To prevent Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott and his fellow GOP lawmakers in the state from holding a vote Monday that has been described as a direct assault on voting rights ahead of the 2026 midterms, members of the Texas House Democratic Caucus on Sunday reportedly fled the state in order to delay passage of the legislation.

"This is not a decision we make lightly, but it is one we make with absolute moral clarity," said state Rep. Gene Wu, chair of the House Democratic Caucus, in a statement, in which he accused Gov. Greg Abbott of "using an intentionally racist map to steal the voices of millions of Black and Latino Texans, all to execute a corrupt political deal" with President Donald Trump that would see voting districts across the state redrawn in order to benefit Republicans in next year's elections.

According to the Texas Tribune:

The maneuver, to be undertaken by most of the Texas House's 62 Democrats, deprives the Republican-controlled chamber of a quorum — the number of lawmakers needed to function under House rules — ahead of a scheduled Monday vote on the draft map. The 150-member House can only conduct business if at least 100 members are present, meaning the absence of 51 or more Democrats can bring the Legislature's ongoing special session to a halt.

The current special legislative session in Texas was initially called by Gov. Abbott in response to deadly flooding that rocked the state earlier this summer, but the redistricting legislation was later added to the agenda.

State Rep. Wu, in his statement, said Democrats in Texas would not "allow disaster relief to be held hostage to a Trump gerrymander."

"We're not walking out on our responsibilities," said Wu. "We're walking out on a rigged system that refuses to listen to the people we represent. As of today, this corrupt special session is over."

The fight over a new wave of Texas gerrymandering led by Gov. Abbott has touched off a new national fight over redistricting for 2026, with Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom of California announcing over the weekend that he would—if Texas proceeds—"fight fire with fire" by looking at ways to carve away Republican districts in his state.

Speaking with the New York Times, a person close to the president—given anonymity by the Times to speak candidly about a plan that goes far beyond Texas—said the strategy on redistricting is something like this: "Maximum warfare, everywhere, all the time."

In addition to Texas, the newspaper reports that Trump hopes to encourage a number of other Republican-controlled states—including Missouri, Florida, Indiana, New Hampshire and Ohio—to take on similar efforts ahead of 2026.

Appearing on "Meet the Press" on Sunday, Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) backed Newsom's effort.

"If Republicans were confident on their policy agenda, they'd be eager to defend it with the people and to defend it at the ballot box next November," Padilla said. "But they know they're in trouble. And so they're trying to rig the system to hold on to power."

In this context, Democrats in Texas, though in the minority, have vowed to fight, and fleeing the state to deny the GOP quorum is a testament to their weak political position, but also their desire to show they are willing to put themselves at risk to prove to their constituents—and the rest of the nation—that they are not rolling over.

Democratic State Rep. James Talarico, a former middle school teacher who describes himself as a "proud progressive," has been raising the alarm in recent days about the Republican effort and accusing Trump of trying to "rig the next election."

"[Trump] told Republicans to redraw the political maps in Texas to give himself five more seats and protect his majority in Congress," said Talarico. "This is the rot at the core of our broken political system."

NOW READ: ‘Everything makes sense if you get that most of the MAGA base are members of a cult’: critic

New reporting based on a leaked briefing memo from a recent meeting between high-level officials at the Department of Homeland Security and Defense Department sparked fresh warnings on Saturday about the Trump administration's internal plans to increase its domestic use of the U.S. military.

According to Greg Sargent of The New Republic, which obtained the memo, the document "suggests that Trump's use of the military for domestic law enforcement on immigration could soon get worse."

The "terrifying" memo—which the outlet recreated and published online with certain redactions that concealed operational and personnel details—"provides a glimpse into the thinking of top officials as they seek to involve the Defense Department more deeply in these domestic operations, and it has unnerved experts who believe it portends a frightening escalation."

Circulated internally among top Trump officials, TNR reports the memo was authored by Philip Hegseth, the younger brother of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The younger sibling, though lesser known by the public than his controversial brother, currently serves as a senior adviser to Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem and acts as DHS liaison officer to the Pentagon.

The meeting between DoD and DHS officials and the memo centers on Philip Hegseth's push for closer collaboration between the two departments, especially with regard to operations on the ground, like those that happened earlier this year in Los Angeles when National Guard units and later U.S. Marines were deployed in the city to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and local law enforcement put down local protests sparked by raids targeting immigrants and workers.

As Sargent noted in a social media post:

Strikingly, the memo says straightforwardly that what happened in Los Angeles is the sort of operation that may be necessary "for years to come." As one expert told me: "They see Los Angeles as a model to be replicated."

"To Make America Safe Again, DHS and DoD will need to be in lockstep with each other, and I hope today sets the scene for where our partnership is headed," states the memo, which also compares transnational criminal gangs and drug cartels to Al Qaeda.

Lindsay Cohn, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, was among the experts TNR spoke with who called that comparison particularly worrying. "The conflation of a low-level threat like transnational criminal organizations with Al Qaeda, which was actually attempting to topple the United States government, is a clear attempt to use excessive force for a purpose normally handled by civil authorities," said Cohn.

Sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele, a scholar who studies the rise of autocracy at Princeton University, was among those who raised alarm in response to the published reporting and the contents of the memo.

"Here it comes," wrote Kim Lane Scheppele. "The worst we've been waiting for."

