CNN reports that a majority of the Democrats in the caucus "complied with the law enforcement escort, showing reporters what they called 'permission slips' they received to leave the House floor and pointing to the officers escorting them around the Capitol."

"I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination." —Democratic Texas state Rep. Nicole Collier

But not Collier, who represents the Fort Worth area in District 95.

"I refuse to sign. I will not agree to be in DPS custody," Collier said. "I'm not a criminal. I am exercising my right to resist and oppose the decisions of our government. So this is my form of protest."

In a video posted Monday night from inside the chamber, Collier explained why she refused to sign for the escort and lashed out at her Republican colleagues for their continued assault on the rule of law.

"My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights," said Collier in the video. "I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts. My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents—I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination."

Fellow Democrats, both inside and beyond Texas, championed Collier's stand and condemned the GOP for their latest authoritarian stunt.

"In the face of fascism, [Rep.] Nicole Collier is a hero," said state Rep. Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos (D-102), chair of the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus.

Seth Harp, a Democrat running for Congress in Florida this cycle, accused Texas Republicans of "just absolutely destroying the 4th amendment," which bars unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. "It's essentially kidnapping and taking a hostage," Harp added.

"Hey GOP," he asked, "exactly how much do you hate the Constitution?"

Rep. Jasmine Crocket (D-Texas), who previously served in the state's legislature, also condemned the move by Burrows and his fellow Republicans.

"Let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous," Crockett declared in a social media post Monday evening.

"Forcing elected officials to sign 'permission slips' and take police escorts to leave? That's not procedure," she said. "That's some old Jim Crow playbook. Texas Republicans have lost their damn minds."

The far-right former Fox News commentator Jeanine Pirro was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on Saturday night in a strictly party-line vote to become the next U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, a position progressive critics and Democratic opponents warn she is deeply unqualified to hold.

Pirro, who has been serving as the acting U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. since May, has a long history of spewing far-right conspiracy theories on air and throwing facts to the wind when it comes to lining up behind President Donald Trump. Pirro was a prominent figure when Dominion Voting Systems sued Fox News for defamation over the outlet's coverage of the 2020 election and she was a vocal proponent of Trump's "Big Lie" that the voting was rigged against him.

Christina Harvey, executive director of the pro-democracy group Stand Up America, condemned Pirro's confirmation.

"Republicans have handed the keys to our nation's capital to a Trump loyalist with zero credibility and a track record of unhinged extremism," warned Harvey. "Keanine Pirro isn't a serious prosecutor—she's a partisan attack dog who's made a name for herself by promoting conspiracy theories and threatening to criminally investigate January 6 prosecutors in the office she was just confirmed to oversee. A Fox News producer once called her a 'reckless maniac.'"

"By confirming Pirro," added Harvey, "Senate Republicans made one thing clear: they care more about pleasing Donald Trump than honoring their constitutional duty to advise and consent on presidential nominations. Qualifications, independence, integrity—none of it matters. Just blind loyalty."

The vote in the Senate was 50-45, with every Republican voting for Pirro and every member of the Democratic caucus voting against. Five senators did not cast a vote.

Congressional Democrats voiced their contempt for Pirro both leading up to the vote and following it.

"Pirro should never be a permanent U.S. Attorney," declared Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, just after the vote was finalized. "She endorsed the firing of January 6 prosecutors. She recklessly spread the Big Lie to the point her *own producers* had to tell her to cool it. Ultimately, she’s a rubber stamp for Donald Trump."

Ahead of the vote, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) explained his opposition to her confirmation, saying Pirro was "deeply unfit and unqualified" and describing her as "a loyal acolyte and sycophant" of Trump.

"She is not objective, she is not independent," said Blumenthal. "Instead she has made her mark spreading damaging, offensive conspiracy theories."

Last week, Rep. Jeremy Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to Senate leadership urging against Pirro's confirmation, calling her a threat to the government's independent judiciary and unfit to run the U.S. Attorney's office in D.C., the largest of its kind in the nation.

"Over the past decade, Ms. Pirro has consistently demonstrated that her loyalty lies with Donald Trump the person, not with the Constitution or the rule of law," said Raskin in a letter addressed to Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

"Her blind loyalty to Donald Trump at the exclusion of other principles, her embarrassing support of the 'big lie' that the 2020 election was rigged in the face of all evidence to the contrary and 60 federal and state court decisions rejecting such claims, her unswerving defense of convicted January 6th rioters, and her incendiary rhetoric that urges President Trump to seek retribution against his alleged enemies," continued Raskin, "all make it clear that she lacks the intellectual honesty, personal principles, temperament, integrity, and fundamental constitutional fidelity required to lead this important office."

Progressive lawmakers, civil rights groups, and humanitarians responded with outrage and condemnation overnight and into Thursday after President Donald Trump announced a blanket travel ban on 12 countries and harsh restrictions on seven others, calling the move a hateful and "unlawful" regurgitation of a policy he attempted during his first term.

In total, the executive order from Trump's White House would impact people and families from 19 countries. Twelve nations would face a total ban: Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. People from seven other nations would face severe restrictions: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela.

In a video posted to social media late Wednesday night, Trump cited this week's attack, carried out by a lone individual in Colorado, to attempt to justify the need for the far-reaching restrictions, which the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation's largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization, decried as "unnecessary, overbroad and ideologically motivated."

"Just like his first Muslim Ban, this latest announcement flies in the face of basic morality and goes directly against our values. This racist policy will not make us safe, it will separate families and endanger lives. We cannot let it stand." —Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.)

While the order sparked fresh condemnation, it does not come as a surprise from the Trump administration, which has made xenophobic rhetoric and anti-immigrant policy a cornerstone of its tenure. As the Washington Post reports:

Reinstating a travel ban has been a long-standing campaign promise for Trump. During his first term,he initially barred travel from seven Muslim-majority countries — under what became known as "the Muslim ban."After legal challenges, updated versions expanded the list to eight countries, including North Korea and Venezuela. President Joe Biden revoked the policy in 2021.

"Automatically banning students, workers, tourists, and other citizens of these targeted nations from coming to the United States will not make our nation safer," said Nihad Awad, the executive director of CAIR, in response to Trump's new order. "Neither will imposing vague ideological screening tests that the government can easily abuse to ban immigrants based on their religious identity and political activism."

Even with the exceptions outlined in Trump's executive order, said Awad, "this new travel ban risks separating families, depriving students of educational opportunities, blocking patients from access to unique medical treatment, and creating a chilling effect on travelers."

Democratic lawmakers, including Reps. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota and Pramila Jayapal of Washington spoke out forcefully against the presidential order.

"This discriminatory policy is beyond shameful," said Omar in reaction to the news. "Just like his first Muslim Ban, this latest announcement flies in the face of basic morality and goes directly against our values. This racist policy will not make us safe; it will separate families and endanger lives. We cannot let it stand."

In her statement, Jayapal said there "are a myriad of reasons that people come to the United States, from travel and tourism to fleeing violence and dangerous situations. This ban, expanded from Trump's Muslim ban in his first term, will only further isolate us on the world stage."

Jayapal continued by saying the "discriminatory policy," which she noted is an attack on legal immigration processes, "not only flies in the face of what our country is supposed to stand for, it will be harmful to our economy and our communities that rely on the contributions of people who to America from this wide range of countries. Banning a whole group of people because you disagree with the structure or function of their government not only lays blame in the wrong place, it creates a dangerous precedent."

Referencing the broader approach of Trump's policies, Jayapal accused Trump of "indiscriminately taking a chainsaw to our government, destroying federal agencies that keep us safe, indiscriminately cutting jobs, and hindering our progress across research fields. This will only further hurt our country, and cannot be allowed to stand."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) offered a similar assessment:

Oxfam America also slammed the announcement.

"A new travel ban marks a chilling return to policies of fear, discrimination, and division," said Abby Maxman, the group's president and CEO.

"By once again targeting individuals from Muslim-majority countries, countries with predominantly Black and brown populations, and countries in the midst of conflict and political instability, this executive order deepens inequality and perpetuates harmful stereotypes, racist tropes, and religious intolerance," said Maxman. "This policy is not about national security—it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States."

The travel ban on predominantly Muslim-majority nations attempted by Trump during his first term sparked large public protests as well as a wave of legal challenges. The new ban is likely to garner a similar response.

