Chair Jerome Powell pointed to the three cuts since September and said that “we are well positioned to wait to see how the economy evolves.”

However, Powell is on his way out, with his term ending in May, and Trump signaled in a Tuesday interview with Politico that agreeing with immediate interest rate cuts is a litmus test for his next nominee to fill the role.

Trump—who embarked on a nationwide “affordability tour” this week after claiming last week that “the word ‘affordability’ is a Democrat scam”—also graded the US economy on his watch, giving it an A+++++.

US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) responded: “Really? 60% of Americans live paycheck to paycheck. 800,000 are homeless. Food prices are at record highs. Wages lag behind inflation. God help us when we have a B+++++ economy.”

“Why is MLK Day not worthy of a fee-free day anymore?”

That’s what Kati Schmidt, communications director for the National Parks Conservation Association, wondered in an email to SFGATE, which reported Thursday on the National Park Service’s recently announced free admission days for 2026.

“That has become a day of service throughout the country as well as celebrating an American hero who has several park units celebrating his legacy,” Schmidt noted of the federal holiday honoring Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. each January.

In addition to MLK Day, three other previously free days were left off the US Department of the Interior’s announcement last week about “resident-only patriotic fee-free days.” Visitors will now have to pay park fees on National Public Lands Day, the anniversary of the Great American Outdoors Act—which President Donald Trump signed in 2020—and Juneteenth.

In 2021, Congress passed and then-President Joe Biden signed legislation designating Juneteenth as a federal holiday to commemorate the end of slavery in the United States. After returning to the White House in January, Trump declined to recognize it on this past June 19.

As SFGATE reported:

“This policy shift is deeply concerning,” said Tyrhee Moore, the executive director of Soul Trak Outdoors, a nonprofit that connects urban communities of color to the outdoors. “Removing free-entry days on MLK Day and Juneteenth sends a troubling message about who our national parks are for. These holidays hold profound cultural and historical significance for Black communities, and eliminating them as access points feels like a direct targeting of the very groups who already face systemic barriers to the outdoors.”Moore told SFGATE that his organization works to push back against “these kinds of systemic attempts that disguise exclusion as administrative or political decisions.”
“Policies like this reinforce inequalities around access and visibly show how systems can create obstacles that keep communities of color from feeling welcomed in public spaces,” he said.

Olivia Juarez, public land program director at the advocacy group GreenLatinos, said in a statement that “we condemn the omission of the Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Juneteenth, National Public Lands Day, and the anniversary of the Great American Outdoors Act from the list of free entrance days.”

“The Great American Outdoors Act permanently funded the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which enhances outdoor recreation access for all people from national public lands to neighborhood parks,” she pointed out. “These observances are patriotic days that celebrate freedom and safety in the outdoors. They should be celebrated as such by removing a simple cost barrier that can make parks more accessible to low-income households.”

Other critics have ripped the free day decisions as “truly disgusting” and “literally the sort of thing dictators do.”

Journalist Jennifer Schulze said: “I love our national parks but don’t go on his birthday. Find a state park to visit instead.”

Along with the free admission changes, the Trump administration is under fire for putting the president’s face on the new “America the Beautiful” annual passes—a display that may be illegal—and for hiking prices for foreign visitors to national parks.

Utah-based Juarez and GreenLatinos California state program manager Pedro Hernández both denounced price hikes for noncitizens—a move that notably comes as the administration pursues Trump’s promise of mass deportations.

“By imposing higher fees on people without state-issued ID,” Hernández said, “the Trump administration is advancing a xenophobic policy that disproportionately harms vulnerable populations like international students, newly arrived immigrants, and families seeking asylum.”

“This approach eviscerates the true meaning of public lands and sends a clear, exclusionary message that our most cherished national parks have become yet another pay-to-play system,” he added. “People should be welcomed—not priced out from our public lands.”

“Why is Russell Vought showing the world his weird, creepy pledge of allegiance to big corporations? Have some dignity, Russell.”

That’s what Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Union member Alexis Goldstein said on Monday about the CFPB acting director’s new “humility pledge” that examiners with the agency’s Supervision Division will be forced to read to financial institutions before conducting reviews next year.

