“Nothing good is likely coming out of this,” said one Democratic political scientist on Thursday regarding reports that US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has called a meeting of hundreds of top military general and admirals in Quantico, Virginia next Tuesday.

The highly unusual summit was announced on short notice and no reason was given to military commanders and other leaders stationed in conflict zones, across Europe, the Middle East, and the Asia-Pacific region who are being required to leave their posts The order applies to “all senior officers with the rank of brigadier general or above,” The Washington Post reported. There are roughly 800 generals and admirals in the US military.

“You don’t call [general officers and flag officers] leading their people and the global force into an auditorium outside DC and not tell them why/what the topic or agenda is,” one person familiar with the matter told the Post.

Some sources told the newspaper that the order raises security concerns.

“Are we taking every general and flag officer out of the Pacific right now?” one person said. “All of it is weird.”

The directive comes months after Hegseth fired about 100 generals and admirals and a month after he dismissed top leaders of the Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the Navy Reserve, and the Naval Special Warfare Command, without giving the officials reasons for their firing.

The DIA had found a few months earlier that Iran’s nuclear program had not been significantly damaged by US strikes, contradicting President Donald Trump’s claims.

The Pentagon has said there will likely be another 10% reduction of generals and admirals, and political consultant Joel Montfort noted that the right-wing policy blueprint Project 2025 “details a plan to remove senior leaders and consolidate power to loyalists” at the Department of Defense, which Hegseth has claimed is now called the Department of War.

“Are we taking every general and flag officer out of the Pacific right now? All of it is weird.”

“People are very concerned,” one official told the Post regarding the meeting. “They have no idea what it means.”

The Intercept reported that military sources it spoke to “speculated about the purpose, wondering if it might foretell a culling of general officers; a significant reorganization of the military command structure; a threat to eschew contact with the press; or a loyalty oath about putting Trump administration priorities above all else.”

“One source, somewhat in jest, evoked the phrase ‘coup d’état,’ later clarifying they meant a gutting of leaders who might question Trump’s policies,” reported the outlet.

Some other officials familiar with the matter told the Post that they believed the Trump administration’s desire to make “homeland defense the nation’s top concern,” rather than China, was likely to be discussed at the meeting.

The order also came a day after the Office of Management and Budget threatened a new round of mass firings at federal agencies unless Democrats in Congress agree to a funding bill to keep the government running before the October 1 deadline.

“This is either a meeting that could have been an email,” said Matt Gertz of Media Matters for America, “or something ominous.”

US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is preparing to run for either the Senate or president in 2028, according to new reporting Friday.

Axios reported that “people familiar with her operation” say the progressive New York congresswoman is working to boost her profile both across the state and nationally, and that “her team is working to give her choices” ahead of the next presidential election and the end of Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer’s (D-NY) current term.

Ocasio-Cortez, who stunned the political establishment by winning the Democratic primary in New York’s 14th District in 2018 and beating former longtime Rep. Joe Crowley, has also hired some former advisers to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) as she has joined the senator on parts of his nationwide Fighting Oligarchy Tour.

In March, Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders drew a crowd of 34,000 people in Denver—after speaking to 11,000 in the town of Greeley, Colorado, which is represented by a Republican in Congress—for their rally focused on shifting political power away from the wealthiest Americans, fighting for programs like Medicare for All, and holding the GOP accountable for their efforts to rip Medicaid and food assistance away from people while handing out tax breaks to the rich.

The congresswoman is often called by her initials. On the tour, Axios reported, “Crowds chanted, ‘AOC! AOC!‘”

The warm reception received by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders in both red and blue districts this year has hardly been surprising, considering recent public opinion polls.

“Her team has spent more on digital advertising than almost any other politician in 2025, and as a result, they have brought in hundreds of thousands of new small-dollar donations.”

A survey conducted last month by Jacobin, Data for Progress, and the DSA Fund found that 58% of Democrats preferred democratic socialism over capitalism, and preferred candidates like Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders over establishment leaders such as Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY)—who have angered many voters with their failure to forcefully condemn President Donald Trump’s attacks on free speech and immigrant rights and act decisively as opposition leaders.

Seventy percent of all respondents said the US economic system is “rigged in favor of corporations and the wealthy,” including 67% of independents and 58% of Republicans.

Another poll taken in June by Reuters/Ipsos found that 62% of Democratic voters felt the party leadership should be replaced by new people, and a survey last December found that 62% of Americans believe the US government has an obligation to ensure everyone in the country has healthcare coverage.

In response to the news that Ocasio-Cortez is considering a run for Senate or president, progressive journalist Mehdi Hasan of Zeteo had a succinct response: “Good.”

Kyle Tharp, author of the media and politics newsletter Chaotic Era, told Axios that Ocasio-Cortez has been ramping up her small-dollar fundraising efforts through online engagement.

“Her team has spent more on digital advertising than almost any other politician in 2025, and as a result, they have brought in hundreds of thousands of new small-dollar donations,” said Tharp. “She’s also seen record-breaking organic growth on social media, adding several million new followers across Instagram, TikTok, Bluesky, X, and Facebook.”

Centrist Democrats have long suggested that democratic socialist candidates like Ocasio-Cortez and New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani—who is endorsed by Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, but not Jeffries and Schumer—can only win in progressive cities and states, despite the fact that Sanders won the 2020 presidential primary contests in Nevada, Utah, and Colorado and has since drawn crowds in states including Idaho, West Virginia, and Iowa.

“She has a supporter base that, in many ways, has a larger potential width than Bernie’s,” Ari Rubin-Havt, a longtime aide to Sanders, told Axios. “She has been in the glare of the spotlight from day one and has the national campaigning experience a lot of other potential candidates are now trying to get.”

“It would be the height of arrogance to assume she couldn’t win the 2028 nomination,” added Rubin-Havt.

Other Democrats who have been floated as potential 2028 presidential candidates include California Gov. Gavin Newsom, Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker, and former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

In April, Ocasio-Cortez led Schumer in a hypothetical 2028 Senate matchup by 19 points, in a poll by Data for Progress.

As Republican lawmakers attempt to rebrand the budget law that slashed $1 trillion for Medicaid to help pay for tax cuts for the rich—unable to ignore the blaring message from angry town hall participants and polls showing Americans do not support the so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act—research released Friday suggests the GOP should brace for even more outrage from voters across the country.

According to the analysis by the Center for American Progress (CAP), no state or congressional district will be spared from the cuts the OBBBA makes to healthcare, and every district in the US is projected to see a rise in the number of uninsured people by 2034.

"Every member of Congress, regardless of party or geography, will see tens of thousands of their constituents lose coverage under this law," said the group.

CAP's report builds on analysis from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which found last month that the law's Medicaid work requirements, expiration of the Affordable Care Act's enhanced premium tax credits, and termination of reforms that benefit low-income Medicare beneficiaries will increase the number of uninsured Americans by 14.2 million over the next decade.

"Families, communities, and health systems nationwide will feel the consequences of these cuts."

The center-left think tank also expanded on a subsequent KFF report that showed how the 14.2 million figure would be spread out across states, finding that the uninsured rate would rise by at least 3% in 34 states and Washington, DC.

CAP's district-by-district analysis found that congressional districts will have an average of 33,000 more people who are uninsured by 2034 due to the OBBBA's healthcare provisions. Those with more than 30% of their under-65 population enrolled in Medicaid are projected to see particularly large increases in the number of uninsured constituents, with Democratic Rep. Yassamin Ansari's district in Arizona expected to have about 80,000 more uninsured residents by 2034—the most of any district in the country.