"This latest travel ban would deny entry to individuals and families fleeing war, persecution, and oppression, forcing them to remain in dangerous conditions. It will prevent family reunifications, and America’s historical legacy as a welcoming nation will be further eroded," said Maxman. "Oxfam will continue to advocate to ensure that this ban is struck down. The U.S. must uphold the dignity and rights of all people, no matter their religion or country of origin."

NOW READ: A license to crime is not enough for Trump

A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.

Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.

"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.

A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:

One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond.Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.

HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."

Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:

By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained."But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.

Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."

Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.

"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

Congressman Ro Khanna is raising the alarm over mass layoffs in the U.S. economy resulting from the failed economic policies of President Donald Trump, including over 4,000 factory workers who lost their jobs this week due to firings or plant closures.

On Thursday, automaker Stellantis, citing conditions created by Trump's tariffs, announced temporary layoffs for 900 workers, represented by the United Auto Workers (UAW). "The affected U.S. employees," reportedCNN, "work at five different Midwest plants: the Warren Stamping and Sterling Stamping plants in Michigan, as well as the Indiana Transmission Plant, Kokomo Transmission Plant and Kokomo Casting Plant, all in Kokomo, Indiana."

In a social media thread on Saturday night, Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—a lawmaker who has advocating loudly, including in books and in Congress, for an industrialization policy that would bring manufacturing jobs back to the United States—posted a litany of other layoffs announced recently as part of the economic devastation and chaos unleashed by Trump as well as conditions that reveal how vulnerable U.S. workers remain.

"This week," Khann wrote, "19 factories had mass layoffs, 15 closed, and 4,134 factory workers across America lost their jobs. Cleveland-Cliffs laid off 1,200 workers in Michigan and Minnesota as they deal with the impact of Trump's tariffs on steel and auto imports."

"We need jobs and currently at this time, the majority of the companies that we work with and represent our members at are not hiring." —Mark DePaoli, UAW

For union leaders representing those workers at Cleveland-Cliffs, they said "chaos" was the operative word. "Chaos. You, know? A lot of questions. You've got a lot of people who worked there a long time that are potentially losing their job," Bill Wilhelm, a servicing representative and editor with UAW Local 600, told local ABC News affiliate WXYZ-Channel 7.

The United Auto Workers says the layoff fund set aside for those losing their jobs won't last long and find them new jobs of that quality will not be easy. "Our first concern will be to look around at all the companies where we have members and see if we can find jobs," said the local's 1st vice president Mark DePaoli. "I mean, jobs are going to be the key. We need jobs and currently at this time, the majority of the companies that we work with and represent our members at are not hiring."

The pain of workers in families in Dearborn, as indicated by Khanna's thread, is just the tip of the iceberg. In post after post, he cataloged a stream of new layoffs impacting workers nationwide and across various sectors:

• Poultry distributor, Perdue Farms, laid off 433 workers this week in Monterey, Tennessee.
• As part of mass layoffs to the US branches, tractor manufacturer John Deere laid off 9 workers from its Ankeny, Iowa, facility. The company has also voiced concerns over the impact of Trump's tariffs on production.
• Semiconductor manufacturer Summit Interconnect closed in Santa Ana, California, costing 74 people their jobs. Congress needs to invest in manufacturing to guide the U.S. into leading semiconductor manufacturing.
• Automotive and industrial power transmission manufacturer, Bando USA Inc. cut 65 jobs from their facility in Bowling Green, Kentucky.
• Coal manufacturer Wilson Creek Energy LLC cut 332 jobs after closing their plant in Friedens, PA. Another 93 workers were cut when the Grantsville, Maryland plant closed.
• In Sumner, Washington pipe manufacturer Advanced Drainage Systems closed, costing 54 employees their jobs.
• Electrical equipment manufacturer Sensata Technologies closed in Carpinteria, California, resulting in 57 employees losing their jobs. The company is closing to offset the rising costs of inflation.
• In San Jose, California, electronics manufacturer InvenSense Inc. laid off 55 people due to new market conditions in the broadening tech industry.
• Battery manufacturer Quantumscape Battery Inc. laid off 53 workers in San Jose, California, as part of a restructuring effort.
• Medical device manufacturer Biosense Webster Inc. cut 9 jobs when it permanently closed its Los Gatos, California, facility.
• Biotech manufacturer ImmunityBio, Inc. laid off 9 employees from its El Segundo, California, facility and one from its facility in Culver City, California.
• Food processor Del Monte Foods, Inc. in Hannaford, California, cut 378.
• In Agawam, Massachusetts, bakery wholesaler Connecticut Pie, LLC DBA Diana's Bakery laid off 229 workers.
• Poultry plant AlaTrade Foods laid off 165 employees at its Phenix City, Alabama, facility.
• Food products manufacturer, Rich Products Corporation laid off 139 workers after closing its Santa Fe Springs facility in California to offset rising costs.
• In Townson, Maryland, sports apparel manufacturer Fila USA, Inc. laid off 112 workers. The company also laid off 18 employees from their facility in Curtis Bay, Maryland.
• Engineering services company, S&B Engineers and Constructors, Ltd. in Kingsport, Tennessee, cut 112 workers.
• In Bridgeview, Illinois, 88 workers lost their jobs when sustainable packaging company Smurfit Westrock closed.
• Chemical manufacturer Syzygy Plasmonics, conducted layoffs in two Houston, Texas, facilities, cutting 68 jobs total.
• Packaging products manufacturer Pregis closed in San Antonio, California. Forty-five people lost their jobs.
• In Longview, Texas, construction supplies manufacturer S & B Engineers and Constructors cut 43 jobs.
• Board game manufacturer, Edaron, LLC closed in South Hadley, Massachusetts, cutting 24 jobs.
• In Holliston, Massachusetts, cannabis manufacturer Pharma Cann laid off 19 workers.
• Medical management facility, Prime MSO, LLC closed in Encino, California, costing 6 people their jobs.

With public sector workers being fired in massive numbers nationwide due to the blitzkrieg unleashed by the Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, private sector workers are no stranger to mass layoffs within a U.S. economy dominated by corporate interests and union density still at historic lows.

Les Leopold, executive director of the Labor Institute who has been sounding the alarm for years about the devastation associated with mass layoffs, wrote recently about how the situation is even worse than he previously understood. On top of existing corporate greed and the stock buyback phenomena driving many of the mass layoffs in the private sector, Trump's mismanagement of tariff and trade policy is almost certain to make things worse, triggering more job losses in addition to higher costs on consumer goods.

In order to combat Trump, Leopold wrote last month, "Democrats should take a page from Trump and put job protection on the top of their agenda. As tariffs bite and cause job destruction, the Democrats should show up and support those laid-off workers."

Instead of simply calling Trump's tariffs "insane," which many rightly have, the Democrats "should call them job-killing tariffs," advised Leopold. "As prices rise, they can blame Trump for that as well."

With Trump's economic policies coming into fuller view this, the picture is bleak for businesses large and small—and that means more pain for workers.

As Axios' Ben Berkowitz reported Saturday. "When everything gets more expensive everywhere because of tariffs, that starts a cycle for businesses, too — one that might end with layoffs, bankruptcies, and higher prices for the survivors' customers," he explained. "The cycle is just starting now, but the pain is immediate."

The "big picture," Berkowitz continued, is this:

The stock market is not the economy, but if you want a decent proxy for Main Street businesses, look at the Russell 2000, a broad measure of the stock market's small companies across industries.—It's down almost 20% this year alone.
—That in and of itself doesn't make a business turn the lights off, but it says something about public confidence in their prospects.
—"The market is like a real time poll ... this is going to impact all businesses in one way or another undoubtedly," Ken Mahoney of Mahoney Asset Management wrote Friday.

Khanna's Democratic colleague in the House, Rep. Lloyd Doggett of Texas, said the impacts of Trump's tariff and austerity policies are very real and already be felt in his district as he roasted Trump for having a reported golfing weekend as the global economy reels and American workers and retirees suffer:

On the question of silence and who will stand up for American workers—whether in the public or private sector—it's not clear who will emerge as their true defender.

"Imagine if federal worker unions and Democratic Party officials showed up at the plant gate of a company that was about to close its doors to finance hefty stock buybacks for its billionaire owners," Leopold wrote in early March. "A show of support for their fellow layoff victims and a unity message aimed at stopping billionaire job destruction would be simple to craft and easy to share. It would be news."

"Why aren't the Democrats doing this?" he asked.