Several other CFPB Union members joined Goldstein in blasting Vought’s pledge, including treasurer Gabe Hopkins, who said that “whoever wrote this has never even spoken to an examiner before, only been wined and dined by industry lobbyists.”

The lengthy pledge states in part that the CFPB’s “goal is to work collaboratively with the entities to review entities’ processes
for compliance and/or remedy existing problems,” and the agency “is doing so by encouraging self-reporting and resolving issues in Supervision, where feasible, instead of via Enforcement.”

CFPB Union president Cat Farman inquired: “Is this fan fiction I’m reading? What’s next, ‘Russell Vought Tells CFPB Examiners to Serve Tea to Their Wall Street Masters in Tiny French Maid Aprons’?”

“Instead of traumatizing CFPB workers with his roleplay fantasies,” Farman argued, “Vought should resign so we can finally do our jobs protecting Americans from Wall Street fraud again.”

Vought—also the Senate-confirmed director of the Office of Management and Budget, a role he previously held during President Donald Trump’s first term—has unsuccessfully tried to shutter the CFPB completely this year.

As the New York Times reported Monday:

The new pledge is, for now, mostly symbolic. Mr. Vought halted nearly all work at the bureau shortly after his arrival in February, and bank examinations have not resumed. The agency’s hundreds of examiners have been told to spend their time closing out all open matters; they are currently barred from initiating new ones.And Mr. Vought has refused to request money for the consumer bureau from the Federal Reserve, which funds its operations. The bureau warned in court filings that it would run out of operating cash early next year.

In a Friday statement announcing the pledge, the Vought-led agency claimed that under the Biden administration, the Supervision Division “was the weaponized arm of the CFPB.”

The agency added that “where these exams were previously done with unnecessary personnel, outrageous travel expenses, and with the thuggery pervasive in prior leadership, they will now be done respectfully, promptly, professionally, and under budget.”

Given that Vought “stopped all supervision exams in 2025, refuses to fund CFPB, and says he’s shutting us down by 2026,” CFPB Union member Doug Wilson asked: “So how will we supervise banks in 2026 if CFPB is closed? How can bank exams be ‘under budget’ if there is no budget?”

Ripping Vought’s pledge and press release as “incredibly disrespectful to Supervision’s dedicated workers,” fellow CFPB Union member Tyler Creighton said that the pair of documents also “misunderstands or misconstrues Supervision’s prior work.”

“Supervision’s workers have always conducted examinations professionally, efficiently, conscientiously, and with a focus on remedying consumer harm,” Creighton said. “We will continue to do so as soon as Donald Trump and Vought end their 10-month suspension of examinations and let us get back to work for the American people.”

Another CFPB Union member, Steve Wheeler, highlighted that “they’re trying to make it sound like it’s groundbreaking to send notifications of exams ahead of time and keep data pulls relevant to the examined area, when those are things we already do.”

Originally proposed by now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the CFPB was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis via the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed in 2010 by then-President Barack Obama.

Warren joined the CFPB Union members in calling out the new pledge, declaring that “Donald Trump is Wall Street first.”

Union member Ravisha “Avi” Kumar pointed out that “under previous administrations, CFPB examiners protected consumers from banks, like Wells Fargo, that incentivized their employees to cut corners and overlook consumer harm. CFPB forced the banks to return that stolen money to consumers.”

“Ironically, under this administration, Vought says he will incentivize examiners to rush jobs (cut corners) and stick to the surface (overlook consumer harm),” Kumar added. “How is that still consumer financial protection?”

The pledge announcement came a day after CFPB officials told staff that much of the agency workforce will be furloughed at the end of the year and that remaining consumer litigation will be sent to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).

“This is Russ Vought’s latest illegal power grab in his ongoing plan to shut down the CFPB and protect CEOs instead of consumers,” said Farman. “CFPB attorneys are afraid DOJ will dismiss these cases.”

“Vought’s already helped Wall Street swindle $18 billion from Americans this year,” the union leader continued. “If Vought is going to keep refusing to fund CFPB in order to illegally dismantle the agency, while he wastes over $5 million of CFPB’s dwindling budget on personal bodyguards, then it’s time for Congress to impeach and remove Russell Vought from power.”