According to TNR:

The memo outlines the itinerary for a July 21 meeting between senior DHS and Pentagon officials, with the goal of better coordinating the agencies' activities in "defense of the homeland." It details goals that Philip Hegseth hopes to accomplish in the meeting and outlines points he wants DHS officials to impress on Pentagon attendees.Participants listed comprise the very top levels of both agencies, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several of his top advisers, Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine, and NORTHCOM Commander Gregory Guillot. Staff include Phil Hegseth and acting ICE commissioner Todd Lyons.
"Due to the sensitive nature of the meeting, minimal written policy or background information can be provided in this briefing memo," the memo says.

Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told TNR it was "disturbing to see DHS officials pressuring the U.S. military to turn its focus inward even further." Nunn added that the memo suggests that "military involvement in domestic civilian law enforcement" is set to become "more common" if the policy recommendations put forth by Phillip Hegseth take hold.

Following publication of his reporting, Sargent said he wanted to flag something specific for readers.

"It looks plausible that the Hegseth brothers are trying to push military leaders further on involving military in domestic law enforcement," he noted. "Two experts I spoke with read the memo that way. There may be a bigger story here to get."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren put herself alongside other Democratic lawmakers and outside critics who say Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem should resign from office following the assault on Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) at a press event she was holding inside a federal building in Los Angeles on Thursday.

"It's time for Republican Senators to speak up and support an independent investigation into what happened to Senator Padilla," Warren said Friday. "And it's time for Kristi Noem to resign."

"This is not a drill. This is an assault on our democracy." —Sen. Elizabeth Warren

Appearing on MSNBC's "All With With Chris Hayes" Thursday night, Warren explained that the attack on Padilla, who simply wanted to ask Noem questions about the ongoing Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids taking place in Los Angeles and elsewhere, is "something bigger" than a case of mistaken identity or the poor training of the officers who wrestled the Democratic lawmaker to the ground and put him in handcuffs.

"Why was Senator Padilla handcuffed?" said Warren. "He was handcuffed for asking a question. He was handcuffed for doing his job as a senator."

"Anyone who isn't already convinced that the Trump administration is trying to undermine free speech in this country; trying to shut down anyone who doesn't agree with Donald Trump and doesn't bend a knee to Donald Trump—anyone who doesn't believe that's what the Trump administration is doing," said Warren, "needs to watch that video of Senator Padilla being wrestled to the ground and handcuffed simply for trying to ask a question. That's why this is a big deal."

Warren was far from alone in her call for the immediate resignation of Noem, who, following the incident, claimed not to know who Padilla was and falsely stated that he did not identify himself, despite the video showing that he did.

"Kristi Noem should resign in disgrace," said Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.), who also accused the secretary and her underlings at DHS of lying about the incident.

"Resign now, Kristi Noem," echoed Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) in a social media post.

Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the pro-democracy watchdog group Public Citizen, called the attack on Padilla "utterly unacceptable" and held the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) responsible.

"This was an open event, and the senator was there to do his job and represent his state," said Gilbert. "Answering the questions of a sitting U.S. senator with assault is a blatant abuse of power, demonstrating the Trump administration's increasingly brazen authoritarian tendencies."

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) also weighed in, saying that those responsible for the treatment of Padilla must be held to account.

"The assault in California by federal agents against my colleague Sen. Alex Padilla was outrageous, and those responsible must be held accountable," said Sanders. "Tragically, what happened to Sen. Padilla today is becoming normal behavior for a Trump administration which is moving us toward authoritarianism."

In a floor speech in the U.S. Senate following the assault on Padilla, Warren called on her Senate colleagues to condemn Noem's actions and the increasingly authoritarian moves by Trump's cabinet and federal agencies under his command.

"Every day, Donald Trump is making this nation look more and more like a fascist state," Warren warned.

"This is not a drill. This is an assault on our democracy," she declared. "I am calling on my Republican colleagues to join us in demanding a bipartisan investigation into this incident. What happened at this press conference was disgraceful. It was un-American. And every member of the United States Senate should condemn it and condemn it now."

Now read: Trump's reckoning is the final chapter of a horrifying old movie

New survey data out Friday shows that Republicans are wrong if they remain unconcerned about public sentiment as it relates to the evisceration of Medicaid or healthcare support systems that would result from passage of their colossal legislation now making its way through Congress—a bill that, if passed, would see coverage stripped from an estimated 11-16 million people in the coming years.

According to new KFF Health Tracking Poll released Friday, anxiety is high among voters, across the political spectrum, about the negative impacts resulting from cuts to Medicaid or reductions in support for marketplace insurance plans supported by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

"Most of the public is worried about the consequences of significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending, including among many groups that would be directly impacted by the cuts," KFF noted in its release of the new survey data. "Partisanship drives these attitudes to a certain extent, but about two-thirds or more of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid and those with lower incomes are worried that Medicaid spending reductions would hurt their families and their communities."

KFF added that most adults in the country, based on the poll's findings, "are worried significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending will lead to more uninsured people and will strain healthcare providers in their communities. About 7 in 10 adults (72%) are worried that a significant reduction in federal funding for Medicaid would lead to an increase in the share of uninsured children and adults in the U.S., including nearly half (46%) who are 'very worried' and 1 in 4 (25%) who are 'somewhat worried.'"