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

President Donald Trump's latest attack on the working class was delivered in the form of an executive order late Thursday that seeks to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal government workers, a move that labor rights advocates said is not only unlawful but once again exposes Trump's deep antagonism toward working people and their families.

The executive order by Trump says its purpose is to "enhance the national security of the United States," but critics say it's clear the president is hiding behind such a claim as a way to justify a broadside against collective bargaining by the public workforce and to intimidate workers more broadly.

"President Trump's latest executive order is a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants—nearly one-third of whom are veterans—simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies," said Everett Kelley, president of the 820,000-member American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest union of federal workers.

"The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we’ve fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being." —Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO

The far-reaching order, which cites the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act as the source of his presidential authority, goes way beyond restricting collective bargaining and union representation at agencies with a national security mandate but instead tries to ensnare dozens of federal agencies and classifications of federal workers who work beyond that scope.

According to the Associated Press, the intent of the order "appears to touch most of the federal government."

AFL-CIO president, Liz Shuler, responded with disgust to the order, pointing out that the move comes directly out of the pre-election blueprint of the Heritage Foundation, which has been planning this kind of attack against the federal workforce and collective bargaining for years, if not decades.

"Straight out of Project 2025, this executive order is the very definition of union-busting," said Schuler in a Thursday night statement. "It strips the fundamental right to unionize and collectively bargain from workers across the federal government at more than 30 agencies. The workers who make sure our food is safe to eat, care for our veterans, protect us from public health emergencies and much more will no longer have a voice on the job or the ability to organize with their coworkers for better conditions at work so they can efficiently provide the services the public relies upon."

Shuler said the order is clearly designed as "punishment for unions who are leading the fight against the administration's illegal actions in court—and a blatant attempt to silence us."

The White House practically admitted as much, saying in a statement that "Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions." In effect, especially with a definition of "national security" that encompasses a vast majority of all government functions and agencies, the president has told an estimated two-thirds of government workers they are no longer allowed to disagree with or obstruct his efforts as they organize to defend their jobs or advocate for better working conditions.

Describing the move as "bullying tactics" by Trump and his administration, Kelley said the order represents "a clear threat not just to federal employees and their unions, but to every American who values democracy and the freedoms of speech and association. Trump’s threat to unions and working people across America is clear: fall in line or else."

"These threats will not work. Americans will not be intimidated or silenced. AFGE isn't going anywhere. Our members have bravely served this nation, often putting themselves in harm’s way, and they deserve far better than this blatant attempt at political punishment," he added.

Both AFGE and the AFL-CIO said they would fight the order tooth and nail on behalf of federal workers—and all workers—who have a right to collective bargaining and not to be intimidated for organizing their workplaces, whether in the public or private sector.

"To every single American who cares about the fundamental freedom of all workers, now is the time to be even louder," said Shuler. "The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we've fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being."

Kelley said AFGE was "preparing immediate legal action" in response to Trump's order and vowed to "fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks."

Democracy watchdogs want to know the identities of people paying exorbitant fees to attend private dinners with President Donald Trump at his exclusive resort home at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

While the existence of such pay-to-play dinners has been known about since reporting by Wired earlier this month, the events continue, including a $1 million per plate dinner over the weekend, which included an appearance by Trump's top lieutenant, the world's richest man and far-right ideologue Elon Musk.

According to Wired's more recent reporting on the latest high-priced "candlelight" gathering at Mar-a-Lago, the invitation asked "prospective guests to spend $1 million per seat" and "Musk, whose so-called Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) has spent the last six weeks ransacking federal agencies, sat next to Trump at the dinner."

In response, the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen on Tuesday demanded Trump "release the guest list of the Million Dollar-a-Plate candlelight dinners," speculating that any one of the wealthy attendees could be "government favor-seekers such as federal contractors or the CEOs of companies previously under investigation" before the Trump administration "stopped enforcement" or otherwise intervened.

"This exorbitant level of payment for presidential access raises serious concerns about the possibility of corruption by candlelight," said Jon Golinger, a democracy advocate for the group. "The American people have a right to know who was there and whether the Million Dollar Dinner menu for fat cats included a deep dish of juicy government contracts, a side of tasty tax breaks, or a sweet dessert of ending investigations and enforcement actions against their companies."

According to the reporting, the invitations for Saturday night's dinner—which was not placed on the president's official calendar—were sent by Make America Great Again Inc., a Super PAC aligned with the president, which spent an estimated half billion dollars supporting his 2024 run. "Donald J. Trump is appearing at this event only as a special guest speaker and is not asking for funds or donations," the invitation stated, though exclusive access to the president was the clear intent and troubling to those concerned about high-level corruption.

As Hafiz Rashid writes for The New Republic:

Trump holding fundraising dinners only two months into his presidency is historically unusual. Don Moynihan, a professor of public policy at the University of Michigan, told Wired that he “can't recall a sitting president in the first weeks of his administration asking for millions of dollars in fundraising."The concern is less about fundraising and more about access and influence. People hoping to get favorable treatment view it in their interest to donate money to Trump," Moynihan said.
Why wasn't this dinner on the White House's schedule? Perhaps Trump didn't like the attention given to the previous one, or there was something else going on. Mar-a-Lago is the site of many of Trump's ethically questionable actions, including one-on-one meetings with business leaders who are willing to pay him $5 million for the privilege. Perhaps Trump wants his moneymaking schemes to get as little attention as possible.

For Golinger of Public Citizen, the secretive dinners—where fabulously wealthy people have exclusive access to the president that working-class Americans could never hope for—is part of a much larger and nefarious effort by the rich and powerful to further increase their stranglehold on elected officials, a process which has only become easier with the loosening of campaign finance laws, including the 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision by the U.S. Supreme Court.

"These pay-to-play dinners are only possible because of Citizens United and show how desperately we need to fix it," Golinger said. "These dinners demolish the fiction of independent expenditures that the Supreme Court relied on 15 years ago to justify its Citizens United decision, which abolished reasonable limits on campaign spending."

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered at least a temporary blow to President Donald Trump on Wednesday by refusing to overrule a lower court order that said approximately $2 billion in U.S. foreign aid funding ordered frozen by the administration should be resumed.

The 5-4 ruling, issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, paves the way for organizations and programs worldwide working in conjunction or with grants from the U.S. State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to receive those funds already appropriated by Congress.

The legal team challenging the administration's move to block the funding celebrated the ruling.

“Today's ruling by the Supreme Court confirms that the administration cannot ignore the law," said Lauren Bateman, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group and lead counsel in this case, said in response to the decision. "To stop needless suffering and death, the government must now comply with the order issued three weeks ago to lift its unlawful termination of federal assistance."

The center of the case that was before the high court stems from a lawsuit brought by nonprofit groups and NGOs impacted by the funding freeze, who argued that results were "devastating" for programing that "improves—and, in many cases, literally saves—the lives of millions of people across the globe."

In the suit, as CNN reports, the groups argued the administration's freezing of funds "usurped the power of Congress to control government spending and violated a federal law that dictates how agencies make decisions."

On February 13, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, in a temporary restraining order, said the State Department and USAID must resume most of the funding while the case was under review, but the plaintiffs argued in a filing last week that little, if anything, had been done to comply with that order.

"The district court gave the government every opportunity to demonstrate what steps it was taking to release foreign-assistance funding, as the TRO required, and to explain any practical impediments it faced in pursuing compliance," the groups wrote in their filing. "But even by the time of the district court's February 25 hearing—nearly two weeks after the TRO had issued—government counsel could not identify a single action the government had taken in the twelve days since the TRO to release frozen funds."

Wednesday's ruling by the Supreme Court did not make any judgment on the overall merits of the case that remains under review by the lower District Court.

An executive order issued Friday by President Donald Trump that aims to rollback gun control measures instituted by his predecessor received swift rebuke from critics who said the order should be seen as a giveaway to the profit-hungry gun industry at the expense of a society ruthlessly harmed by gun violence year after year after year.

Trump's order tasks U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi with conducting a sweeping review of the policies and positions of the previous administration and Justice Department as it relates to gun policies, including any executive orders issued by President Joe Biden during his term and the DOJ's positions taken on "all ongoing and potential litigation" related to firearms.

"On the chopping block," reportsThe Trace, "are several high-profile attempts by [Biden] to reduce gun violence, including regulations on ghost guns, expanded background checks on gun sales, and tougher regulatory oversight of lawbreaking gun dealers."