Ansari launched an "Accountability Summer" town hall tour in her state in July, holding events in Republican-led districts where she spoke with Arizonans about how their "Republican representatives have failed" them by supporting the OBBBA, in some cases after having expressed concerns about the impact it would have on their constituents.

One district Ansari visited, represented by Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.), is also among the districts expected to see a major increase in the number of uninsured residents, at 54,000.

Other Republicans are expected see people they represent lose their coverage in large numbers due to the law, including Reps. Daniel Newhouse (R-Wash.) and Hal Rogers (R-Ky.). About 66,000 of Newhouse's constituents are projected to lose coverage, along with 64,000 of people in Rogers' district.

Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), who touted the OBBBA as a "generational win for working families," will see 54,000 of his constituents lose their insurance, according to CAP.

The think tank found that California, Florida, and Texas will have the highest increases in their uninsured population, with more than 1 million people in each state losing coverage.

The losses caused by the OBBBA are projected to reverse "more than a decade of progress in expanding coverage," said CAP.

"Every lawmaker will see thousands of constituents lose coverage under this law," added the group. "Families, communities, and health systems nationwide will feel the consequences of these cuts."

In addition to attempting to reframe the OBBBA to boost its popularity, some Republicans are attempting to backpedal on the provision ending ACA tax credits that have helped millions of Americans afford their health coverage, which is scheduled to go into effect at the end of the year.

Reps. Tom Kean Jr. (R-NJ), Rob Bresnahan (R-Penn.), and Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) have proposed a bill to extend the credits for one year, hoping to delay until after the midterm elections the provision that could cause some monthly premiums to skyrocket by 75% and leave more than 4 million Americans without health coverage.

"Congressional Republicans voted to rip health coverage from millions of Americans. They don't get brownie points for attempting to kick the can down the road on their own harmful and unpopular agenda because it's convenient for them," said Leor Tal, campaign director for Unrig Our Economy.

"If Republicans in Congress were serious about protecting people's care," added Tal, "they would vote to make these vital healthcare tax credits permanent and they wouldn't have passed the largest cut to Medicaid in history to pay for tax breaks for billionaires."

NOW READ: Trump's horrific cult contains the seeds of its own destruction

A lawyer representing New York's top law enforcement official, Attorney General Letitia James, said Friday that the news of the Trump administration's investigation into James and her successful legal cases against President Donald Trump amounted to "the most blatant and desperate example" of the president's "political retribution campaign."

In recent days, The Washington Post reported Friday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a subpoena to James as part of an investigation into whether the attorney general, a longtime adversary of Trump, violated the president's civil rights when she successfully sued him and his real estate business for fraud.

A second subpoena was related to James' litigation against the National Rifle Association, in which a New York jury found last year that former NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre and other executives had engaged in rampant corruption.

The civil rights statute that the Trump administration is reportedly using to investigate James' case against the president is typically used in cases related to law enforcement officers discriminating against or mistreating people based on race, religion, sex, or ethnicity. According to The New York Times, the DOJ is arguing that James used her law enforcement authority to deprive Trump of his rights.

James filed a civil fraud case against Trump and the Trump Organization in 2022 and won a $450 million judgment against the president in penalties plus interest. The interest the president owes has grown to half a billion dollars as he has refused to pay and has appealed the ruling.

New York Supreme Court Justice Arthur Engeron said that Trump and his company's executives were "incapable of admitting the error of their ways" regarding the "blatantly false financial data" they used to misrepresent of the value of their properties, which allowed them to get better loan and insurance rates.

The Democratic candidate in the New York City mayoral race, state Rep. Zohran Mamdani (D-36), expressed little surprise that Trump was apparently retaliating against the attorney general who won against him in court.

"Attorney General James took on Trump's fraud and the NRA's rampant corruption—and won both cases," said Mamdani. "So it's little wonder that Trump's politicized DOJ is now coming after her. The people of New York stand with their lawyer and champion."

The subpoenas were issued months after the DOJ appeared to try another tactic to punish James when it opened a criminal investigation into alleged mortgage fraud, accusing the attorney general of lying on loan documents for a home that she purchased in Virginia and saying the home would be her primary residence. James' attorneys have said the error was an honest mistake.

Dana Nessel, the Democratic attorney general of Michigan, came to James' defense on Friday and condemned "the depths to which Trump and his cronies will go to exact vengeance upon anyone who has dared to hold him accountable."

But the subpoenas, said Nessel, are not just a concern for James.

"Americans should know and understand how deeply compromised our federal law enforcement agencies are," she said. "If this can happen to AG James, it can happen to anyone."

Geoff Burgan, a spokesperson for James, agreed that "any weaponization of the justice system should disturb every American."

"We stand strongly behind our successful litigation against the Trump Organization and the National Rifle Association, and we will continue to stand up for New Yorkers' rights," said Burgan.

Abbe Lowell, the attorney general's lawyer, said that "weaponizing the Department of Justice to try to punish an elected official for doing her job is an attack on the rule of law and a dangerous escalation by this administration."

"If prosecutors carry out this improper tactic and are genuinely interested in the truth," said Lowell, "we are ready and waiting with facts and the law."

Democratic senators on Saturday applauded the news that several of the Republican Party's proposals in President Donald Trump's domestic spending bill must be struck from the legislation — potentially protecting millions of Americans from cuts to crucial nutrition assistance and the elimination of federal consumer protections.

"As much as Senate Republicans would prefer to throw out the rule book and advance their conservative 'families lose and billionaires win' agenda, this process has rules and Democrats are making sure those rules are enforced," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.

Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled late Friday that a measure pushing some of the cost of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program onto the states should be struck from the bill, along with a provision barring undocumented immigrants from receiving SNAP benefits.

MacDonough has been analyzing the legislation to ensure its provisions comply with the Byrd Rule. The rule requires that measures included in reconciliation bills, which can be passed with a simple majority rather than a 60-vote threshold, are directly related to budget matters.

Republicans have pushed the SNAP provision to partially cover the cost of extending massive tax cuts for corporations and the wealthiest Americans.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, said MacDonough had "made clear that Senate Republicans cannot use their partisan budget to shift major nutrition assistance to the states that would have inevitably led to major cuts."

Klobuchar called on Republicans to work with the Democratic Party "to lower costs for Americans and pass a bipartisan Farm Bill that works for all farmers and rural America."

The Republican who chairs Klobuchar's committee, Sen. John Boozman (R-Ark.) suggested Republicans would look for other ways to cut nutrition assistance that more than 40 million Americans—including 8% of Boozman's own constituents—rely on.

If Republicans fail to strip out provisions that are rejected by MacDonough, the GOP could be forced to find at least 60 votes to support the budget bill.

Earlier this week, MacDonough rejected a provision put forward by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) that would cap the funding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) at 0% of the Federal Reserve's total operating budget—effectively gutting the agency that has returned tens of billions of dollars to Americans who have been defrauded by banks and other corporations.