Just a day after President Donald Trump suggested that six congressional Democrats should be hanged for reminding members of the US military and intelligence community of their duty not to obey illegal orders, one of those lawmakers was the target of multiple bomb threats.

A spokesperson for US Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pa.) said Friday afternoon that his “district offices in Carnegie and Beaver County were both the targets of bomb threats this afternoon. The congressman and congressional staff are safe, and thank law enforcement for swiftly responding. Political violence and threats like this are unacceptable.”

On Tuesday, the former US Navy officer had joined Democratic Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.), along with Sens. Mark Kelly (Ariz.) and Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), for the 90-second video.

Trump—who notably incited the deadly January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol while trying to overturn his loss in the 2020 presidential contest—lashed out at the six veterans of the military and intelligence agencies on his Truth Social platform Thursday, accusing them of “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” and reposting a call to “HANG THEM.”

Deluzio and the others have doubled down on their message that, as he says in the video, “you must refuse illegal orders.”

In a joint statement responding to Trump’s remarks, the six Democrats reiterated their commitment to upholding the oaths they took “to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” urged every American to “unite and condemn the president’s calls for our murder and political violence,” and stressed that “we will continue to lead and will not be intimidated.”

Deluzio also addressed Trump’s comments on CNN, denouncing his “outrageous call for political violence.”

Other lawmakers, veterans, and political observers have also condemned Trump’s comments—and the grassroots vet group Common Defense pointed to them on social media Friday, after Deluzio’s staff confirmed the bomb threats.

“First: Common Defense unequivocally condemns political violence in all shapes, forms, and from any party. Violence has no place in our democracy. We believe in the rule of law. But we cannot ignore the cause and effect here,” the organization said.

“The response to quoting the Constitution was a call for execution,” the group continued. “Now, Rep. Deluzio, an Iraq War veteran, is facing actual bomb threats. When leaders normalize violence against political opponents, this or worse is the inevitable result.”

“We stand with Rep. Deluzio and every patriot holding the line,” Common Defense added. “We reject violence. We reject intimidation. And we will never apologize for defending the oath.”

Although President Donald Trump didn’t actually confess that his global trade war is driving up the cost of groceries for Americans, he did finally drop his dubiously named “reciprocal” tariffs on key imports on Friday.

According to a White House fact sheet, Trump’s new executive order ends his tariffs on beef; cocoa and spices; coffee and tea; bananas, oranges, and tomatoes; other tropical fruits and fruit juices; and fertilizers.

The New York Times had reported Thursday that “the Trump administration is preparing broad exemptions to certain tariffs in an effort to ease elevated food prices that have provoked anxiety for American consumers.”

The reporting drew critiques of the administration’s economic policies, including from members of Congress such as Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who said that “Trump just admitted it: Americans are footing the bill for his disastrous tariffs.”

“While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump’s crazy tariff scheme.”

Also responding to the Times reporting, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Friday: “After months of increasing grocery prices, Donald Trump is finally admitting he was wrong. Americans are literally paying the price for Trump’s mistakes.”

More lawmakers and other critics piled on after Trump issued the order. CNN‘s Jim Sciutto said: “Trump administration now acknowledging what economists and business leaders have told us from the beginning: that tariffs are driving up prices.”

MeidasTouch and its editor in chief, Ron Filipkowski, also called out the president on social media, with the outlet sarcastically noting, “But Trump said his tariffs don’t raise prices.”

Congressman Don Beyer (D-Va), who serves on the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Trade, said in a Friday statement that “President Trump is finally admitting what we always knew: His tariffs are raising prices for the American people.”

“After getting drubbed in recent elections because of voters’ fury that Trump has broken his promises to fix inflation, the White House is trying to cast this tariff retreat as a ‘pivot to affordability,'” Beyer said, referencing Democrats who won key races last week, from more moderate Mikie Sherrill and Abigail Spanberger, the incoming governors of New Jersey and Virginia, to democratic socialist Mayors-elect Zohran Mamdani of New York City and Katie Wilson of Seattle.