"Trump's priorities couldn't be more clear. Spoiler: it's not protecting kids."

According to the outlet, which focuses on the nation's gun violence crisis:

While most of Biden’s policies have taken effect, lawsuits against them are ongoing. In his executive order, Trump directed the attorney general to also review the Justice Department’s decision to defend those regulations, as well as all other gun-related litigation in which the government is involved. From age limits on firearm sales to the ban on gun possession by people convicted of felonies, federal gun laws have been under constant threat in the courts since a 2022 Supreme Court decision dramatically expanded gun rights. If the Justice Department declines to defend the current federal laws in court, it would significantly raise the chances of them being ruled unconstitutional.

Gun control advocates widely rebuked the executive order, warning that Trump's reversal of the minimal amount of progress Biden was able to make was an endorsement of more death, pain, and suffering for the American people, including children, who too often find themselves at the deadly end of a gun's barrel.

"Trump's priorities couldn't be more clear. Spoiler: it's not protecting kids," said Natalie Fall, executive director of March For Our Lives. "Gun deaths finally went down last year, and Trump just moved to undo the rules and laws that helped make that happen."

Trump's right-wing MAGA movement, she continued, "loves to rage about 'keeping kids safe' but it’s all a smokescreen. They don’t care about what is actually killing and maiming thousands of American kids every year: gun violence. He is going to get Americans killed in his thirst for vengeance and eagerness to please the gun lobby and rally armed extremists. Remember the next time that a mass shooting happens, Trump did everything in his power to enable it, not prevent it."

Hudson Munoz, executive director of the advocacy group Guns Down America, shared similar sentiments and said the president's latest order "is as reckless as it is predictable."

Not for the first time, he argued, Trump is "proving that he cares more about appeasing the gun industry than protecting the American people. This order is downright dangerous. His incompetence and Attorney General Pam Bondi's blind loyalty to the Trump agenda will lead to more violence while a few shareholders and gun industry executives line their pockets."

Referencing public polls, Munoz said more than 70% of people in the U.S. approve common-sense gun safety laws that Trump and the gun lobby are attempting to destroy.

"Make no mistake, this executive order is about business," he said. "Trump is working to unleash more guns into American public life to boost the profits of gun manufacturers. This order leaves Americans to foot the bill with more gun deaths, more taxpayer dollars spent on emergency responses, and more families shattered by violence—while a handful of businesses cash in."

NOW READ: MAGA guy defends Musk as 'following the orders of the dictator'

After weekend reporting indicated President-elect Donald Trump is actively thinking about avenues to privatize the U.S. Postal Service, progressives decried any such efforts and once again directed their ire on the much-reviled Postermaster General, appointed to run the USPS during Trump's first term.

Citing people familiar with recent talks within the incoming team's camp, the Washington Postreported Saturday that Trump is "keen" for a privatization scheme that would hand the USPS over to for-profit, private interests.

According to the Post:

Trump has discussed his desire to overhaul the Postal Service at his Mar-a-Lago estate with Howard Lutnick, his pick for commerce secretary and the co-chair of his presidential transition, the people said. Earlier this month, Trump also convened a group of transition officials to ask for their views on privatizing the agency, one of the people said.Told of the mail agency's annual financial losses, Trump said the government should not subsidize the organization, the people said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations.

Trump's hostility to government programs that serve the public interest—including Medicare, Social Security, public education, and consumer protection agencies—is well-documented.

"The United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."

Trump's attacks on the Postal Service, including his blessing of the 2020 appointment of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a former logistics industry executive, sparked alarm about Republican desires to gut the agency from the inside out.

While calls to fire DeJoy from the USPS top leadership post persisted during the last year of Trump's first term and remained constant during Biden's time in office, he remains Postmaster General despite repeated accusations that his ultimate aim is to diminish the agency to such an extend that it will be more possible to justify its dismantling.

While the Post's reporting on Saturday stated that Trump's "specific plans for overhauling the Postal Service" in his upcoming term "were not immediately clear," it did quote Casey Mulligan, who served as a top economic advisor during the last administration, who touted the private sectors performance compared to a Postal Service he claimed was too slow and costly.

"We didn't finish the job in the first term, but we should finish it now," said Mulligan.

Progressive defenders of the Postal Service, in response, denounced any future effort to privatize the agency, one of the most popular among the U.S. public.

"The Post Office is in our constitution," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on Saturday. "There is no way we let Donald Trump privatize it. Fire his former pick for postmaster, DeJoy, and let a real professional run it like it should be run. The first priority is delivering mail. Cut the Pentagon's bloat if you want to save money."

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner also defended the USPS, saying that "72% of Americans approve of the U.S. Postal Service, it's how many seniors receive medication, especially in rural areas."

Progressive critics of right-wing attacks on the Postal Service have noted for years that the "financial performance" issues are a direct result of the "burdensome and unnecessary" pre-funding of liabilities mandated by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which forces the USPS to pay billions each year towards future postal worker retirement benefits.

"No matter what your partisan stripe," said Micah Rasmussen, director of the The Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, "we should be able to agree the United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."

Workers at a Amazon warehouse and delivery center in New York announced approval of strike authorizations on Friday, giving the retail giant—who have refused to negotiate for months—until Sunday to come to the bargaining table or risk a major work stoppage at the height of the holiday shopping season.

The unions representing Amazon workers at two New York City facilities—the JFK8 warehouse on Staten Island and the DBK4 delivery center in Queens—cited the company's "illegal refusal to recognize their union and negotiate a contract" to address low wages and dangerous working conditions as the reason for the strike authorization.

"We just want what everyone else in America wants—to do our jobs and get paid enough to take care of ourselves and our families. And Amazon isn't letting us do that."

"Amazon is pushing its workers closer to the picket line by failing to show them the respect they have earned," said Teamsters General President Sean M. O’Brien in a statement. "We've been clear: Amazon has until December 15 to come to the table and bargain for a contract. If these white-collar criminals want to keep breaking the law, they better get ready for a fight."

The workers are demanding:

• A living wage with fair pay increases.
• Safer working conditions to prevent injuries and fatalities.
• Job security and protection from arbitrary firings.
• Dignity and respect for all employees.

In June, over 5,500 workers at JFK8—who first voted in favor of creating a union in 2022—joined the Teamsters and chartered the Amazon Labor Union (ALU)-IBT Local 1. Despite consolidating their organizing strength with the backing of the Teamsters, Amazon management has dragged their feet on bargaining a first contract, hardly surprising given the company's long-standing hostility to organized labor.

"Amazon's refusal to negotiate is a direct attack on our rights," said Connor Spence, president of ALU-IBT Local 1, on Friday. "If Amazon chooses to ignore us, they’re the ones ruining Christmas for millions of families. We’re not just fighting for a contract; we’re fighting for the future of worker power at Amazon and beyond."

Rank-and-file members said their demands are reasonable, especially as the company—owned by the world's second-richest man, Jeff Bezos—continues to rake in massive profits year after year as one of the world's largest companies.

"We aren't asking for much," said James Saccardo, a worker at JFK8. "We just want what everyone else in America wants—to do our jobs and get paid enough to take care of ourselves and our families. And Amazon isn't letting us do that."

In Queens, where Amazon workers at DBK4—the corporation's largest delivery station in the city—voted nearly unanimously to authorize a strike of their own.

"Driving for Amazon is tough," said Luc Rene, a driver who works out of DBK4. "What's even tougher is fighting a mega-corporation that constantly breaks the law and games the system. But we won't give up."

"Every horror story you read about Amazon is true, but worse," said Justine, a warehouse worker in New York in a video produced by More Perfect Union.

A strike at this time of year, the busiest for the retail giant, reports labor correspondent Jessica Burbank for Drop Site News, "would hit them where it hurts. The scale of the strike would be unprecedented, including the major hubs of New York and San Bernadino, California."

According to Burbank:

Amazon now has a workforce of over 700,000, making it the largest employer of warehouse workers in the nation. If a contract is won at these initial 20 bargaining units, it has the potential to impact working conditions for thousands of workers, and inspire union organizing efforts at Amazon facilities across the country.For Amazon workers who voted to unionize their warehouses in March of 2022, this has been a long time coming. “Thousands of Amazon workers courageously cast their ballots to form a union at JFK8 in Staten Island,” Smalls said in a text. “We shocked the world, we had won against a corporate giant and hoped that step would propel us forward to help create a better workplace.” For years, Amazon stalled on recognizing the union, and has not yet met union representatives at the negotiating table.
Smalls said, “I’m excited to see workers take control, take the next step and move even further down the path to victory when they exercise their right to strike.” He continued, “We celebrated as we inspired thousands of others to hope for the same.”