"The Senate parliamentarian has begun providing guidance that certain provisions in the Republicans' 'One Big, Beautiful Betrayal' will be subject to the Byrd Rule—ultimately meaning they will need to be stripped from the bill or altered to comply with the rules of reconciliation," said Merkley. "We will be fighting this bill every single day until Republicans bring it to the floor."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who pushed for the creation of the CFPB, said Scott's proposal was "a reckless, dangerous attack on consumers and would lead to more Americans being tricked and trapped by giant financial institutions and put the stability of our entire financial system at risk—all to hand out tax breaks to billionaires."

"Democrats fought back, and we will keep fighting back against this ugly bill," said Warren.

Also rejected by MacDonough were a provision aimed at reducing the pay of Federal Reserve staff and one that would repeal emissions standards for vehicles starting in 2027.

On Saturday MacDonough was still considering a measure that would block states from regulating artificial intelligence for a decade.

Anti-poverty campaigners and rights advocates have warned for months that the Republican Party's proposed cuts to federal nutrition assistance that tens of millions of Americans rely on would harm families as well as hundreds of thousands of jobs and the economies of cities and states across the nation—and on Wednesday one GOP senator appeared to have finally gotten the message.

Sen. Jim Justice (R-W.Va.) toldPolitico that if the Senate approves—or tries to "one-up"—the House's $300 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), which President Donald Trump has endorsed, it could cost the party its congressional majority.

"If we don't watch out, people are going to get hurt, people are going to be upset. It's going to be the No. 1 thing on the nightly news all over the place," Justice, who served as West Virginia's governor for eight years before winning his Senate seat last year, told Politico.

The government watchdog Accountable.US rejected Justice's attempt to "dodge the blame" for a proposal his party has been aggressively pushing since Trump took office.

Justice is now one of several Republican governors-turned-senators who have warned against the SNAP provision in the party’s budget reconciliation bill, which would require states to pay 75% of the program's administrative costs and 5-25% of the program's total food aid costs, with states that have higher payment error rates forced to pay more.

Justice's constituents are likely to be disproportionately impacted by the SNAP cuts, with 16% of West Virginians relying on SNAP in 2024. The national average is 12%, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated that 3.2 million adults, including 800,000 who have school-aged children, could lose their SNAP benefits as a result of what Democratic senators have slammed as the "Big, Beautiful Betrayal."

The sweeping bill also threatens the health coverage of an estimated 13.7 million Americans with cuts to Medicaid and the end of Affordable Care Act tax credits, while the richest households and corporations would benefit from an extension of the GOP's 2017 tax cuts.

Republican lawmakers including Sens. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) have said they will not vote for a package with cuts to Medicaid.

"Sen. Justice is the latest of many congressional Republicans to voice concern over extreme, draconian cuts to critical programs like SNAP and Medicaid," said Tony Carrk, executive director of the government watchdog Accountable.US. "And there's no question that the budget scam is concerning. Between slashing SNAP benefits for more than 3 million Americans and gutting healthcare for nearly 16 million Americans, this bill will make millions of people poorer, hungrier, and sicker while driving up our national debt."

The Senate Agriculture Committee was examining how to scale back the SNAP cost-sharing proposal on Wednesday, with committee Chair John Boozman (R-Ark.) planning to have bill text finalized by the end of the week.

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem appeared to take a step toward circumventing federal laws that bar the military from taking part in domestic law enforcement in a letter she sent to the Department of Defense Sunday as the National Guard was deployed to Los Angeles amid mass protests over immigration raids.

In a letter obtained by The San Francisco Chronicle, Noem wrote to Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that the Pentagon should direct military forces "to either detain, just as they would at any federal facility guarded by military, lawbreakers under Title 18 until they can be arrested and processed by federal law enforcement, or arrest them."

The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the military from taking part in domestic law enforcement without the authorization of Congress.

Noem called on the DOD to "support to our law enforcement officers and agents across Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and Federal Protective Services (FPS), as they defend against invasive, violent, insurrectionist mobs that seek to protect invaders and military aged males belonging to identified foreign terrorist organizations, and who seek to prevent the deportation of criminal aliens."

Noem did not specify the so-called "identified foreign terrorist organizations" that she claimed are involved in the protests that have erupted in Los Angeles in recent days in response to raids by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), in which 118 immigrants were arrested last week.

President Donald Trump has referred to the protests against his mass deportation operation as "riots," and has claimed those attending the demonstrations are "insurrectionists," but the protests were reported to be "largely peaceful" before Trump ordered more than 2,000 members of the California National Guard to Los Angeles on Saturday.

On Monday, 700 Marines were also deployed.

Syracuse University law professor William Banks told the Chronicle that Noem's request for members of the military to arrest protesters whom she labeled "lawbreakers" could be a step toward "the invocation of the Insurrection Act."

The Insurrection Act was last invoked in 1992 when Los Angeles residents erupted in fury over the acquittal of four Los Angeles Police Department officers who had been filmed savagely beating Rodney King, a black man who they had pulled over after a high-speed chase.

The 1792 law authorizes the president to deploy military forces domestically to suppress rebellions or unrest, when local or state law enforcement is unable to control the situation.

But Stephen Dycus, a professor emeritus at Vermont Law and Graduate School and an expert in national security law, emphasized that local authorities did not appear to lose control of the protests over the weekend.

Noem's requests for military arrests, along with Trump's federalization of the National Guard and deployment of the Marines, "can be seen as using the military, or at a minimum using that threat, to instill fear in the American people and discourage the kinds of protests that are going on in Los Angeles," Dycus told the Chronicle. "So this could be viewed as a preparation for invoking the Insurrection Act, or it could be viewed as part of a larger effort to frighten people who otherwise would exercise their First Amendment guarantee of free speech and protest."

Banks called Noem's push for military detentions of Los Angeles residents "a grave escalation."

The secretary indicated in her letter to Hegseth that she would send a formal request in the coming days. She also called for "the transportation of munitions" from Fort Benning and Wyoming, but did not say what the weapons would be used for.

California state Sen. Scott Wiener (D-11) said Trump's use of the military to suppress protests—which began when ICE agents searched the garment district of Los Angeles for undocumented workers—proves his mass deportation campaign "has nothing to do with deporting criminals and everything to do with creating a militarized terror police state."

"This isn't what happens in a democracy," Wiener told the Chronicle, "this is what happens in a dictatorship."

A coalition of 12 press freedom groups warned the FBI Wednesday that contrary to claims by deputy director and former right-wing prosecutor Dan Bongino, a new probe into the leaked 2022 U.S. Supreme Court opinion in a landmark reproductive rights case appears aimed not at confronting "potential public corruption," but threatening constitutionally protected newsgathering activities.

Defending Rights and Dissent led a coalition including Fight for the Future and the Freedom of the Press Foundation in writing to FBI Director Kash Patel about Bongino's recent announcement that he is receiving weekly briefings on a probe into Politico's May 2, 2022 publication of the Supreme Court's draft opinion in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization nearly two months before the ruling was officially handed down and ended the constitutional right to abortion care.

Bongino said the FBI is spending more resources on investigations into possible public corruption including the Dobbs leak, the planting of pipe bombs near the headquarters of the Democratic and Republican national committees in January 2021, and a bag of cocaine that was found in the White House in 2023—but didn't specify how any of the cases address corruption specifically.

The groups asked Patel for "clarifying information" about the probe into the Dobbs draft decision leak.

Considering that FBI investigations are typically limited to violations of federal laws, national security threats, and foreign intelligence, the groups asked whether the probe is "predicated on a federal statute, and if so, what statute is it predicated on."