KFF notes that more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees in the country are Republican, including 1 in 5 who identify with President Donald Trump's far-right MAGA movement. At the same time, nearly half of likely ACA marketplace enrollees identify as Republican.

The new poll results, as The Washington Postnotes:

The findings illustrate the political perils of upending the public health insurance program as Senate Republicans feud over Medicaid cuts. As they face pressure to slash spending to finance President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and immigration legislation, they risk alienating their own supporters who depend on the program.

"Medicaid is really a popular program, and a large majority of Americans do not want to see decreases in spending," Liz Hamel, director of public opinion and survey research at KFF, told the Post. "These findings reflect that many people, whether or not they rely on Medicaid, see it as vital to their communities."

Tony Carrk, executive director of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, said Friday that Republicans in the Senate would be wise to stick to their public promises that Medicaid would not be cut or harmed, specifically referencing Sens. Josh Hawley of Kansas, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Missouri's Eric Schmitt.

"Now is the time for these Senators to practice what they preach," said Caark. "A vote for the current bill is a vote to take away their constituents' healthcare—full stop."

"If these senators do the right thing, they will save the healthcare of millions of people from Alaska to Maine," he added. "But if they throw their support behind this bill, not only will they have lied to the American people, they will be ripping healthcare from those who need it the most, while the richest Americans—including many of them—could financially benefit."

Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) sparked fury when she said at a town hall, in response to a constituent warning that "people will die" if Medicaid cuts went through, that "we all are going to die."

On Capitol Hill this week, the advocacy group Social Security Works tried to catch up with Ernst about the comments, but she would not respond to questions.

"By the way," the group later posted, "Iowans are PISSED about sacrificing their Medicaid for a billionaire tax handout" and pointed to a local protest in Ernst's home state where community members rallied against cuts.

Citing a new study showing that more than 50,000 people a year will die prematurely if the Medicaid cuts proposed by Republicans goes through, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said, “In the wealthiest country in the world, we should be guaranteeing health care to all as a human right, not taking health care away from millions of seniors and working families to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. As the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I will be doing everything that I can to see that this disastrous bill is defeated."

Just a day after Republican Sen. Joni Ernst of Iowa generated nationwide disgust by suggesting in a town hall event that deadly GOP cuts to Medicaid are not that bad because people "are all going to die" anyway, her trolling non-apology posted online over the weekend only made things worse for many critics as she joked about the Tooth Fairy and hinted that people concerned about ripping healthcare away from tens of millions of people—including children, the poor, and the elderly—are somehow not that bright.

The optics of Ernst's sarcastic video, which appeared to be filmed in a cemetery with grave markers in the background, did not go over well.

While Ernst—who is up for reelection in 2026—says at the outset that she is "sincerely" sorry for her remarks on Friday, it becomes clear the apology is nothing but a troll of her critics when she adds that she "assumed that everyone in the auditorium understood that, yes, we are all going to perish from this earth."

"So I apologize," said Ernst. "And I'm really, really glad that I did not have to bring up the subject of the Tooth Fairy as well."

The legislation Republicans are now pushing through Congress, if signed into law, would result in devastating cuts to Medicaid that experts estimate would result in increased preventable deaths—all to pay for billions of dollars in additional tax giveaways for the nation's richest people and corporations.

New analysis released by the Center for American Progress in May show an estimated "6.9 million people losing coverage by 2034 as a result of congressional Republicans' proposed paperwork requirements would lead to more than 21,600 avoidable deaths nationally each year. This translates to lives lost in every congressional district with Medicaid expansion enrollees."

As columnist Mike Lofgren, a former Republican staffer in Congress, wrote for Common Dreams last month, it is not a stretch to say that the contemporary GOP shows by its policy agenda that it "wants you to die."

To make his argument, Logfren writes, "If someone commits a reckless act whose adverse consequences are clearly foreseeable, then for all practical purposes, that person willed the consequences. This principle—who wills the means wills the ends—is applicable in law, but should also be valid in everyday life. It should particularly apply to the behavior of public officials who wield power over the rest of us."

It was the point the audience member at the town hall Friday was clearly trying to make when she yelled, "People are going to die." What's striking is how explicit Ernst's disregard for that warning was in that moment and—perhaps more startling and concerning—in the days since.

Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) pushed back on Ernst's Friday comments by telling CNN in a weekend interview, "I think everybody in that audience knows that they're going to die. They would just rather die in old age at 85 or 90, instead of dying at 40."

Ernst's comment made headlines nationwide, including in the Des Moines Register, the largest paper in her home state of Iowa.

In a takedown of Ernst's scripted performance in Saturday's video, political podcaster Fred Wellman, part of the Meidas Touch media network, concluded that the entire episode not ony proves Ernst is emblematic of an increasingly heartless and cruel Republican Party—"this is MAGA," he said—but also that she is a very "s---- person" on an individual level:

"She thought it was so clever," said Wellman. "She owned them libs, didn't she? She's owning them libs. But guess what? She's up for reelection, folks. She's sure she's gonna win, because it's Iowa, what could go wrong?"

"Let's make sure it goes wrong," said Wellman.

For the second time in less than 24 hours, a federal court Thursday blocked tariffs imposed by President Donald Trump earlier this year, ruling he exceeded his presidential authority with the sweeping and arbitrary nature of the orders.

U.S District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee who serves in Washington, D.C., determined Trump's orders were "unlawful" as he could not unilaterally declare emergencies in order to justify the imposition of tariffs against other nations.