In addition to those electoral victories for Democrats, last week featured a debate over Trump’s trade war at the US Supreme Court. According to Beyer: “The simple truth is that Republicans want credit for something they think the Supreme Court will force them to do anyway, after oral arguments before the court on Trump’s illegal abuses of trade authorities went badly for the administration. Trump is still keeping the vast majority of his tariffs in place, and his administration is also planning new tariffs in anticipation of a Supreme Court loss.”

“The same logic—that Trump’s tariffs are driving up prices on coffee, fruit, and other comestibles—is equally true for the thousands of other goods on which his tariffs remain,” he continued. “While this move may alleviate some of the cost increases Trump caused, it will not stop the larger problems of rising inflation, business uncertainty, and economic damage done by Trump’s crazy tariff scheme.”

“Only Congress can do that, by reclaiming its legal responsibility under the Constitution to regulate trade, and permanently ending Trump’s trade war chaos,” he stressed. “All but a handful of Republicans in Congress are still refusing to stand up to Trump, stop his tariffs, and lower costs for the American people, and unless they find a backbone, our economy will continue to suffer.”

As the Associated Press noted Friday, “The president signed the executive order after announcing that the U.S. had reached framework agreements with Ecuador, Guatemala, El Salvador, and Argentina designed to ease import levies on agricultural products produced in those countries.”

Trump’s order also came just a day after Democrats on the congressional Joint Economic Committee released a report showing that US families are paying roughly $700 more each month for basic items since Trump returned to office in January—with households in some states, such as Alaska and California, facing an average of over $1,000 monthly.

The president has floated sending Americans a $2,000 check, purportedly funded by revenue collected from his tariffs, but as Common Dreams reported Wednesday, economist Dean Baker of the Center for Economic and Policy Research crunched the numbers and found that the proposed “dividend” doesn’t add up.

As former Federal Bureau of Investigation Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James work to have the criminal charges against them dismissed, a watchdog group on Tuesday filed a bar complaint against Lindsey Halligan, who is spearheading the cases as interim US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.

The Campaign for Accountability (CfA) sent the complaint to the Florida Bar and the Virginia Bar, which both have jurisdiction because Halligan is a Florida-licensed lawyer practicing in Virginia. She previously served as a defense attorney for President Donald Trump, and before her current job, she had no prosecutorial experience.

In September, shortly after Halligan took over for Erik Siebert, who declined to bring charges against Comey or James, the ex-FBI director was charged with lying to Congress—and Trump vowed that “there’ll be others.” In early October, James—who successfully prosecuted Trump for financial crimes before his second term—was indicted for mortgage fraud. Critics argue both cases are part of the administration’s broader effort to punish the president’s “enemies.”

The CfA complaint outlines how Halligan may have violated Virginia’s rules for attorneys that require candor to the court and competence, and prohibit extrajudicial statements, the prosecution of a charge the prosecutor knows is not supported by probable cause, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, misrepresentation, or conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.

“We are asking the Virginia and Florida bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior.”

In addition to violating the Virginia and Florida rules for lawyers, Halligan may have violated her oath to “support the Constitution of the United States” and to “faithfully discharge the duties of the office of attorney and counselor at law,” the document explains. “More generally, Ms. Halligan’s actions appear to constitute an abuse of power and serve to undermine the integrity of the Department of Justice (DOJ) and erode public confidence in the legal profession and the fair administration of justice.”

Along with laying out Halligan’s actions in the Comey and James cases, the complaint notes her related correspondence on the messaging application Signal with Lawfare‘s Anna Bower, which the journalist reported on in detail.

“Ms. Halligan’s actions with respect to the prosecution of Mr. Comey and Ms. James, and her Signal exchange with Ms. Bower, appear to represent a serious breach of her ethical obligations,” the complaint says. “Her conduct undermines the integrity of the DOJ, appears to have violated multiple provisions of the Virginia and Florida rules of professional conduct, and undoubtedly will erode public trust in the legal system if permitted without consequence.”

“The committee has a responsibility to stop Ms. Halligan from abusing her position and her Florida bar license for improper purposes,” the document stresses. “Failing to discipline Ms. Halligan under these egregious circumstances will embolden others who would use our system of justice for their own political ends.”