"Absent clarifying information, the Dobbs-related enquiry could give the appearance of an impermissible investigation into First Amendment-protected activities."

They also asked: "What is the impetus for the decision to give renewed focus into a three-year-old incident with no apparent criminal violation? Is there new evidence of violations of federal statutes?"

"While there are federal statutes governing national defense information, classified information, tax information, or certain government records whose release could cause unwarranted invasions of privacy, none of these statutes on their face criminalize sharing an unpublished court opinion with a journalist," said the groups.

Legal analysts said shortly after the draft opinion leak that—despite then-former President Donald Trump's demand for a "thorough criminal investigation" and his claim that journalists who published the opinion should be jailed until they released their sources—there was likely no crime committed in the leak.

"I am extremely skeptical of what basis or what authority the Justice Department would have to inquire into this matter," national security and whistleblower lawyer Bradley P. Moss toldThe Washington Post at the time. "It is certainly a fireable offense—without question—but there is no obvious criminal provision that would apply."

The Supreme Court and the Secret Service both conducted investigations that did not identify who was responsible for leaking the opinion to journalists.

The FBI's probe is reportedly "focused on finding the source who gave the unpublished opinion to Politico," wrote the groups. "As organizations that defend press freedom, free expression, and civil liberties, we are deeply concerned by the potentially chilling nature of this investigation on First Amendment-protected newsgathering."

"Absent clarifying information," they added, "the Dobbs-related enquiry could give the appearance of an impermissible investigation into First Amendment-protected activities."

NOW READ: Trump furious at Amy Coney Barrett ahead of big Supreme Court rulings: report

Top Trump administration officials have spoken at length about alleged irresponsible government use of taxpayer dollars and a lack of transparency at federal agencies, with President Donald Trump and his billionaire ally, Elon Musk, focusing heavily during their first months in the White House on promoting what they claimed was "government efficiency."

But in a letter to the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Trump appointee Russell Vought, two top Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that the office in charge of producing and managing the president's budget is "intentionally" misleading Congress—and the American people—and refusing to provide transparency about how public funds are being used.

"Your lack of transparency shows disdain for the right of the public to understand how taxpayer dollars are being spent and for the rule of law," wrote Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who are the ranking members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively.

The two lawmakers were among the Democrats who spoke out in the first days of Trump's second term, when Vought issued a memo directing a funding freeze for all federal grants and loans, which had already been appropriated by Congress—an action that has since been blocked by numerous court orders.

Again, said DeLauro and Murray, the Trump administration is failing to adhere to federal laws affirming that Congress has the "power of the purse"—this time by not disclosing how agencies are spending taxpayer dollars.

DeLauro and Murray pointed to Vought's removal in late March of an OMB website that made federal spending allocations available to the public as evidence that he is depriving "the public of information they are entitled to in law but also undermin[ing] Congress' ability to carry out its legislative and oversight functions."

Further, they wrote, under Vought's direction the OMB has developed "inconsistent and inadequate spending plans for fiscal year 2025 submitted by departments and agencies under section 1113(a) of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act."

"Many agencies' plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency's direction."

The bill was passed in mid-March, with departments and agencies required to submit a complete "spending, expenditure, or operating plan for fiscal year 2025" within 45 days of its passage.

"These spending plans were due to the appropriations committees on Tuesday, April 29," wrote DeLauro and Murray. "Four weeks have now come and gone, and while the committees began receiving some spending plans from departments and agencies consistent with the 45-day requirement, many agencies' plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency's direction."

The lawmakers pointed to the spending plans of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) as evidence that the OMB and the Trump administration have "demonstrated an inability to effectively and efficiently manage public resources."

The Department of Education's plan was submitted on the deadline of April 29, but "completely omitted dozens of specific programs and activities."

The education document also said nearly $13 billion was "unallocated," though much of that funding is directed for specific purposed by law. A revised plan sent to Congress on May 23 still included $8 billion in "unallocated" funding and lacked "detail on dozens of programs now with only four months left in the fiscal year."

The spending plan submitted by HHS included the label "Hill Version" in the file name—suggesting there was another internal version that the agency headed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was not sharing with lawmakers.

The HHS document included only "high-level funding amounts" and provided no funding information for hundreds of programs.

"Instead, it lists 530 asterisks in place of details about how this administration is choosing to fund—or not fund—hundreds of programs that the American people count on every day," wrote DeLauro and Murray. "We need to see the 'real version' of HHS' spend plan, and we need to see actual funding amounts—not asterisks—for these vital programs."

The lawmakers demanded that the OMB comply with section 1113 by the end of May "and ensure that all spending plans contain sufficient information to demonstrate how each department and agency intends to prudently obligate all amounts provided by Congress."

The incomplete spending plans, they said, raise "serious questions about what exactly this administration is seeking to hide from the committees—and the American people."

Just five weeks after pledging that they would not support the Republican Party's budget reconciliation package if it included cuts to Medicaid, six GOP lawmakers ultimately did just that on Thursday morning—and an analysis by government watchdog Accountable.US suggested they voted for the legislation to benefit themselves, despite the suffering it would cause for their constituents.

Along with cutting Medicaid for close to 14 million Americans and slashing nearly $300 billion in food assistance, the bill Republicans voted on in the early morning hours after weeks of deliberation included a tax policy proposal to expand a provision called Section 199A, which was previously introduced during the first Trump administration as part of the GOP's original law providing tax breaks for corporations and the wealthy.

The bill that passed in the House Thursday would raise the percentage of qualifying business income—such as rental income—people can deduct from their taxes from 20% to 23%. The provision is now set to expire at the end of the year.

If it's extended as written in the reconciliation bill, Accountable.US identified six Republican House members who could directly benefit from the expansion of the "pass-through deduction": Reps. Rob Bresnahan of Pennsylvania, Rob Wittman of Virginia, Jen Kiggans of Virginia, Young Kim of California, Juan Ciscomani of Arizona, and Jeff Van Drew of New Jersey.

Those six lawmakers were among the 12 who last month wrote to GOP leaders to say they represent "districts with high rates of constituents who depend on Medicaid" and to "reiterate our strong support for this program that ensures our constituents have reliable healthcare."

"We cannot and will not support a final reconciliation bill that includes any reduction in Medicaid coverage for vulnerable populations," wrote the lawmakers last month. "Cuts to Medicaid also threaten the viability of hospitals, nursing homes, and safety-net providers, nationwide. Many hospitals—particularly in rural and underserved areas—rely heavily on Medicaid funding, with some receiving over half their revenue from the program alone."

"It is the peak of hypocrisy that the loudest and most vocal opponents of Medicaid cuts cowered in a matter of days in favor of a bill that will make the largest cuts to Medicaid in modern history—all to pay for lower taxes for the richest."

With the six Republican members poised to earn thousands more each year from the pass-through income deduction, those concerns appeared to have evaporated on Thursday.

"It is the peak of hypocrisy that the loudest and most vocal opponents of Medicaid cuts cowered in a matter of days in favor of a bill that will make the largest cuts to Medicaid in modern history—all to pay for lower taxes for the richest," said Tony Carrk, executive director of Accountable.US. "Even worse, those very members stand to financially gain from those tax cuts, while their own constituents lose their healthcare. Their votes aren't just a flip-flop; they are a betrayal to hardworking Americans everywhere who will be worse off because of this bill."