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) on Saturday issued his support for the union workers.

"Amazon delivery drivers and warehouse workers deserve decent wages, benefits and working conditions—and the right to form a union," said Sanders. "I strongly support the thousands of Amazon workers who will go on strike tomorrow if Amazon doesn't end its illegal union busting."

The workers at JFK8 said people could support the union's effort in various ways "at this critical time," including:

• Donate to the Solidarity Fund: Help workers sustain their fight by contributing to the strike fund.
• Show Up on the Picket Line: Join workers at JFK8 to demonstrate solidarity and hold Amazon accountable for their illegal refusal to negotiate a union contract.
• Spread the Word: Use social media and local networks to raise awareness about the workers’ struggle and the importance of their fight for justice at Amazon.
• Contact Elected Officials: Urge representatives to publicly support JFK8 workers and pressure Amazon to negotiate in good faith.
• Sign the Petition: Stand with Amazon workers and demand that Amazon guarantee a safe return to work, free of harassment and retaliatory disciplinary action, to all workers participating in protected collective action.

For his part, former labor secretary and economist Robert Reich said he had no sympathy for the retail giant's refusal to bargain in good faith with the workers who make its business model possible.

"Amazon had $15 billion in profits last quarter," said Reich. "Don't tell me they can't afford to bargain a fair contract."

The Biden administration's Environmental Protection Agency on Monday announced a permanent ban on a pair of carcinogenic chemicals widely used in U.S. industries, including dry cleaning services and automative work.

According to the Washington Post:

The announcement includes the complete ban of trichloroethylene—also known as TCE—a substance found in common consumer and manufacturing products including degreasing agents, furniture care and auto repair products. In addition, the agency banned all consumer uses and many commercial uses of Perc—also known as tetrachloroethylene and PCE — an industrial solvent long used in applications such as dry cleaning and auto repair.

Jonathan Kalmuss-Katz, a senior attorney at Earthjustice, applauded the move but suggested to the Post that it should have come sooner.

"Both of these chemicals have caused too much harm for too long, despite the existence of safer alternatives," Kalmuss-Katz.

The EPA's decision, reports the New York Times, was "long sought by environmental and health advocates, even as they braced for what could be a wave of deregulation by the incoming Trump administration."

The Timesreports:

TCE is known to cause liver cancer, kidney cancer and non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, and to damage the nervous and immune systems. It has been found in drinking water nationwide and was the subject of a 1995 book that became a movie, “A Civil Action,” starring John Travolta. The E.P.A. is banning all uses of the chemical under the Toxic Substances Control Act, which was overhauled in 2016 to give the agency greater authority to regulate harmful chemicals.

Though deemed "less harmful" than TCE, the Times notes how Perc has been shown to "cause liver, kidney, brain and testicular cancer," and can also damage the functioning of kidneys, the liver, and people's immune systems.

Environmentalists celebrated last year when Biden's EPA proposed the ban on TCE, as Common Dreamsreported.

Responding to the news at the time, Scott Faber, senior vice president for government affairs at the Environmental Working Group (EWG), said the EPA, by putting the ban on the table, was "once again putting the health of workers and consumers first."

While President-elect Donald Trump ran on a having an environmental agenda that would foster the "cleanest air" and the "cleanest water," the late approval of EPA's ban on TCE and Perc in Biden's term means the rule will be subject to the Congressional Review Act (CRA), meaning the Republican-control Senate could reverse the measure.

In his remarks to the Times, Kalmuss-Katz of Earthjustice said that if Trump and Senate Republicans try to roll back the ban, they will be certain to "encounter serious opposition from communities across the country that have been devastated by TCE, in both blue and red states."

Current chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party Ben Wikler on Sunday officially threw his hat in the ring to take over the national party, leading with a promise to put the working class at the center of its organizing efforts following a crushing defeat to Donald Trump's far-right Republicans in November's election.

"If we're going to take on Trump, Republican extremists, and move our country forward, the Democratic Party needs to be stronger," Wikler said in a statement. "I'm running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee to unite the party, fight everywhere, and win."

With the term of current Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison expiring in the new year, Wikler said his focus will be on lifting up the needs of working-class people, improving communication strategies, and running a more aggressive political operation.

"The soul of the Democratic Party is the fight for working people," Wikler said. "Ours is the party that built the middle class, that won breakthroughs on civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights, freedom and opportunity for all—and has so much more to do."

Wikler, who got his start in state-level politics in his home state and later played a leading role at the national progressive advocacy group MoveOn, notes that while Trump and the Republicans made gains across the board against Democrats in the 2024 election, the swing was much less in Wisconsin where Wikler has rebuilt the party over recent years, taking back majorities in the state legislature and other key fights.

"What has made a difference in Wisconsin," he said, "can make a difference everywhere. We need a nationwide permanent campaign."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sunday, Wikler acknowledged that a significant explanation about the Democratic loss of the presidential race—as well as Republican's winning control of both chambers of Congress—was that too many voters simply don't believe Democrats take their economic concerns seriously or think the party is capable of addressing them.

"It's clear from this election that there are many voters, especially those hardest hit by rising prices, those who experienced the pandemic-era financial support slipping away, who voted primarily on the economy," he said. "We’ve seen in the United States and worldwide if you have to break pills in half to be able to afford your groceries, that is going to be the top-of-mind issue when you go to the ballot box."

The Democratic Party can win, Wikler argued, "when voters know that we're the ones fighting for them against those who will seek to rip them off to add an extra billion dollars to their bank account."

Calling Wikler a "party builder," The Nation's political correspondent John Nichols, also a Wisconsin native, said Wikler joins "an increasingly crowded list of contenders for the post, including Minnesota DFL chair Ken Martin, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York state Sen. James Skoufis."

In response to the announcement, former labor secretary Robert Reich gave his endorsement to Wikler in a Sunday blog post, calling him someone who "can turn the Democratic Party into a party that's once again on the side of the little guy."

With the Democratic Party in the midst of deep soul-searching following Vice President Kamala Harris' devastating defeat to Trump, progressives have called for a major rethink. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination both in 2016 and 2020 as a challenge to its corporate leanings, said last week that getting big money out of politics should be a top priority for the party's leadership going forward.

"If the Democratic Party is to become a democratic party, the first job of a new DNC Chair is to get super-PAC money out of Democratic primaries," Sanders said. "AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super-PACS cannot be allowed to select Democratic candidates."

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, a close Sanders' ally, said the same on Sunday, shortly after Wikler's announcement. "Every candidate running for DNC Chair must commit to getting dark money and corporate money out of the Party. Period," tweeted Turner.

Sanders, Turner, and other progressive voices have been adamant that without a real strategy to win back working-class families, the Democrats are lost.

Randi Weingarten, union president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Wikler "understands how to organize and communicate."

Reich embraced Wikler's call for a new, bolder organizing strategy as well as his record in Wisconsin. "Wikler organized and mobilized voters in a state that Republicans had rigged to ensure total dominance and control. Ben unrigged that system," Reich wrote. "He turned Wisconsin into a year-round organizing and fundraising powerhouse, winning seven of the last 10 statewide elections since he took over."

Reich also explained why it's important that someone like Wikler be the replacement for the outgoing Harrison, a former lobbyist and a staunch ally of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party establishment.

"For years, the Democratic National Committee has been little more than a fundraising machine, which means it's been tilted toward sources of big money—billionaires, big corporations, and Wall Street," argued Reich. "That's precisely the problem. That's why the DNC cut Bernie Sanders off at the knees when he ran against Hillary Clinton in 2016. That's why starting in the 1980s the Party began turning its back on the working class."

"There's no way the Party can speak for the majority of working people in America," concluded Reich, "when it's reluctant to bite the hands that feed it."

MSNBC's evening news anchor Chris Hayes walked his audience through an overt deception perpetrated by Fox News Wednesday night as the right-wing cable outlet used selective editing of Donald Trump during Bret Baier's primetime interview with Kamala Harris.