“Campaign for Accountability respectfully requests that the Committees in both states conduct a thorough investigation into these allegations, determine if any violation occurred and, if so, impose appropriate disciplinary measures,” the complaint concludes.

The group’s executive director, Michelle Kuppersmith, said in a statement that “it is difficult to overstate the damage wrought by Ms. Halligan’s actions. In addition to unjustly and vindictively inflicting direct personal harm on Mr. Comey and Ms. James, she is singlehandedly undermining—maybe irrevocably—the public’s confidence in the impartiality of the Department of Justice.”

“Ms. Halligan appears to have violated numerous rules of professional conduct for lawyers,” she added. “We are asking the Virginia and Florida bars to investigate, making clear that a government appointment is not a hall pass for unethical behavior.”

CBS News noted that while Halligan and the DOJ did not respond to requests for comment on the complaint, Attorney General Pam Bondi publicly praised her the week that Comey was indicted, writing on social media: “This was a big week at the Department of Justice. Our EDVA US Attorney Lindsey Halligan did an outstanding job. We will continue to fight for accountability, fairness, and the rule of law because the American people deserve nothing less.”

Bondi, also of Florida, has faced her own bar complaint—filed in June by Democracy Defenders Fund, Lawyers Defending American Democracy, Lawyers for the Rule of Law, and dozens of individual attorneys, law professors, and former judges, who collectively accused her of engaging in “serious professional misconduct that threatens the rule of law and the administration of justice.”

In the wake of another prosecutor charging Trump’s ex-adviser John Bolton, Reuters/Ipsos polling published late last month showed that a majority of American adults think the Republican president is using US law enforcement “to go after his enemies.”

Twenty-six days into the shutdown, US Sen. Chris Murphy argued on CNN‘s “State of the Union” Sunday that President Donald Trump “is refusing to negotiate... because he likes the fact that the government is closed, because he thinks he can exercise king-like powers, he can open up the parts of the government that he wants, he can pay the employees who are loyal to him.”

The second-longest government shutdown in US history began early this month because congressional Republicans want to maintain their funding plans, while Democrats want to help the millions of Americans facing healthcare coverage losses and surging insurance premiums by reversing the GOP’s recent Medicaid cuts and extending Affordable Care Act subsidies.

“Let’s be clear. We’re shut down right now because Republicans are refusing to even talk to Democrats about a bipartisan budget bill,” Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN’s Jake Tapper. “Yes, we have priorities, just like they do. One of our priorities is pretty simple, making sure that premiums don’t go up by 75% on 22 million families this fall.”

“Now, the reality is, if they sat down to try to negotiate, we could probably come up with something pretty quickly,” the senator suggested, pointing to Trump’s $20-40 billion bailout for Argentina. “That’s enough money to relieve a lot of pressure of these premium increases. So, we could get this deal done in a day if the president was in DC, rather than being overseas. We could open up the government on Tuesday or Wednesday, and there wouldn’t be any crisis in the food stamp program.”

“I just don’t want to live in a world in which Donald Trump and a handful of billionaires decide which part of government works and which don’t.”

Trump arrived in Malaysia on Sunday and is set to spend the week traveling in Asia. His administration refuses to use a contingency fund to deliver food stamps—officially called Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits—during the shutdown, imperiling relief for about 42 million low-income people and drawing intense criticism from Democrats in Congress.

Federal workers, contractors, and service members are also at risk of not being able to buy groceries due to missed paychecks. However, one of the president’s rich friends—billionaire banking heir and railroad magnate Timothy Mellon, according to the New York Times—donated $130 million toward paying more than 1.3 million troops, which potentially violates federal law.

Asked about the donation, Murphy accused Trump of wanting to behave like a king, adding: “This is a leader who is trying to transition our government from a democracy to something much closer to a totalitarian state. And so this is part of what happens in totalitarian states: The leader, the regime only, decides what things get funded and what don’t, often in coordination with their oligarch friends.”

“So, I just don’t want to live in a world in which Donald Trump and a handful of billionaires decide which part of government works and which don’t, which is why I would rather have him at the negotiating table tomorrow, so that we can reopen the government and it can be a democratically elected Congress that decides what things get funded, not a handful of superrich dudes,” said the senator, who spoke at the second “No Kings” protest in the nation’s capital earlier this month.