Accountable's Cash in Congress project found that for the 2023 tax filing year, the six members of Congress earned a combined $327,000 in pass-through income, according to financial disclosures.

Bresnahan stands to benefit the most from the extension of Section 199A, The American Prospectreported, as he earned at least $137,000 from rental properties. Out of the six lawmakers, he also represents the most Medicaid beneficiaries: 230,000.

Wittman reported $105,000 or more in pass-through rental income, and represents 125,000 people who receive Medicaid. Kiggans reported $50,000 and represents 130,000 people who use the healthcare program for low-income Americans.

All together, reported The American Prospect, the lawmakers represent 971,000 Medicaid beneficiaries who could be affected by a work requirement amendment that would go into effect at the end of 2026 and other provisions.

"Millions of Americans will see their healthcare, food, and education costs skyrocket, all so House Republicans can hand themselves and their wealthiest donors a huge tax break," said Accountable. "The only 'winners' in this bill are the billionaires that paid for it."

NOW READ: There's a hidden provision in that big ugly bill that makes Trump king

More than a million people in some of the world's most impoverished countries could be fed for three months and hundreds of thousands of children's lives could be saved if $98 million in ready-made meals and other rations were able to leave four warehouses run by the U.S. foreign aid agency dismantled by the Trump administration.

But instead, there is no end in sight to the food languishing in the facilities—or to the starvation of millions of people in Gaza, Sudan, South Sudan, and other parts of the Global South facing high levels of hunger and malnutrition.

Some of the 66,000 tonnes of food, including grains, high-energy biscuits, and vegetable oil, are slated to expire as soon as July, when they will likely be turned into animal feed, incinerated, or otherwise destroyed, Reuters reported Thursday.

The warehouses are located in Houston, South Africa, Djibouti, and Dubai, and are run by the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance. Many of the staff who help run the warehouses are scheduled to be fired on July 1 in the first of two rounds of cuts that will effect nearly all of USAID.

Contracts with suppliers, shipping companies, and contractors have been canceled since USAID was taken over by the Trump administration's so-called Department of Government Efficiency, with the White House saying the agency—with a relatively small budget of just $40 billion—was responsible for "significant waste."

Since DOGE, run by tech billionaire Elon Musk, targeted USAID in one of its first full-scale attacks on a federal entity, the agency is being run by Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The State Department's Office of Foreign Assistance has not yet approved a proposal to give the stranded food stocks to aid organizations for distribution, two former USAID staffers told Reuters.

That office is being led by Jeremy Lewin, a 28-year-old former DOGE employee who is overseeing the complete decommissioning of USAID, which has provided humanitarian assistance in conflict zones and the Global South for more than six decades.

Max Hoffman, a foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said the massive waste of life-saving food rations was the result of President Donald Trump and Musk deploying "some idiot 20 year old staggering around USAID turning things off without the faintest idea of the consequences."

Some of the rations were intended for Gaza, where half a million Palestinians are currently facing starvation and the rest of the population of 2.3 million people are suffering from acute levels of food insecurity due to Israel's total blockade on humanitarian aid which was reimposed in March after a brief cease-fire. Thousands of children have been hospitalized with acute malnutrition since the beginning of the year, but Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza has left health providers with extremely limited means to treat them.

The entire population of Gaza could be fed for a month and a half with the food rations that are on the verge of rotting in the four warehouses, Reuters reported.

Nearly 500 tonnes of high-energy biscuits in Dubai are among the stocks that will expire in July, a former USAID official told the outlet. They could feed at least 27,000 acutely malnourished children for a month.

The food aid was also scheduled to go to Sudan, where famine has been confirmed in at least 10 areas as the country faces the third year of a civil war.

Action Against Hunger is one of many aid groups that have had to scale back operations after losing significant funding due to U.S. cuts; the group said last month that its suspension of work in the Democratic Republic of Congo had already directly led to the deaths of at least six children.

In addition to USAID's warehouses full of soon-to-be-expired food, the U.S.-based company Edesia, which makes the peanut-based Plumpy'Nut, told Reuters that USAID's cuts to transportation contracts had forced the company to open an additional warehouse. A $13 million stockpile of 5,000 tonnes of Plumpy'Nut, which is used to prevent severe malnutrition in children, is in the warehouse now—but could be used to feed more than 484,000 children.

"The dismantling of USAID and cuts to humanitarian aid has been devastating and unacceptable," said Oxfam America.

NOW READ: At least one Trump attack dog just killed their career

As President Donald Trump's bid to end birthright citizenship got a "frosty" reception at the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday, opponents of the Republican's executive order renewed criticism of both that and his broader anti-migrant agenda.

"The Constitution is crystal clear: All persons born in the United States are citizens of the United States. As was reaffirmed in court this morning, birthright citizenship is a foundational American principle that has strengthened our communities, our families, and our whole country for generations," FWD.us president Todd Schulte said in a statement after oral arguments.

"Any effort to narrow or lift the nationwide injunction on this case would lead to chaos, allowing birthright citizenship to be denied in some states but not others," he continued. "If the Supreme Court sides with the government, the country will be split in half, with some states granting citizenship to newborn babies and the others denying it. The human cost of siding with the government cannot be overstated."

Schulte warned that "children born in the United States could be denied healthcare, nutrition, Social Security numbers, and other essential services that Congress has made available to all citizens. Children could be subject to deportation even though their parents (for example, someone with a lawful work visa) could not be legally deported."

"It is not a stretch to believe that an administration that is paying other countries to indefinitely detain immigrants will leverage the threats to deport this new undocumented class of children to force whole families here legally to leave the U.S.," he added. "The Supreme Court should be as clear as the Constitution, and rule that ending birthright citizenship, even partially or temporarily, is wrong, unlawful, and should not be allowed."

According toPolitico:

Trump's executive order purporting to end birthright citizenship found no traction Thursday at the Supreme Court, but the justices sounded inclined to rein in a legal remedy judges have used to halt many of Trump's early policy moves, from restricting immigration to cutting federal spending to ending anti-diversity initiatives.Three district judges have deployed that tool—known as a nationwide injunction—to block Trump from implementing his birthright citizenship order. None of the justices spoke up in defense of the order's legality during more than two hours of oral arguments, and several suggested that the order is almost surely unconstitutional.

The Associated Pressreported that Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the justices Thursday that judges have issued 40 nationwide injunctions since Trump returned to office for a second term in January.

The high court—which has a right-wing supermajority that includes three Trump appointees—is expected to rule by June. A decision limiting the power of federal judges could impact various other ongoing cases.

As the ACLU said on social media: "Today, the Supreme Court considered judges' power to block unlawful actions by the Trump administration. While this wasn't our case, we're united in mission to protect our civil liberties."

Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), a daughter of immigrants and citizen by birthright, responded to Trump's order by introducing federal legislation on Thursday that would block his attack on the core constitutional right: the Born in the USA Act.

"Trump has posed the question of who gets to be an American. The fact is that every citizen not naturalized in this country is a citizen by birthright. And it is important to remember that our nation's history would not be complete without the children of immigrants who, like me, are citizens by birthright and pride themselves on being AMERICANS," Ramirez said in a statement.

"I am both a daughter of immigrants and the daughter of America; a proud Chapina and an American by birthright," she highlighted. "It is my honor to lead 109 members of Congress to ensure not a single dollar goes to Trump's illegal, unconstitutional attempt to undermine our Constitution, our rights, our liberties, and the soul of our nation."