The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, by which Trump justified his ability to impose the tariffs, "does not authorize the President to impose the tariffs set forth" in the series of executive orders issued, said Contreras in his decision. The ruling was accompanied, according toPolitico, "by a preliminary injunction on the collection of the duties on the two plaintiffs who brought the case."

Contreras, however, stayed his order for two weeks "so the parties may seek review in the Court of Appeals."

Thursday's ruling comes a day after a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of International Trade unanimously ruled against Trump's tariff policy, a decision that was seen as a significant blow to the president's chaotic tariff agenda which has resulted in wild swings in the global economy.

In a filing on Thursday in reaction to Wednesday's ruling, the Department of Justice asked a federal court of appeals for a stay to the decision in anticipation of a likely appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

NOW READ: This new nickname must become everyone's motto — because it will drive Trump crazy

A federal court judge on Sunday declared the Trump administration's refusal to return a man they sent to an El Salvadoran prison in "error" as "totally lawless" behavior and ordered the Department of Homeland Security to repatriate the man, Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia, within 24 hours.

In a 22-page ruling, U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis doubled down on an order issued Friday, which Department of Justice lawyers representing the administration said was an affront to his executive authority.

"This was an illegal act," Xinis said of DHS Secretary Krisi Noem's attack on Abrego Garcia's rights, including his deportation and imprisonment.

"Defendants seized Abrego Garcia without any lawful authority; held him in three separate domestic detention centers without legal basis; failed to present him to any immigration judge or officer; and forcibly transported him to El Salvador in direct contravention of [immigration law]," the decision states.

Once imprisoned in El Salvador, the order continues, "U.S. officials secured his detention in a facility that, by design, deprives its detainees of adequate food, water, and shelter, fosters routine violence; and places him with his persecutors."

Trump's DOJ appealed Friday's order to 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, based in Virginia, but that court has not yet ruled on the request to stay the order from Xinis, which says Abrego Garcia should be returned to the United States no later than Monday.

NOW READ: Trump voters are pretending like they were duped. Don't believe it.

World's richest man and top Trump lieutenant Elon Musk was heckled during a rally in Wisconsin on Sunday—and subsequently roasted online once the clip emerged—for saying those who shouted him down were paid operatives of billionaire philanthropist George Soros, a boogie man of right-wingers in the U.S. who claim he's the funding source and puppet master of the nation's left opposition.

The moment was especially rich optically as Musk was in Green Bay ahead of Tuesday's pivotal state supreme court elections, in which the Musk-backed Brad Schimel, the Republican choice, is facing off against Democratic favorite Susan Crawford. As part of his deep-pocketed efforts to get Schimel elected, Musk gave $1 million checks away at Sunday night's rally as a way to compel them to vote—a tactic critics have denounced as openly corrupt and a blatant form of illegal vote-buying.

"It was inevitable at least a few Soros operatives would be in the audience," Musk said from the stage after heckling came from the audience. Laughing, he added, “Give my regards to George. Say 'Hi' to George for me."

"Sorry—is Elon Musk attacking George Soros... while he's literally buying an election in Wisconsin... the exact thing that Republicans baselessly claim that George Soros does?" asked Brian Tyler Cohen, a political commentator.

"Showing ZERO self-awareness," added social justice activist and musician Bill Madden, "the world's richest Nazi, Elon Musk, claims hecklers are paid Soros operatives while he literally bribes people to vote for the fascist, far-right candidates of his choosing."

And journalist Krystal Ball quipped: "Pretending like they are paid Soros operatives while you are LITERALLY THERE TO BRIBE PEOPLE TO VOTE!"

As the victor in Tuesday's contest between Schimel and Crawford will determine the ideological bent of the state's highest court, the implications for the outcome could not be higher. With Musk putting himself at the center of the story, including the tens of millions of dollars he has pumped in the race, many now see it as a referendum on Musk as well as President Trump.

"Trump has already put America's richest people in charge of dismantling the U.S. government, exacting supposed savings from programs that mostly benefit those most in need to help extend the tax cuts for the rich that are expiring later this year," wroteCapital Times columnist Dave Zweifel on Monday.

"Thwarting this duo's brazen attempt to use Wisconsin to sanction their methods would go a long way to signal the people's disgust," he said.

A former top advisor and strategist for President Donald Trump said Tuesday that secretive efforts are ongoing to prop him up for a third presidential run in three years time, with not-so-cryptic remarks that included "we'll have a couple of alternatives" and "we've had greater long shots than Trump 2028."

Appearing on journalist Chris Cuomo's NewsNation podcast, far-right mouthpiece Steve Bannon demurred when asked if he had ambitions to run for president himself, replying: "No, and I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028, so I've already endorsed President Trump."

When Cuomo pressed Bannon on the existence of term limits that would bar Trump from seeking a third term, Bannon said, "We're working on it. I think we’ll have a couple of alternatives, let’s say that. We’ll see what the definition of term limit is."

"We've had greater long shots than Trump 2028 and we've got a lot of stuff we're working on there," Bannon added. "We're not prepared to talk about it publicly, but in a couple months I think we will be."

Trump and his far-right allies have suggested repeatedly that the president would seek to stay in power beyond what is made possible in the U.S. Constitution, including the 22nd Amendment which expressly forbids the president serving more than two terms.