The line of questioning from Baier stemmed from recent public remarks Trump made in which he said "the enemy from within" was the most serious danger to the nation and that he would use both the National Guard and U.S. military to go after "radical-left lunatics," which he claimed included Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), a centrist member of the Democratic Party currently running for U.S. Senate in California.

When Harris invoked these comments to criticize Trump for threatening to turn the U.S. military against people who have different political beliefs than him, Baier interrupted her to say that the former Republican president had been asked about those very remarks earlier in the day during a separate town hall-style event, also hosted by Fox.

But in the clip shown by Baier to the television audience and to which Harris was asked to respond, Fox only included a small part of what Trump actually said on the subject during the town hall, leaving out his clear repetition of calling Schiff and others "the enemy from within" who must be dealt with.

As Hayes explains during his examination of what transpired, Baier used a selected "soundbite to try to clear Donald Trump of saying a thing in which he cut out the part where says it."

Watch the segment:

"Do you see what they did there, on their own network?" asked Hayes of the selective editing by Fox producers. "[Trump] said—he repeated—'They are the enemy within... they're sick people... they're evil.' He repeated it! And then Brett Baier's like, 'Let me play you what [Trump] said today,' and just cut out the big chunk."

In her reaction to the clip showed by Baier, Harris said, "Bret, I'm sorry and with all due respect—that clip was not what he has been saying about the 'enemy within' when he has been speaking about the American people. That's not what you just showed."

When Baier tried to explain that he was just trying to show his response to a question, Harris interjected, "You and I both know that he has talked about turning the American military on the American people. He has talked about going after people who are engaged in peaceful protest. He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him."

"This is a democracy," Harris continued. "And in a democracy, the president of the United States should be able to handle criticism without saying they are going to lock people up for doing it. And this is what's at stake, which is why you have someone like the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff saying what Mark Milley has said about Donald Trump being a threat to the United States of America."

New York Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez lashed out Sunday night against an unnamed "senior House Democrat" who said party leadership had already come to terms with the idea, following the weekend assassination attempt against Donald Trump, of the far-right former Republican president winning back the White House in November.

Responding to Axiosreporting in which the lawmaker, provided anonymity by the outlet, was quoted as saying, "We've all resigned ourselves to a second Trump presidency," Ocasio-Cortez said, "If you're a 'senior Democrat' that feels this way, you should absolutely retire and make space for true leadership that refuses to resign themselves to fascism."

"This kind of leadership is functionally useless to the American people," she added. "Retire."

Since the assassination attempt on Trump in Pennsylvania on Saturday that bloodied the former president and left one event attendee dead, many political observers and pundits have said or suggested that the violent attack likely bolsters the GOP candidate's chances in the upcoming election—especially at a time that President Joe Biden appears politically weak following a disastrous debate performance last month.

Despite grave concerns among many Democratic and progressive voters about Biden's ability to defeat Trump, Ocasio-Cortez has been outspoken in her defense of Biden in recent weeks.

"What I think the president does need to do is continue to lean in and move further toward the working class, and be more assertive in providing an affirmative vision for this country," Ocasio-Cortez told Capitol Hill reporters last week.

"If we can actually provide and chart out a future that is more leaning into the needs of working people," she said, "then I think we can chart a path to win."

Following Saturday's shooting, Ocasio-Cortez condemned political violence broadly and called the incident "horrific."

"It is absolutely unacceptable and must be denounced in the strongest terms," the congresswoman said. "My heart goes out to all the victims and I wish the former president a speedy recovery."

While President Joe Biden on Monday tried to put an end to the national discussion about whether or not he should stay in the presidential race any longer, another longtime and vocal ally offered his unsolicited advice.

"Joe Biden has been a fine president, but it's time for him—in the interests of the America he so clearly loves—to announce he will not run for re-election," famed novelist and essayist Stephen King declared in social media post.

King, a loyal Democrat for decades who has been outspoken in his praise for Biden, is no friend of the Republican's presumptive nominee, Donald Trump, who the author has categorized as an existential threat to the nation and the world.

In 2017, King took note of the former president's proposed tax plan—a version of which later passed into law and showered enormous giveaways to the very rich and corporations—by telling working people in the U.S. that it showed Trump "couldn't give shit one about you."

"Trump's no friend of the working man," King said.

In the aftermath of his conviction Thursday on 34 felony counts in the state of New York related to hush-money payments ahead of the 2016 election, former president Donald Trump predictably denounced the trial as a "rigged" process and a "sham" as he declared that ultimately the "real verdict is going to be November 5 by the people" on this year's election day.

But is the disgraced politician—the first of any sitting or former president to be convicted of a felony by his peers in U.S. history—right about that? Despite celebrating how the infamously slippery Trump was, indeed, finally held accountable for what the facts proved was criminal conduct, many progressives think he is.

"In the end, it is the election—and the voters—that will decide if Trump is held accountable or not," wrote Katrina vanden Heuvel, editorial director and publisher of The Nation magazine, in a column published shortly before the Thursday's news broke in New York.

"If voters decide to elect him, that will be the final verdict," she argued, beating Trump to the punch. "The verdicts in the cases will be irrelevant—and probably erased by presidential pardon. If he is defeated, that verdict will do more to inform the future behavior of presidents than any of the court cases."

READ: The GOP has chosen hell over America — and there should be no coming back from it

"As predicted, Republicans are rushing in to tear down our institutions in defense of their cult leader."

On Friday morning, the Trump campaign announced it had raised an eye-popping $35 million in campaign donations in just over 12 hours since the jury's verdict. Meanwhile, the MAGA army and Trump's Republican allies in Congress and in state houses nationwide rushed to his defense and slammed the conviction as the result of a political operation orchestrated by Democrats.

In her defense of Trump, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) lied by saying Manhattan District Alvin Bragg "campaigned on a promise to prosecute Trump" which fact-checkers and journalists were quick to point out was "simply false." Sen. Mitch McConnell, longtime Republican leader in the Senate, said the charges "should never have been brought in the first place" and that he expected exoneration on appeal. Speaker of the House Mike Johnson called it a "shameful day in American history" for Trump to be convicted of crimes by a jury.

"As predicted, Republicans are rushing in to tear down our institutions in defense of their cult leader," said Ezra Levin, co-founder of Indivisible, which was created during Trump's first term in office to organize against his agenda. "They rally around a convicted felon found guilty of interfering in his own election. It's despicable. They have no shame. They must be crushed electorally."

It wouldn't be the first time, as Chris Hayes pointed out Thursday night:

https://x.com/allinwithchris/status/17963045129335...

Recognizing the political battle lines that are being drawn, Sulma Arias, executive director of the advocacy group People's Action, was among those progressives who cheered how criminal accountability in New York showed that "Trump is not above the law," but said voters must recognize 34 guilty verdicts guarantee nothing about what happens in the presidential race.

"The simple fact remains: We must beat him at the ballot box," said Arias. "Trump is still running for president, and if he wins, he would likely try to pardon himself–and the Supreme Court, which he stacked with MAGA justices, would be the only appeal if he did so."

The 2024 presidential election, she continued, offers a clear " choice between two futures: a corporate takeover of the country with a would-be dictator at the head, or a future in which working class people build a true multiracial democracy and well-being for everyone. Organizing will make the difference; we won't take our eye off the ball."

"Trump is still running for president, and if he wins, he would likely try to pardon himself."

According to vanden Heuvel, the "24/7 press coverage of Trump" and his numerous trial will have a major role to play in what comes next, especially as the media circus that follows Trump wherever he goes shows it has learned very few valuable lessons from the 2016 and 2020 campaigns or his first term in the White House.

What's crucial about the election is not necessarily Trump's well-documented crimes and misdeeds of the past (not that he shouldn't be held to account), she argued, but what voters should understand about a possible second term in the White House. She wrote:

The press is once more collaborating with Trump to enable him to dominate the news. You don’t have to buy the old saw that any press—good or bad—is good so long as they spell your name right. Trump, a corrupt and shoddy businessman born with a silver spoon in his mouth, has invented a persona as a rebel, an outsider willing to take on a corrupt establishment. He paints himself as the victim because he champions the betrayed majority. “I am your retribution.” He rails against the prosecutions as a Biden election conspiracy. The wall-to-wall coverage only provides a constant stage for his dishonest shtick.No doubt a former president on trial will attract the news. But the press could do far more to balance its coverage. Provide equal time for Biden's campaign or actions as president. Report on the horrors of Trump's agenda—what the cost and chaos of his pledge to deport 10 million undocumented workers would be for example, detail the consequence of four more years of climate denial, expose Trump's plans to destroy the civil service, give more ink to his shamelessly corrupt offers to pass the agenda of Big Oil if they'll ante up $1 billion to his campaigns and more. Instead of echoing Trump's public posturing, do more to expose the corrupt little man behind the curtain.