Although Ramirez's bill is unlikely to advance, given that Republicans control not only the White House but also both chambers of Congress, its supporters include Hispanic Caucus Chair Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.), Asian Pacific American Caucus Chair Grace Meng (D-N.Y.), Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke (D-N.Y.), and Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.).

The companion bill, introduced by Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) in February, has support from 14 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus. The legislation is also backed by several local and national groups, including the ACLU, National Immigration Law Center, FWD.us, Haitian Bridge Alliance, Immigration Hub, UndocuBlack, and more.

NOW READ: When the sleeping giant awakens, Trump will be toast

U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez has led calls for Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to resign for weeks, condemning her prominent role in overseeing the Trump administration's virulently anti-immigrant agenda—but on Wednesday she took a rare in-person opportunity to once again call on the far-right Republican to step down.

"For weeks and weeks we've been waiting for Secretary Noem to come before our committee," said Ramirez (D-Ill.) in a video she posted online ahead of the House Homeland Security Committee hearing. "I'm not going to sit there and just let her lie under oath about all the horrifying things that she's doing... I say enough is enough, and in just a few minutes, I'm going to say that to her face, because it's about damn time that person, that secretary, resigns."

Ramirez began her remarks in the hearing by asking Noem a rapid-fire set of questions, clarifying whether the secretary believes the judicial and legislative branches of government are co-equal branches—facts that have been disregarded by the Trump administration as it has flouted a federal judge's order to stop expelling Venezuelan migrants under the Alien Enemies Act, moved to shutter federal agencies created by Congress, and canceled funding appropriated by Congress.

Despite Noem's claim in the hearing that she and the administration respect bedrock laws meant to maintain checks and balances in the federal government, Ramirez noted in the hearing that Noem has "repeatedly disregarded the law" since being confirmed as homeland security secretary.

As Ramirez said:

You closed offices established in law, including the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, the Office of the Immigration Detention Ombudsman, and the Office of the Citizenship and Immigration Services Ombudsman.You canceled contracts for programs authorized in law, including shelter and services programs, and citizenship and integration grants.
You obstructed and roughed up members of this committee as they conducted congressional oversight.
You redirected funds to terrorize our communities, create taxpayer-funded political propaganda campaigns, and hold sick, disrespectful press conferences in my state, where let me be clear, you are not welcome.
You corruptly used emergency authority to avoid procurement to make [President Donald] Trump's private prison donors richer by directing $45 billion to them for expanded [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] detention centers.
You defunded work to address real threats to the homeland, while you pursue the college newspaper editor, labor leaders, and a Harvard scientist who failed to declare frog embryos at the airport.

Ramirez said she found it "laughable" when Noem affirmed that she swore to uphold and defend the U.S. Constitution when she took her oath of office.

"You don't behave like someone who takes that oath seriously," said Ramirez. "We don't live in a dictatorship or a monarchy. Trump's will is not the guiding doctrine of the nation, and our country is not a playground for his and your twisted authoritarian fantasies."

"YOU have betrayed the sacred fundamentals of your oath; YOU are not fit to hold the office, and I, again—to your face—demand your resignation and place that request on the record," Ramirez concluded.

The congresswoman also sent a letter to Noem reiterating the demand for her resignation and condemning Department of Homeland Security officials for unlawfully raiding homes and expelling "immigrants, legal residents, and citizens alike," including a number of children.

She also reiterated Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-Conn.) concern, expressed at a hearing last week, that Noem's department is "out of control" and is rapidly "running out of money to execute the horrors we are witnessing."

Noem is also "running out of excuses for [her] despicable actions," Ramirez wrote.

Podcast host Jim Stewartson said that with Ramirez's questioning, she addressed "the Trump regime in its full criminal, anti-democratic, illiberal horror."

"Delia Ramirez finally cuts through the bull---- and lays it all on the table," he said.

At Wednesday's hearing, Noem suggested that under the U.S. Constitution, Trump has the authority to suspend habeas corpus, an idea that's been floated by White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller.

Rights groups have filed numerous habeas corpus petitions to challenge the detentions of foreign students including Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk, and Badar Khan Suri; Öztürk and Suri have been released from detention in recent days.

The Constitution allows for the suspension of habeas corpus, under which people have the right to challenge their detention, only "in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."

The administration has pushed the idea that the U.S. is facing an "invasion" by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua, and has used that claim to expel hundreds of migrants to El Salvador.

"No government has the right to arbitrarily take your freedom away," said Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker after Miller discussed the idea Tuesday. "Preserving habeas corpus is not optional. It's a fundamental concept of justice that people have fought and died for."

A federal judge's ruling in Pennsylvania on Tuesday marked the first time a court has decided the Trump administration can invoke the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to expel Venezuelan migrants to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, and one policy expert said the ruling "further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon" to determine once and for all whether the mass deportation campaign is lawful.

The ruling by U.S. District Judge Stephanie Haines, an appointee of President Donald Trump in the Western District of Pennsylvania, contrasted with those of federal judges in Colorado, New York, and Texas, who have found Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act exceeds its scope.

The law enables the government to swiftly deport migrants during an "invasion" or "predatory incursion" by a foreign nation. The Trump administration has claimed the Venezuelan street gang Tren de Aragua has ties to the South American country's government—an assertion that U.S. intelligence agencies have not endorsed—and has designated the group a foreign terrorist organization.

Having invoked the Alien Enemies Act in March, Trump has deported more than a hundred Venezuelans accused of being members of the gang to El Salvador.

Haines said in her ruling that she hadn't resolved whether the administration can use the law to remove gang members from the country, and rejected a request by the White House to find that an invasion or predatory incursion could include migration.

But she also disagreed with other courts' rulings that found the Alien Enemies Act relates specifically to military invasions, saying instead that it covers "acts by a foreign terrorist organization."

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said her reasoning was "exceptionally weak."

"Her decision, which applies only in the Western District of Pennsylvania, will be appealed to the 3rd Circuit, which will likely put a hold on [Alien Enemies Act] removals out of her district," said Reichlin-Melnick. "But this further pressures the Supreme Court to act soon—potentially before the end of the term."

Reichlin-Melnick and others emphasized that Haines ordered the administration to give migrants far more notice of their impending deportations under the law. The White House had proposed 12-24 hours; Haines ordered officials to provide 21 days' notice in both Spanish and English.

The ACLU last month called on the Supreme Court to rule on the legality of Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act.

The justices ruled last month that people targeted for removal under the law are entitled to challenge their removal, without providing a timeline.

NOW READ: 'It's idiocy': Reality TV producer laughs off Trump ultimatum

A provision that U.S. House Republicans added to the budget reconciliation bill—unrelated to the GOP's goal of slashing Medicaid access in the legislation—represents, as one journalist said, "one of the most radical positions Republicans have taken" thus far on artificial intelligence and the regulations that experts have demanded in order to ensure the technology is used safely.

U.S. Rep. Brett Guthrie (R-Ky.) added the language Sunday night ahead of a markup session Tuesday, in what appeared to be an effort to stop state governments from enforcing existing and proposed laws to protect the public from AI systems.

"No state or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this act," reads the provision.

With Congress "captured by Big Tech," saidAmerica 2.0 publisher and editor Dave Troy, "states are the only ones who can even try to regulate AI in the U.S."—but that would change under Guthrie's proposed ban.