As Noah Bookbinder, president of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said last week: "The 22nd Amendment is clear: No president can be elected to a third term."

Watch the clip below or at this link:

Critics of the Jeff Bezos-owned Washington Post are targeting the newspaper over its "gutless" refusal to run a paid wrap-around advertisement that makes a prominent demand for President Donald Trump to fire mega-billionaire Elon Musk from his cohort of inner-most advisers.

The special ad, at a cost of $115,000, was orchestrated by the pro-democracy watchdog Common Cause, a progressive advocacy group and had been scheduled to be delivered to members of Congress as well as subscribers at the Pentagon and White House on Tuesday. On Friday, however, the group was notified by the newspaper that it was backing out of the arrangement.

"Elon Musk is attempting to run our government like one of his companies, and it's hurting the American people," reads some of the language of the campaign on which the ad is based. "Even more concerning is that President Donald Trump is allowing it to happen. It's time to say enough and FIRE Elon Musk from any role within our government."

The campaign, like the ad refused by the Post, points people to an online petition where they can back the demand Musk be fired and information to contact their members of Congress.

"Our elected officials are totally abandoning their duty to their constituents while Elon Musk does as he pleases," reads the call to action. "Whether your senators are on the right, on the left, or in the center, they ALL need to hear from everyday Americans like us today."

The Hill, given an exclusive for the story, reports that one of the ironies of the situation is that when the Post gave Common Cause a sample look at how the advertisement would appear, the example was a previously run ad by the the American Fuel & Petrochemical Manufacturers (AFPM), an industry lobby group, highlighting the new president's promise to "end the electric vehicle mandate on Day 1," which included an image of a smiling Trump with his thumbs up.

"They gave us some sample art to show us what it would look like," Kase Solomón, president of Common Cause, explained. "It was a thank-you Donald Trump piece of art."

According to The Hill:

The ad’s design features a large picture of Musk with his head tilted back, laughing, along with a cutout image of the White House and large white text: “Who’s running this country: Donald Trump or Elon Musk?”Lower down on the page it features smaller font text stating: “Since day one, Elon has created chaos and confusion and put our livelihoods at risk. And he is accountable to no one but himself.”
“The Constitution only allows for one president at a time. Call your senators and tell them it’s time Donald Trump fire Elon Musk,” it says, followed by the URL FireMusk.org.

Here's what the ad was supposed to look like:

Solomón said it was not clear why the newspaper made its decision, but it seemed very much to do with the nature of the ad's content and possibly to with the political leanings of the Post's owner, the second-richest man in the world after Musk himself. Both men have major business interests that could be injured if they run afoul of President Trump.

"Is it because we’re critical of what's happening with Elon Musk?" asked Solomón. "Is it only okay to run things in The Post now that won't anger the president or won't have him calling Jeff Bezos asking why this was allowed?"

NOW READ: The GOP's Taliban has a new message for women

Defenders of a Consumer Financial Protection Bureau that has returned tens of billions of dollars to duped and defrauded U.S. consumers expressed outrage overnight and into Saturday after the independent agency was declared deceased by billionaire Elon Musk and its operations were handed over to the chief architect of the far-right Project 2025 Russell Vought.

Vought, who earlier this week was confirmed as head of the Office of Management and Budget by Senate Republicans, was named acting director of the CFPB by President Donald Trump, according to various reports.

The appointment of the far-right ideologue came less than a day after reports emerged that members of the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) were granted access to key CFPB systems and Musk himself posted to his online social media X that the agency should "RIP," suggesting it was in the process of being dismantled or, in his mind, already killed.

"Since its creation, the Bureau has returned $21 billion to people's wallets by fighting against illegal financial charges, junk fees, debts, and fraud," said Mike Calhoun, president of the nonpartisan Center for Responsible Lending, in a statement on Saturday. Now, when people are already struggling to pay higher prices for necessities like eggs and milk, the Trump administration appears to have decided to deepen the pain by directly taking aim at the agency that helps keep our money safe."

"When people are already struggling to pay higher prices for necessities like eggs and milk, the Trump administration appears to have decided to deepen the pain by directly taking aim at the agency that helps keep our money safe."

"'Let them eat debt' is not a strategy for making America great again," Calhoun added, "and weakening the CFPB certainly isn't the way to keep working families, our financial markets, or our economy strong."

Stacy Mitchell, co-director of the Institute for Local Self-Reliance, which challenges corporate encroachment on the common good, said, "Obviously this isn't about 'efficiency.' It's about dismantling law enforcement that protects Americans from corporate power."

Congressional Democrats also reacted with contempt to Musk's message and the news that the agency's systems—like those of other agencies DOGE has put its hands on—were under threat.

"Here is the richest man in the world bragging about eliminating an agency that has delivered $21 billion back to working-class families since its inception," said Democrats on the House Committee on Financial Services, led by Ranking Member Maxine Waters of California. "Even most Republicans want the CFPB to continue protecting them from being ripped off by abusive big banks and predatory lenders."

"Here are the FACTS: 81% of voters, both Republicans and Democrats, support the CFPB and want the agency to continue its work," said Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.), also a member of the committee. "Even so, Trump has moved to freeze the CFPB to take money out of YOUR pocket to line those of his billionaire friends."