In her estimation, former Ohio state senator Nina Turner argued Thursday night that Trump's ability to win reelection or not in November is only part of the political equation given what the Republican Party has become under his tutelage.

"This is a tense moment in history," Turner said. "Do not bank on conservatives abandoning Trump due to his conviction. And even if Trump loses in November, the threat of fascism is not over. The Republican Party is flush with those who want to erode our rights."

As Arias of People's Action put it, the progressive movement needs "everyone who cares about our families, our freedoms, and our future to join the fight" to defeat Trump and his Republican allies in November.

NOW READ: It’s obscene: Inside the Medicare Advantage sham

Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, praised Hungary Prime Minister Viktor Orbán on Friday night for his authoritarian leadership during an event at Mar-a-Lago in Florida.

"There's nobody that's better, smarter or a better leader than Viktor Orbán, who's fantastic," said Trump from a stage as he introduced his guest to the crowd. "He's a non-controversial figure, because he says, 'This is the way it's gonna be and that's the end of it,' right? He's the boss."

Trump went on to call him a "great leader" and a "fantastic leader."

"How many different ways does Trump need to tell you he's going to rule as a dictator before you believe him?" asked political columnist Will Bunch in response to the remarks. In December, Trump admitted he would act like a dictator if elected in 2024, but only on "day one."

Prior to his trip to down to Florida, Orbán—who has ruled Hungary as an "illiberal state" (his term) since coming to power in 2010—stopped in Washington, D.C. where he met with leaders of the far-right Heritage Foundation, a key ally of Trump's and the architect of Project 2025, a "battle plan" for "authoritarianism" in the United States if the former president is able to win a second term.

President Joe Biden was asked Friday if was concerned that Orbán was meeting with Trump and he responded: "If I'm not, you should be."

During a campaign stop later in the day, Biden told attendees, "Do you know who [Trump's] meeting with today down in Mar-a-Lago? Orbán of Hungary, who's stated flatly that he doesn't thinks democracy works, he’s looking for dictatorship."

Biden added that he's fighting for a future "where we defend democracy, not diminish it."

Writing in The Conversation on Thursday, Gábor Scheirin, a former Green party member of the Hungarian Parliament from 2010 to 2014 and now a visiting fellow at Harvard University, described the ascent of Orbán.

Scheirin explains in his piece how Orbán, a "strongman" who benefited greatly from a "nationwide right-wing media network" that could echo his agenda, was able to "subvert democracy from the inside" in ways that have troubling parallels in the United States.

With the help of a pliant judiciary, gerrymandered voting districts, a party stacked with hard-core loyalists, and a right-wing media echo chamber, writes Scheirin, this "authoritarianism from within creates chokepoints, where the opposition isn't crushed" entirely, but "has a hard time breathing."

The biggest threat to a democracy targeted by authoritarians like Orbán and Trump, argues Scheirin, is the neglect of those people susceptible to their inducement due to the economic pain they suffer under neoliberal capitalism and globalization. He writes:

If there is one lesson from Hungary, it is this: Democracy is not sustainable in a divided society where many are left behind economically. The real power of authoritarian populists like Trump and Orban lies not in the institutions they hijack but in the novel electoral support coalition they create.
They bring together two types of supporters. Some hardcore, authoritarian-right voters are motivated by bigotry and hatred rooted in their fear of globalization’s cultural threats. However, the most successful right-wing populist forces integrate an outer layer of primarily working-class voters hurt by globalization’s economic threats.

"If the liberal center appears uncaring, authoritarian populists can mobilize voters against both the cultural and economic threats posed by globalization," Scheirin continues. "Neglecting this suffering" felt by many voters, he warns, "was the democratic center's politically lethal failure" in Hungary as Orbán rose to power.

As Common Dreams reported earlier this week, the Trump-Orbán get-together was seen broadly by progressive critics as a chance for the Hungarian to school his American friend on "how to destroy democracy" more effectively than he was able to the first time around.

"I mean this sincerely," said Democratic strategist and pundit Cliff Schechter in response to the latest praise of Orbán, Trump would "need to start choosing random people to torture or execute on that stage to make his intentions any more obvious if elected."

New details made public over the weekend via police documents of a rape investigation have added fresh fuel to the political firestorm surrounding the chair of the Republican Party of Florida, Christian Ziegler, and his wife Bridget Ziegler, co-founder of the far-right Moms for Liberty, which engages in book-banning efforts, attacks on public education, religious moralizing, and the promotion of fascist ideology in chapters nationwide.

After an unnamed longtime associate accused Christian Ziegler of rape last week, the emergence of a police search warrant and associated affidavit showed that the alleged victim said she had engaged in consensual three-way sexual relations with the Zieglers in the past but on the day of the assault, on Oct 3., tried to call off the encounter because Bridget would not be there to participate.

"Sorry I was mostly in for her," the victim said, according to text messages quoted in the affadavit.

The high-profile political work of the Zieglers—who rail against the sexual identities and lifestyle choices of others and who have been openly hostile to the LGBTQ+ community, often suggesting queer people are somehow deviant or morally problematic—has resulted in my cries of hypocrisy and calls for Christian's resignation.

"Allegations of rape and sexual battery are severe and should be taken seriously," said Florida Democratic Party chair Nikki Fried in a statement on Thursday. "I applaud the accuser's bravery in coming forward against a political figure as powerful as Christian Ziegler, and I trust that the Sarasota Police Department will conduct a thorough investigation into these allegations of criminal behavior."

Given the severity of the allegations against him, Fried called on Christian Zeigler to resign from his post, a call echoed later by Gov. Ron DeSantis, a Republican currently running for the GOP presidential nomination.

Fried said that "what happens behind closed doors is Christian and Bridget's personal business," but added that she did "find it interesting that two people who are so obsessed with banning books about gay penguins might be engaged in a non-traditional sexual relationship," referring to a children's book about gay parents which has been targeted by Republicans for banning in schools in Florida and elsewhere.

"As leaders in the Florida GOP and Moms for Liberty," said Fried, "the Zieglers have made a habit out of attacking anything they perceive as going against 'family values'—be it reproductive rights or the existence of LGBTQ+ Floridians. The level of hypocrisy in this situation is stunning."

According to the Washington Post:

News reports emerged several days ago about the allegations of rape, but more records were obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request late Friday and reported by several Florida news outlets. They include details of recorded conversations via Instagram and phone calls between the woman and Christian Ziegler that detectives obtained. Police have filed search warrants for Ziegler’s phone, email and other devices. The Sarasota Police Department did not reply to several requests for comment.Christian Ziegler's attorney, Derek Byrd, said in a statement Thursday that his client "will be completely exonerated." Byrd and Ziegler did not respond to requests for comment Saturday about the details in the affidavit.

"It's certainly deeply, deeply troubling," state Rep. Spencer Roach, a member of the Florida GOP executive committee, told the Post in an interview. "I would describe this as just an absolute body blow to the Republican Party. Everyone that I've talked to about this is in an absolute tailspin."

Paulina Testerman, a co-founder of the nonprofit Support Our Schools, which defends public education, spoke to The Daily Beast about the allegations of rape in the context the Ziegler's political activities in Florida.

"Many of us have stood at the podium of countless school board meetings and listened to Mrs. Ziegler drag the LGBT+ community, so it's natural to want to celebrate when bullies get what's coming," Testerman said. "But we must remind ourselves that there are many victims in this story. An alleged rape victim is the obvious victim, but our LGBT children and all marginalized children have all been the victim of the Zieglers and their hate machine. We are hopeful that their reign is over, and our community can start healing."

Bridget Ziegler—who reportedly confirmed to detectives she and her husband did have a consensual sexual relationship in the past—is not named in the affadavit, but Moms for Liberty defended her in a post on X following the initial revelations last week.

"#StrongWomen scare those that seek to destroy our country," the group stated. "We stand with Bridget Ziegler and every other badass woman fighting for kids and America."

But critics like Anne-Marie Principe and others pushed back on that.