"Now that state laws are finally starting to hold AI companies accountable for deepfake child pornography, election disinformation, AI companions targeting minors, and algorithmic abuse, Congress wants to slam the brakes?"

Under the law, state governments could be barred from using federal funds to develop oversight for AI or support any initiatives that differ from the Trump administration's stance on AI, which was on display earlier this year when President Donald Trump issued an order revoking the Biden administration's executive action to ensure the "safe, secure, and trustworthy development" of the technology.

Laws like one passed in New York in 2021 mandating bias audits for AI tools used in hiring decisions; a law in California requiring healthcare providers to disclose their use of generative AI; and another California measure that would require AI developers to document the data they use to create trainings—which could crack down on AI firms that hide their use of copyrighted material—could all be rendered unenforceable by Guthrie's proposal.

At 404 Media, Emanuel Maiberg wrote that "the AI industry has been sucking up to Trump since before he got into office," with tech mogul Elon Musk leading the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, Silicon Valley investor David Sacks appointed "AI czar," and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman appearing with Trump in January as he unveiled an AI data center development plan.

The inclusion of the AI provision in the budget reconciliation bill could limit debate on the proposal.

The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which is chaired by Guthrie, held a full committee markup of the bill, including the AI language, on Tuesday. Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-Ill.), who sits on the panel and is the ranking member of the Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade Subcommittee, called the provision "a giant gift to Big Tech."

"This ban will allow AI companies to ignore consumer privacy protections, let deepfakes spread, and allow companies to profile and deceive consumers using AI," said Schakowsky.

The Tech Oversight Project called on Democratic lawmakers to "stand firm" against the "AI poison-pill spending bill."

Allowing the "unhinged, dangerous" measure to pass, said Public Citizen's Big Tech accountability advocate, JB Branch, would be "an outrageous abdication of congressional responsibility and a gift-wrapped favor to Big Tech that leaves consumers vulnerable to exploitation and abuse."

"States across the country, red and blue alike, have taken bold, bipartisan action to protect their citizens," said Branch. "Now that state laws are finally starting to hold AI companies accountable for deepfake child pornography, election disinformation, AI companions targeting minors, and algorithmic abuse, Congress wants to slam the brakes? This isn't leadership, it is surrendering to corporate overreach and abuse under the guise of 'protecting American innovation.'"

In the 2025 legislative session, lawmakers in at least 45 states and Puerto Rico have introduced at least 550 AI-related bills. In at least eight states proposals have focused on regulating high-risk AI systems and preventing discrimination by algorithms, and at least 19 state legislatures are considering legislation to stop corporate landlords from fixing rental prices via algorithm.

"Congress must ask itself: Will it stand with Big Tech lobbyists, or with the people it was elected to represent?" said Branch. "Because millions of constituents across the country are currently protected by state laws that would be gutted under this proposal. Public Citizen urges lawmakers to strike this reckless preemption language from the reconciliation bill and commit to advancing federal AI legislation that builds on, not bulldozes, state-level progress."

"It happened," said progressive online political commentator Hasan Piker on Sunday in a cryptic post on the social media site X—one that suggested he wasn't altogether surprised when he was detained for several hours by border agents at a Chicago airport after flying back to the U.S. from France.

He explained to his 1.5 million followers later that he had been stopped by Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents "for additional questioning."

"I'm out, it wasn't that bad," said Piker. "Very strange experience overall though."

Piker shares his commentary primarily on YouTube and the streaming platform Twitch, and detailed the ordeal for his followers on both platforms.

The questions over the two-hour period suggested that the Trump administration has been following Piker's commentary, which has recently included vehement criticism of U.S. support for Israel as it bombards and starves the people of Gaza.

"They straight up tried to get something out of me that I think they could use to basically detain me permanently," Piker said. "[The agent] kept saying stuff like, do you like Hamas? Do you support Hamas? Do you think Hamas is a terror group or a resistance group?"

Piker shared his story as TikTok creator Savannah Pinder, who makes anti-Trump videos and clothing, said publicly that she had been detained at Miami International Airport after passing through Global Entry.

Pinder was taken to several different screening rooms and questioned about her work, travel history, and her father's citizenship status. Her father was born in Panama and became a U.S. citizen. Pinder, is a U.S. citizen and was born and raised in the United States.

"They asked me to provide my social media accounts for them to go through my TikTok, my Snapchat, my Instagram, and my Facebook, as well as show them how much I was making daily on TikTok," Pinder said. "If you are a United States citizen, you still have the chance of being detained coming back into the United States right now."

Journalist Séamus Malekafzali, whose work has been published in The Nation, The Intercept, and other publications, said he has had several experiences like the one described by Piker at Chicago O'Hare International Airport.

"Been pulled into secondary screening many times and O'Hare CBP had the most involved and specific questions about Gaza for me by far," said Malekafzali.

Ari Cohn, lead counsel for tech policy at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said the incidents show that Immigration and Customs Enforcement and CBP "are the 'enemies domestic' that federal officials swear an oath to defend against."

"No U.S. citizen should be detained by law enforcement, at the border or anywhere, because of their protected speech," said Cohn.

Piker said he believes border agents are detaining and questioning commentators and journalists "to try to create an environment of fear, to try to get people like myself or at least like others that would be in my shoes, that don't have that same level of security, to shut the f--- up."

The incidents follow the abductions by federal immigration agents of foreign student protesters whom the Trump administration has pushed to deport for speaking out against U.S. support for Israel and expressing support for Palestinian civilians in Gaza.

Immigration agents "flagging and detaining one of the U.S.'s largest left-wing voices for their political opinions while the Trump administration suggests they might suspend habeas corpus does not portend well for the future," said lawyer and writer Alex Peter.

Social Security and Medicare protect tens of millions of American senior citizens from poverty and medical bankruptcy each year, but economic justice advocates have long said the programs would be strengthened and remain fully solvent for as long as possible if the richest Americans contributed more to them—and on Thursday two Democratic lawmakers introduced legislation to ensure they do.

The bicameral bill, the Medicare and Social Security Fair Share Act, was reintroduced by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), with the aim of requiring people with yearly incomes of more than $400,000 to contribute a fairer share of their wealth to the two programs.

Currently the maximum amount of earnings for which American workers must pay Social Security taxes is just over $176,000.

The bill would lift the Social Security tax cap "to ensure that no matter the source of their income, high-income taxpayers would pay the same tax rate on their income exceeding that threshold," said the lawmakers in a press statement.

It would also increase the Medicare tax rate for income above $400,000 by 1.2% and include a provision ensuring owners of hedge funds and private equity firms can no longer avoid Medicare taxes.

Whitehouse and Boyle introduced the bill as the Trump administration and congressional Republicans work to slash Social Security—confirming Wall Street executive Frank Bisignano, who has backed billionaire Elon Musk's spending cuts at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), to run the program this week.

"While Republicans are pushing a $7 trillion tax giveaway to the ultrarich, we're working to protect the benefits that millions of Americans have earned—and we won't let them be stolen to fund another billionaire windfall."

Republicans have also suggested Medicare could be slashed in order to pay for tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans and have pushed to expand privatized Medicare Advantage plans.

"Working-class seniors pay into Social Security and Medicare their whole careers so they can enjoy a dignified retirement, but they end up paying a much larger share of their income in taxes than billionaires because the tax code is rigged in favor of the rich," said Whitehouse. "As the Trump administration and Congressional Republicans gear up to deliver budget-busting giveaways for their billionaire donors, I will continue pushing to make our tax code fair and protect these twin pillars of retirement security as far as the eye can see."