In a letter sent to the CFPB on Friday—addressed to the previous acting director, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose first act of business was reportedly to order a halt of "all meaningful work"—Waters, Vargas, and 79 other Democratic members of the House said they were "deeply alarmed and troubled that you appear to be launching the Trump Administration's plan to contravene the will of Congress and unlawfully 'delete' this popular consumer watchdog that enjoys the broad bipartisan support of four out of five Americans."

According to the letter:

... we understand that you have ordered staff to halt all meaningful work of the CFPB, including ordering staff to stop investigating violations of consumer financial protection laws or settling enforcement actions, basically letting bad actors off the hook. We also understand that you have arbitrarily ordered the suspension of all CFPB rules that have yet to take effect, which would delay billions of dollars in savings and credit opportunities for consumers, if not rob them entirely.We urge you to immediately rescind what appears to be an illegal stop work order and allow the public servants at the CFPB to get back to work for the American people as required by law.

As of this writing, the CFPB's homepage (www.consumerfinance.gov) prominently displayed a 404 error message, though portions of the site appeared to be active.

In a Saturday statement, the Democrats on the House Finance Committee said the 404 image on the CFPB website was intentionally "deceptive," calling it "a brazen attempt to fool consumers and the public about the status" of the agency.

"As of this moment, links and pages are still up and functional on the website," the statement said, "including the Consumer Complaint portal and database and Home Mortgage Disclosure Act (HMDA) database. Various aspects of the CFPB's web content is required by statute to be published and available on the CFPB's website."

"Let's be clear: the people cheering this the loudest are scammers and people who don't want you to keep your hard-earned dollars. So much for lowering costs."

Nadine Chabrier, counsel at the Center for Responsible Lending, said the "deeply troubling" developments at the agency will "undermine the CFPB's mission to protect consumers from financial misconduct" of various kinds.

"CFPB has returned more than $20,000,000,000 to consumers since it was founded," said Rep. Gabe Amo (D-R.I.) on Friday evening in response to Musk's tweet. "Let's be clear: the people cheering this the loudest are scammers and people who don't want you to keep your hard-earned dollars. So much for lowering costs."

Fears are growing that the offshore U.S. detention facilities at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba are an ominous sign for what President Donald Trump has in store as he further disregards the rule of law and normalizes actions that previously would have been unthinkable or faced immediate, bipartisan opposition in Congress.

After the first pictures emerged Saturday of still unidentified persons transferred to the island from the U.S. mainland by immigration officials, progressive journalist Nathan Robinson was among those raising the alarm, accusing Trump of "building a concentration camp and deliberately putting it where it is hardest to monitor or enforce the law."

The New York Times, alongside pictures of newly-erected tents taken by photojournalist Doug Mills, reported Saturday that the administration had already "moved more than 30 people described as Venezuelan gang members to the U.S. Navy base at Guantánamo Bay, as U.S. forces and homeland security staff prepare a tent city for potentially thousands of migrants." Mills was traveling Friday with Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, as she made her first visit to the offshore site.

According to the outlet:

Ms. Noem visited the nascent tent camp, where the administration has suggested that thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of migrants who pose lesser threats could be housed. She watched Marines rehearse how to move migrants to the future tent city, and she was shown a tent with cots and a display of basic items to be provided each new arrival — T-shirt, shorts, underwear and a towel — and then got an aerial view of the mission from a Chinook helicopter.

"The Trump administration," the Times reported, "has not released any of their identities, though they are believed to all be men, nor has it said how long they might be held at the island outpost."

According to critics like Robinson, "There's no reason to build this in Guantánamo unless you want to do things you don't think you could get away with on the U.S. mainland. It's easy to put tents in Florida. But they're putting them in Cuba. Ask yourself why."

On Friday, a coalition of more than a dozen rights groups—including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, and others—sent a letter today to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Department of Defense (DoD), and the U.S. State Department demanding Trump officials provide immediate access to those who have been transferred out of the country to the offshore facility.

In addition, the groups demanded to know:

• The immigration status of the ten noncitizens detained there
• Who the government intends to transfer to and detain at Guantánamo, including what criteria, legal or otherwise, the administration is or will be using to decide who to transfer and detain at Guantánamo
• Which government agency has custody of the transferred noncitizens at Guantánamo
• What authority is the government invoking to transfer noncitizens from the United States to Guantánamo and what authority the government is invoking to hold them at Guantánamo
• The length of time that the government will be holding these noncitizens at Guantánamo and plans for them after

"Sending immigrants from the U.S. to Guantánamo and holding them incommunicado without access to counsel or the outside world opens a new shameful chapter in the history of this notorious prison," said ACLU deputy director of immigrant rights Lee Gelernt. "It is unlawful for our government to use Guantánamo as a legal black hole, yet that is exactly what the Trump administration is doing."

Setareh Ghandehari, advocacy director of Detention Watch Network, said Friday that expansion of operations at Guantánamo "is especially alarming given its remote location and the decades-long documented history of abuse and torture there, which will only be exacerbated by the well-documented abuse inherent to the ICE detention system, including abuse, unsanitary conditions, and medical neglect. In no uncertain terms—lives are in jeopardy."

While previous administrations have exploited the land seized by the U.S. in Cuba to detain and process asylum seekers and migrants in the past, those were individuals interdicted at sea or prior to having ever set foot on American soil. The facilities have not been used to hold noncitizens deported from the U.S. mainland.