Trump has used the shutdown to try to advance his purge of the federal workforce. He’s also continued his escalating push for regime change in Venezuela, blowing up boats he claims are running drugs and on Friday deploying an aircraft carrier—all without approval from Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, according to the US Constitution. Murphy has previously condemned the boat bombings as “another sign of Trump’s growing lawlessness.”

The president has also continued pushing his sweeping tariffs, which Murphy has called “a political weapon designed to collapse our democracy.” Just days before the US Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of the administration’s global trade policy, Trump on Saturday announced a new 10% tariff on goods from Canada—which will raise prices for American consumers—in response to the Ontario government’s advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan’s critique of import taxes.

Asked about the announcement, Murphy told Tapper: “I think it’s just further confirmation that these tariffs have nothing to do with us. Prices are going up on everything in this country. Manufacturing jobs are leaving... These tariffs really are just a political tool that the president uses to help himself, sometimes to enrich himself.”

Murphy also connected the tariffs to the Trump administration’s broader crackdown on dissent, from recent his designation of antifa as a domestic terrorist organization and a related National Security Presidential Memorandum 7 targeting a wide range of critics, to the US Department of Justice prosecuting the president’s political enemies and Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chair Brendan Carr temporarily forcing late-night host Jimmy Kimmel off the air.

“Whether he likes it or not, even the government of Canada or the government of Ontario has the right to criticize him,” Murphy said, “but he’s now going to use the tariffs to try to punish people overseas from speaking out against him, just like he’s using the Department of Justice or the FCC to try to punish and control people who are speaking out against him here in America.”

“So these tariffs aren’t about rebuilding our economy,” he added. “They aren’t about helping regular consumers. They’re just about giving Trump additional power to try to benefit himself politically and financially.”

Just over nine months after President Donald Trump returned to office and pardoned his supporters who stormed the US Capitol, one of the Republican’s top aides suggested that federal law enforcement may arrest Democrats standing up to the White House’s anti-migrant agenda, including Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker.

Asked about the administration’s willingness and federal authority to arrest the Illinois leader on Fox News Friday, Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, responded: “Well, the answer I’m about to give doesn’t only apply to Gov. Pritzker, it applies to any state official, any local official, anybody who’s operating in an official capacity who conspires or engages in activity that unlawfully impedes federal law enforcement conducting their duties.”“So if you engage in a criminal conspiracy to obstruct the enforcement of federal immigration laws or to unlawfully order your own police officers or your own officials to try to interfere with ICE officers, or even to arrest ICE officers, you’re engaged in criminal activity,” he said, referring to US Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “Different types of crimes would apply. There is obstruction of justice. There is harboring illegal aliens. There is impeding the enforcement of our immigration laws.”

“And then, as you get up the scale of behavior, you obviously get into seditious conspiracy charges, depending on the conduct, and many other offenses. So again, it depends on the action. It depends on the conduct. It depends on what is taking place,” Miller continued. He went on to tell ICE officers that “you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”

Both Miller’s threat toward Pritzker and other officials, and his immunity claim, were met with swift backlash, including from Zeteo‘s Mehdi Hasan, who highlighted Trump’s pardons for the January 6, 2021 insurrectionists.

“Remember, these fascist freaks pardoned the actual people convicted of ’seditious conspiracy’ while falsely accusing their opponents of this serious crime,” the journalist wrote on social media. “(On a side note, arresting Pritzker would make him the most popular politician in America overnight.)”

Trump himself has called for jailing Pritzker and Democratic Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson “for failing to protect” ICE officers. Priztker, a billionaire and potential 2028 presidential candidate, has suggested Trump should be removed from office via the 25th Amendment to the US Constitution.

Miles Taylor, who served as Department of Homeland Security chief of staff during the first Trump administration and authored an infamous, anonymous 2018 New York Times editorial, said Friday, “Feels like we’re going down the rabbit hole pretty fast here, folks.”