"The hypocrisy is real," Principe tweeted. "First, they engaged in the sexual freedoms they want to deny others. Second, the alleged sexual assault of their threesome partner is not only denigrating women, it's a crime. So, I guess you are only about YOUR liberties. #WrongWomen not strong ones."

Among the three richest people on the planet, mega-billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos received some praise last week for announcing approximately $120 million in donations to a number of groups fighting the scourge of homelessness in the United States.

"It's a privilege to support these orgs in their inspiring mission to help families regain stability," Bezos wrote in an Instagram post touting the multiple grants to 38 individual nonprofits in 22 states.

But hold your applause.

Just days after word of the charitable gifts—a minuscule drop in the bucket compared to the estimated $170 billion fortune he possesses—a Bezos-controlled company called Arrived dropped $500 million of new investment in single-family homes with a venture fund that critics warn will make the nation's housing crisis even worse.

According toGV Wire:

Since its inception in 2021, Arrived has attracted nearly a half a million customers, operating as a fractional real estate investing platform. The company’s model is similar to buying a slice of the American pie, allowing investors to purchase shares of single-family rentals for as little as $100.

The fund itself—called the Single Family Residential Fund—allows investors to purchase portions of various homes and later trade, hold, or redeem their "chips" on a rolling basis like players at a casino.

While many Americans, especially younger people and working-class families, have been steadily priced out of homeownership by soaring costs and, more recently, higher interest rates, Arrived prays on that reality by selling the idea that owning a piece of a home as an investment is an "American Dream" akin to owning the home one lives in.

Speculative investors, however, are likely not among those struggling to make ends meet but this kind of investment behavior, warn critics, is certain to drive home prices even higher.

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—who has co-authored legislation to halt the rent-gouging and inflated home prices that result from such investment schemes—ripped Bezos' latest move.

"The last thing Americans need is a Bezos-backed investment company further consolidating single-family homes and putting homeownership out of reach for more and more people," Khanna tweeted on Friday. "Housing should be a right, not a speculative commodity."

As the author writing under the name Homeless Romantic on Mediumnoted last week, a primary concern "raised by critics is the monopolization of housing" that Arrived is pushing.

"By acquiring a large number of single-family homes," reads the post, "Bezos and other investors could consolidate control over the housing supply, giving them significant influence over rental prices and market dynamics. This could make it more difficult for ordinary individuals and families to find affordable housing, particularly in high-demand areas."

It wasn't lost on many that there was a disconnect between his relatively paltry gift to organizations valiantly standing on the frontlines to fight homelessness with the one hand, while simultaneously using his massive fortune to exacerbate the crisis with a for-profit venture on the other.

What else could he do? People had ideas.

According to the Department of Housing and Urban Development, it would cost a mere $20 billion annually to end homelessness in the United States.

In response to the latest revelations about his charitable giving, a few people said a person worth nearly $200 billion like Bezos "could literally end homelessness by himself if he wanted to."

The U.S. Treasury Department on Friday released new figures related to the 2023 budget that showed a troubling drop in the nation's tax revenue compared to GDP—a measure which fell to 16.5% despite a growing economy—and an annual deficit increase that essentially doubled from the previous year.

"After record U.S. government spending in 2020 and 2021" due to programs related to the economic fallout from the Covid-19 crisis, the Washington Postreports, "the deficit dropped from close to $3 trillion to close to $1 trillion in 2022. But rather than continue to fall to its pre-pandemic levels, the deficit unexpectedly jumped this year to roughly $2 trillion."

While much of the reporting on the Treasury figures painted a picture of various and overlapping dynamics to explain the surge in the deficit—including higher payments on debt due to interest rates, tax filing waivers related to extreme weather events, the impact of a student loan forgiveness program that was later rescinded, or a dip in capital gains receipts—progressive tax experts say none of those complexities should act to shield what's at the heart of a budget that brings in less than it spends: tax giveaways to the rich.

Bobby Kogan, senior director for federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, has argued repeatedly that growing deficits in recent years have a clear and singular chief cause: Republican tax cuts that benefit mostly the wealthy and profitable corporations.

In response to the Treasury figures released Friday, Kogan said that "roughly 75%" of the surge in the deficit and the debt ratio, the amount of federal debt relative to the overall size of the economy, was due to revenue decreases resulting from GOP-approved tax cuts over recent decades. "Of the remaining 25%," he said, "more than half" was higher interest payments on the debt related to Federal Reserve policy.

"We have a revenue problem, due to tax cuts," said Kogan, pointing to the major tax laws enacted under the administrations of George W. Bush and Donald Trump. "The Bush and Trump tax cuts broke our modern tax structure. Revenue is significantly lower and no longer grows much with the economy." And he offered this visualization about a growing debt ratio:

"The point I want to make again and again and again is that, relative to the last time CBO was projecting stable debt/GDP, spending is down, not up," Kogan said in a tweet Friday night. "It's lower revenue that's 100% responsible for the change in debt projections. If you take away nothing else, leave with this point."

In his tweet, Kogan offered the following chart to show recent and projected levels of both federal revenue and spending relative to gross domestic product (GDP):

In a detailed analysis produced in March, Kogan explained that, "If not for the Bush tax cuts and their extensions—as well as the Trump tax cuts—revenues would be on track to keep pace with spending indefinitely, and the debt ratio (debt as a percentage of the economy) would be declining. Instead, these tax cuts have added $10 trillion to the debt since their enactment and are responsible for 57 percent of the increase in the debt ratio since 2001, and more than 90 percent of the increase in the debt ratio if the one-time costs of bills responding to COVID-19 and the Great Recession are excluded."

On Friday, the office of Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) cited those same numbers in a press release responding to the Treasury's new report.

"Tax giveaways for the wealthy are continuing to starve the federal government of needed revenue: those passed by former Presidents Trump and Bush have added $10 trillion to the debt and account for 57 percent of the increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio since 2001," read the statement. "If not for those tax cuts, U.S. debt would be declining as a share of the economy."

Whitehouse, who chairs the Senate Budget Committee, said the dip in federal revenue and growth in the overall deficit both have the same primary cause: GOP fealty to the wealthy individuals and powerful corporations that bankroll their campaigns.

"In their blind loyalty to their mega-donors, Republicans' fixation on giant tax cuts for billionaires has created a revenue problem that is driving up our national debt," Whitehouse said Friday night. "Even as federal spending fell over the last year relative to the size of the economy, the deficit increased because Republicans have rigged the tax code so that big corporations and the wealthy can avoid paying their fair share."

Offering a solution, Whitehouse said, "Fixing our corrupted tax code and cracking down on wealthy tax cheats would help bring down the deficit. It would also ensure teachers and firefighters don't pay higher tax rates than billionaires, level the playing field for small businesses, and promote a stronger economy for all."

None of the latest figures—those showing that tax cuts have injured revenues and therefore spiked deficits and increased debt—should be a surprise.

In 2018, shortly after the Trump tax cuts were signed into law, a Congressional Budget Office (CBo) report predicted precisely this result: that revenues would plummet; annual deficits would grow; and not even the promise of economic growth made by Republicans to justify the giveaway would be enough to make up the difference in the budget.

"The CBO's latest report exposes the scam behind the rosy rhetoric from Republicans that their tax bill would pay for itself," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and now Senate Majority Leader, said at the time.

"Republicans racked up the national debt by giving tax breaks to their billionaire buddies, and now they want everyone else to pay for them."

In its 2018 report, the CBO predicted the deficit would rise to $804 billion by the end of that fiscal year. Now, for all the empty promises and howling from the GOP and their allied deficit hawks, the economic prescription they forced through Congress has resulted in an annual deficit of more than double that, all while demanding the nation's poorest and most vulnerable pay the price by demanding key social programs—including food aid, education budgets, unemployment benefits, and housing assistance—be slashed.

Meanwhile, the GOP majority in the U.S. House—with or without a Speaker currently holding the gavel—still has plans to extend the Trump tax cuts if given half a chance. In May, a CBO analysis of that pending legislation found that such an extension would add an additional $3.5 trillion to the national debt.

"Republicans racked up the national debt by giving tax breaks to their billionaire buddies, and now they want everyone else to pay for them," Sen. Whitehouse said at the time. "It is one of life's great enigmas that Republicans can keep a straight face while they simultaneously cite the deficit to extort massive spending cuts to critical programs and support a bill that would blow up deficits to extend trillions in tax cuts for the people who need them the least."