Last week, Slate's Mary Harris interviewed journalist Andrea Pitzer, author of "One Long Night: A Global History of Concentration Camps," who acknowledged that while many immediately think of Nazi Germany's death camps under Adolf Hitler when they hear the term "concentration camp," it is not wrong to describe the U.S. prison facilities at Guantánamo that way and for important reasons.

In her questioning, Harris posed to Pitzer how the existence of Guantánamo "doesn’t mean it’s going to become Auschwitz" necessarily, but that it does make "the road to Auschwitz more possible."

And Pitzer responded:

That's exactly right. And so what it means is even to do the most horrible things that humans have done takes time. It takes sort of a space and imagination and tools and resources. And the more of those kinds of tools and resources we line up in one place, the more room there is for the obscene or the perverted imagination to work. And even Auschwitz—keep in mind that it was 1933 when Hitler came to power and they started with concentration camps right out of the gate. So within the first weeks, Dakau is opened, though not quite in its final form, but it is already a camp and it takes almost a decade to get to even this final solution. And so, yes, absolutely, the Holocaust as we know it, as we remember it, has never been repeated. Nothing has come close to that. But you do not get to the death camps without having several years of Auschwitz, of Buchenwalds, of those beforehand.

"And right now," Pitzer said of Gitmo's legacy and the new purpose that Trump is giving it, "we have a place where there has been torture, we have a place where there has been riots, we have a place where there have been people held without trial for more than 20 years. And those are some of the most dangerous seeds that humanity can plant."

"The Holocaust as we know it, as we remember it, has never been repeated. Nothing has come close to that. But you do not get to the death camps without having several years of Auschwitz, of Buchenwalds, of those beforehand."

In a weekend column, the Philadelphia Inquirer's Will Bunch warned that even as much of the Trump administration's targeting of immigrants and refugees thus far should be seen as a "propaganda" exercise designed to titillate his base and antagonize his liberal opponents, the danger present by the Gitmo policy and others are very real.

"The bigger worry, " writes Bunch, "is that just because the cruelty of mass deportation is largely performative doesn’t mean these performances won’t scale up dramatically in the months ahead. Trump reportedly is already badgering his border czar, Tom Homan, and ICE to meet ambitious arrest targets, which would probably require crueler and more legally dubious measures that would fill those empty tents at Gitmo. If the president needs his phony war against a nonexistent border invasion to distract the American heartland from the coming evisceration of government services, the cruelty will become a bigger and bigger point."

Referencing the great Russian playwright's famous quote about the introduction of a gun onstage, Bunch opined that Trump's performative brand of governance does not mean the threat isn't real.

"You don't need Anton Chekhov," noted Bunch, "to understand that you don't build empty tents at Gitmo in Act One of your presidency unless you plan to fill them in Act Three."

NOW READ: The 'more sinister' reason behind Musk's attack on consumer protection

Facing a string of judicial rulings in recent days that have struck down or at least put on hold a variety of efforts by the Trump administration that appeared to overstep its executive authority, both Vice President JD Vance and billionaire oligarch Elon Musk on Sunday took aim at the power of judges by saying their powers—despite being the recognized co-equal and third branch of the U.S. government—should be curbed or disregarded.

"If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal," Vance tweeted Sunday morning, in a legally dubious post. Despite the claim, military generals are not free—either from laws of war, international human rights treaties, or chains of command—to do anything they please.

"If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that's also illegal," Vance continued. "Judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power."

Shortly before Vance's tweet, Musk, the world's richest person and who has been tasked by Trump to run the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) effort to dismantle key government agencies and programs, floated the idea that life-time appointed judges should, based on a set annual quota, be subject to termination by the political party in power. Currently, both chambers of Congress and the White House are controlled by Republicans.

"I'd like to propose that the worst 1% of appointed judges, as determined by elected bodies, be fired every year," Musk said on Sunday morning. "This will weed out the most corrupt and least competent."

Over the last week, federal judges have intervened to block DOGE efforts to have unfettered access to a key Treasury Department payment system and also blocked the so-called "Fork in the Road" offer to federal workers put forth by the unsanctioned Musk-led team at DOGE.

After a U.S. District Judge Paul Engelmayer responded to a suit brought by 18 state attorneys general on Friday by blocking DOGE access to the Treasury system, Musk retweeted a message suggesting that the best thing to do might be to ignore the order.

Musk also called for Engelmayer's specific ouster. "A corrupt judge protecting corruption," Musk tweeted. "He needs to be impeached NOW!"

Outside critics, Democratic lawmakers, and legal experts responded with grave concern to the comments about judges by both Vance and Musk, arguably President Donald Trump's closest advisors.

In an email to CNBC on Sunday, Duke Law School professor Marin K. Levy explained that the state attorneys general and the judge in the Treasury case "were all acting well within their authority. What we saw here was the judicial system working as it is supposed to."

Mondaire Jones, a former congressman from New York and now a commissioner on the U.S. Commission for Civil Rights, characterized Vance's comments as being part of the Trump-led "fascist movement in American politics."

In a Sunday morning appearance on "Face the Nation," Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said what the nation is witnessing with Trump allowing people like Musk to run roughshod over federal agencies—and now attacking the judiciary—is nothing short of a "constitutional crisis" and "full-scale authoritarian takeover."