California state Sen. Scott Weiner (D-11), one of the Democrats running for former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s seat in the next cycle, said: “They’re now explicitly taking the position that state and local elected officials are committing crimes when they attempt to protect their communities from the ICE secret police.”

Weiner‘s state Senate district includes San Francisco, one of the cities targeted by Trump with immigration agents, and a potential National Guard deployment. The president said he backed off the threat to send troops to the city, for now, after calls from billionaire friends.

However, Trump’s administration is still fighting in federal court to deploy the National Guard in the Chicagoland area, where ICE’s Operation Midway Blitz is underway. The people of Illinois have responded with persistent protests, including at an ICE facility in suburban Broadview, where agents have met demonstrations with violence.

“No, ICE officers do not have immunity to assault and arrest unarmed Americans without a warrant,” former Obama administration official and Pod Save America co-host Jon Favreau stressed on social media Friday.

Tufts University international politics professor Daniel Drezner similarly said, “This seems very disturbing and also wrong.”

Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) concluded: ”Stephen Miller is the most evil, fascist, wannabe authoritarian in the Trump regime. And that’s saying something.“

Miller’s comments came just two days after Pritzker appeared on Fox News and discussed Trump’s attacks on him, immigration agents’ actions in Illinois, and the risk that Trump may try to use US troops to steal future elections.

The governor’s deputy chief of staff for communications, Matt Hill, responded to Miller’s remarks by pointing to that appearance.

“Holy crap. Gov. Pritzker did ONE interview on Fox, and Stephen Miller is freaking out,” Hill said on social media with a snowflake emoji. “All the Gov. did was appoint experts to collect videos and testimony of what’s happening in Chicago. Now, Miller is threatening to silence Illinoisans and arrest their governor.”

As Americans are feeling the pain of President Donald Trump’s economic policies, including the US leader’s global tariff war, Minneapolis-based Target told employees Thursday that the retail giant is pursuing its first major job cuts in a decade.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Michael Fiddelke, Target’s incoming CEO, said in a memo to staff that the company will lay off around 1,000 of its approximately 22,000 corporate employees and cut 800 open positions, mainly in the United States.

“The truth is, the complexity we’ve created over time has been holding us back,” wrote Fiddelke, who is set to take over for CEO Brian Cornell in February. “Too many layers and overlapping work have slowed decisions, making it harder to bring ideas to life.”

A Target spokesperson told CNBC that no roles in stores or the company’s supply chain will be impacted. The last time the company announced mass cuts was March 2015, when it laid off 1,700 people and declined to fill 1,400 open jobs.

The Journal pointed out that “Target has reported 11 consecutive quarters of falling or weak comparable sales growth,” and CNBC highlighted that “its shares have fallen by 65% since their all-time high in late 2021.”

As CNBC also detailed:

Compared to retail competitors, Target draws less of its overall sales from groceries and other necessities, which can make its business more vulnerable to the ups and downs of the economy and consumer sentiment. About half of Target's sales come from discretionary items, compared to only 40% at Walmart, according to estimates from GlobalData Retail.As a result of that and other company-specific challenges, Target's sales trends and stock performance have diverged sharply from competitors. Shares of Walmart are up about 123% in the past five years, compared to Target's decline of 41% during the same time period.

Target is among several that responded to Trump’s return to office and executive order on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives by ditching its DEI policies. The decision caused some shoppers to boycott Target. While experts have debated the impact of the protest, it has certainly drawn attention to the company’s financial state.

“When Target reported $23.85 billion in first-quarter sales, it missed analyst expectations by nearly $500 million. Foot traffic has declined for 11 straight weeks, with Placer.ai data showing consistent year-over-year drops since the boycott began,” Investopedia reported last month. “Comparable sales in the second quarter fell 1.9%, with both transaction frequency and spending per visit declining. Operating income dropped by a fifth (19.4%) to $1.3 billion in the second quarter, while earnings per share fell about 20% to $2.05.”

While acknowledging the DEI boycott, Bloomberg on Thursday also noted other issues, including that “many customers have pointed to long wait lines, empty shelves, and less distinctive items.”

“Getting back on track won’t be easy,” Bloomberg added. “Shoppers remain selective, with consumer sentiment remaining subdued on concerns around inflation and the job market.”

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