"We are seeing an executive branch," said Omar, "that has decided they are no longer going to abide by the Constitution in honoring Congress' role in the creation of the agencies, in their role deciding where money is allocated. And so the only recourse we have—since our congressional leadership, the Speaker [of the House Mike Johnson], will not stop the executive—is through the judiciary."

"When you think about the checks and balances we have," Omar continued, "the courts are the only recourse we have at the moment. And when we talk about the illegality of what the executive branch is doing, we have seen every single executive order that has been challenged in the court we found to be illegal."

Omar said that fact, hopefully, will offer some solace to the "American people that our courts are working as they should. The checks and balances are working, but what is not working is the way the executive is behaving and the congressional leadership that is failing the American people."

NOW READ: The 'more sinister' reason behind Musk's attack on consumer protection

The Trump administration's multi-pronged attack on the CFPB continues.

President Donald Trump's new acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, Russell Vought, told the agency to cease nearly all its operations in a series of orders on Saturday night and the move is not just a gift to the broader financial industry and large Wall Street banks, say critical observers, but also a major potential gift to billionaire Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest person, who has a major vested interest in the agency's demise.

Vought, the right-wing architect of the anti-government Project 2025 who also now heads the powerful Office of Management and Budget, confirmed Saturday night he had taken control of the agency in an email to staff that called on them to halt most of their work.

"Musk wants to use the government to put more in his pockets. This is a blatant conflict of interest." —Sen. Ed. Markey

According to reporting by NBC News, which obtained a copy of the email,

Employees were instructed to "cease all supervision and examination activity," "cease all stakeholder engagement," pause all pending investigations, not issue any public communications and pause "enforcement actions."Vought also told employees not to "approve or issue any proposed or final rules or formal or informal guidance" and to "suspend the effective dates of all final rules that have been issued or published but that have not yet become effective," among other directives listed in the email.
He said in the email that the directives are effective immediately, unless he approves an exception or a certain activity is required by law.

The agency has been a target for Republicans for years and the party has contested in court its source of funding, which unlike most other agencies is funded by the Federal Reserve as opposed to regular appropriations by Congress. That mechanism, however, was established by Congress when the CFPB was created—an approach that was designed to shield it from political interference—and has withstood all legal challenges, including one before the U.S. Supreme Court last year.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), credited with bringing the CFPB to life, said the orders from Vought make clear the Trump administrations intentions.

"Vought is giving big banks and giant corporations the green light to scam families," Warren said Saturday. "The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has returned over $21 billion to families cheated by Wall Street. Republicans have failed to gut it in Congress and in the courts. They will fail again."

Vought, in his online post, said he also informed Fed Chairman Jerome Powell on Saturday that the agency would be requesting $0 for the upcoming draw period, claiming that no additional funds were needed to fulfill its work.

"The Bureau's current balance of $711.6 million is in fact excessive in the current fiscal environment," Vought claimed. "This spigot, long contributing to CFPB's unaccountability, is now being turned off."

Critics point out that Musk, who has been appointed by Trump to head the Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE), has serious conflicts when it comes to the Trump administration's targeting of the CFPB.

DOGE is not a real department but has claimed sweeping authority to access the sensitive workings of federal agencies—triggering an avalanche of legal challenges as a result. In addition to Vought's statements, the previous CFPB acting director, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, last week issued an internal stop work order that was challenged by Democratic lawmakers.

On Friday, as Common Dreamsreported, Musk himself posted "CFPB RIP" on social media next to a picture of a gravestone and his detractors have argued his antagonism is not based solely on his ideological opposition to an agency that has returned over $20 billion to consumers over recent years from bad financial actors.

In an appearance Saturday on MSNBC, Lindsay Owens, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Groundwork Collective, explained that while Vought's targeting of CFPB can be explained by well-documented fealty to various corporate interests—and a desire "to destroy the government from the inside out"—Musk's motivations are likely "more sinister" and closer to home.

Diminishing CFPB's ability to operate as well as getting a look at its trove of files, including the inner workings of those institutions it has been tasked with holding to account, said Owens, is a for Musk to "grease the skids for his new business interest."

"We know that Elon Musk is interested in starting his own payment app—he's partnered with Visa to do that," she explained, "and so he has a real interest in ensuring that the CFPB isn't blocking an effort like that."

Owens said that Musk's interest in the agency goes beyond that as well, because the CFPB has "trade secrets from enforcement actions against some of his likely future competitors."

On Friday, The American Prospect's David Dayen reported on the little-noticed Feb. 3 order that Bessent sent out to CFPB staffers which specifically halted new designation of non-bank entities, including "nondepository institutions," by the agency—a policy that could directly impact Musk's peer-to-peer payment venture he hopes to launch on X in partnership with Visa.

According to Dayen:

By stalling designation of nondepository institutions, Bessent ensures that X will not be designated for CFPB supervision, at least in the near term.The more innocent explanation for the last-minute change is that Bessent was likely uninformed about what the CFPB does, and hastily added supervision later. But the inserted directive specifically bars designation of non-banks in the supervisory process, as a not-so-thinly-veiled shield for Big Tech payment app firms, and in particular the company run by special government employee Elon Musk.

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) expressed concerns along these grounds on Saturday night.

"Elon wants the CFPB gone so tech billionaires can profit from apps, like X, that offer bank-like services but don't follow financial laws that keep people’s money safe," charged Markey. "Musk wants to use the government to put more in his pockets. This is a blatant conflict of interest."