Actuaries at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and Social Security Administration estimated that Whitehouse and Boyle's proposal would extend Social Security and Medicare solvency by at least 75 years.

Without new revenue, the trust funds that finance Medicare and Social Security are projected to be 100% solvent only through 2036 and 2033, respectively.

The legislation is endorsed by groups including Social Security Works, the National Council on Aging, and the Center for Medicare Advocacy.

"From my first day in Congress, I've pledged to protect the long-term stability of Social Security and Medicare—two bedrock promises our country made to seniors, workers, and people with disabilities," said Boyle. "Now, with [President] Donald Trump, Elon Musk, and DOGE-fueled billionaires openly attacking these programs, that fight is more urgent than ever."

"While Republicans are pushing a $7 trillion tax giveaway to the ultrarich," he said, "we're working to protect the benefits that millions of Americans have earned—and we won't let them be stolen to fund another billionaire windfall."

Now read: There's only one thing blocking Trump's treason

Healthcare advocates have long condemned the for-profit insurance companies that manage Medicare Advantage plans for overbilling the federal government by hundreds of billions of dollars per year, using artificial intelligence and algorithms to deny patients' claims, and tricking patients with disabilities via deceptive marketing practices—and a lawsuit originally initiated by a whistleblower is accusing three such private insurance giants of taking part in overt bribery.

The U.S. Department of Justice filed a complaint Thursday under the False Claims Act, accusing three of the largest Medicare Advantage insurers—Aetna, Humana, and Elevance Health—of paying brokers hundreds of millions of dollars to steer beneficiaries toward their plans, and to steer disabled seniors away in an effort to keep them more profitable.

The American Economic Liberties Project (AELP) noted that the lawsuit comes from an unlikely place—the Trump administration, which last month announced it would substantially increase payments to the privately run plans, increasing rates to the tune of $25 billion in additional funds next year despite their history of defrauding the government and patients.

While applauding the DOJ for cracking down on the bribery scheme, the group noted that "despite its promises to crack down on such wasteful spending, the Trump administration recently announced it would substantially increase payments to private Medicare Advantage plans in 2026, rewarding their bad behavior."

Dr. Mehmet Oz, who President Donald Trump appointed to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, has also advocated for a proposal called Medicare Advantage for All—further expanding the for-profit plans that now cover more than half of Americans who are eligible for Medicare.

"For years, these firms have driven seniors into worse care with deceptive marketing and discrimination, but now it's clear they're crooks too."

The lawsuit filed Thursday also named three brokers—eHealth, Inc., GoHealth, Inc., and SelectQuote Inc.—and said that between 2016-21, the companies "paid hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal kickbacks to the defendant brokers in exchange for enrollments into the insurers' Medicare Advantage plans."

The brokers are accused of directing beneficiaries to the plans that paid them the most in kickbacks, regardless of the suitability of the plans. They also allegedly provided their employees with incentives to sell plans based on the payments from the three insurers and refused to sell Medicare Advantage plans for the three companies if they didn't pay the brokers sufficiently.

Aetna and Humana are also accused of conspiring with the brokers to "discriminate against Medicare beneficiaries with disabilities whom they perceived to be less profitable," threatening to withhold payments unless brokers enrolled fewer disabled senior citizens.

"Private Medicare Advantage plans routinely fail to deliver quality care—especially for seniors and the most vulnerable—and are among the most wasteful, fraudulent, and abusive actors in our healthcare system," said Emma Freer, senior policy analyst for healthcare at AELP. "For years, these firms have driven seniors into worse care with deceptive marketing and discrimination, but now it's clear they're crooks too—bribing brokers behind closed doors because they know no one would choose these plans on a level playing field."

In addition to cracking down on the bribery scheme, Freer called on Trump's DOJ to "move swiftly on its ongoing monopolization and fraud investigations in the largest Medicare Advantage plan provider, UnitedHealth Group."

The DOJ opened an investigation in February into UnitedHealth's effect on competition in insurance, pharmacy benefit management, physician networks, and other sectors of the for-profit healthcare industry.

NOW READ: Trump’s clown car cabinet is driving off a cliff

With the Trump administration making space in the press briefing room for right-wing podcasters and other conservative "new media" content creators, viewers of briefings since President Donald Trump took office have seen his press secretary field questions about the Ukrainian president's clothing during an Oval Office meeting, compliments about Trump's "fitness plan," and attacks on reporters who have long reported from the White House.

On Monday, the first question of the briefing was derided by one Democratic politician as "absolute insanity," as right-wing commentator and influencer Rogan O'Handley—also known by the handle "DC Draino"—was given the floor to ask whether Trump will suspend the writ of habeas corpus in order to circumvent several judges' rulings and "start shipping out" undocumented immigrants without due process.

"Can you please let us know if and when the Trump administration is planning to suspend the writ of habeas corpus to circumvent these radical judges?" asked O'Handley after accusing federal judges of "thwarting [Trump's] agenda with an unprecedented number of national injunctions."

O'Handley shared some familiar right-wing talking points—saying federal judges have provided "more due process to violent MS-13 and Tren de Aragua illegal aliens than they did for U.S. citizens who peacefully protested on January 6"—as he suggested the administration should abandon the legal principle under which people who are detained are permitted to challenge their imprisonment in court.

"You have got to be kidding me," wrote Sara McGee, a Democrat running for the Texas House of Representatives.

His question came amid escalating attacks by Republicans and the administration on judges who have ruled against the White House. A Republican congressman said last month that Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. should be impeached for issuing an order against Trump's invocation of the Alien Enemies Act to expel hundreds of undocumented immigrants to El Salvador. Last week, the FBI arrested Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan for allegedly helping a migrant evade arrest by escorting him out of her courtroom.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow with the American Immigration Council, noted that O'Handley and press secretary Karoline Leavitt also repeatedly cited at least one statistic that was "completely made up"—that the Biden administration allowed 15 million undocumented immigrants into the United States—as they suggested Trump should take legal steps to force all of them out of the country without the input of the judicial system.

The undocumented population in the U.S. in 2023 was 11.7 million, according to the Center for Migration Studies, down from the peak of 12 million, which was reached in 2008.

"They've been pushing this on the right for about a week now," said Reichlin-Melnick of the push to suspend habeas corpus for undocumented immigrants. "Anyone advocating for suspending the writ of habeas corpus because they don't like due process is spitting on the legacy of those who fought and died for this country and our Constitution."

Leavitt responded to O'Handley's question by saying while she has "not heard such discussions take place... the president and the entire administration are certainly open to all legal and constitutional remedies" to continue expelling people from the United States.

Several cases of undocumented immigrants who have been sent to El Salvador's notorious Terrorism Confinement Center have made national headlines in recent weeks, including that of Maryland resident Kilmar Abrego Garcia; Merwil Gutiérrez, a 19-year-old who federal agents acknowledged was not who they were looking for during a raid; and Andry Hernandez Romero, a makeup artist who was accused of being a gang member solely because he had tattoos.

O'Handley's suggestion that the bedrock legal principle be suspended for undocumented immigrants—hundreds of whom have already been forced out of the country without due process—came ahead of Trump's scheduled signing of two new immigration-related executive orders.

One would direct the departments of Justice and Homeland Security to publish a list of sanctuary cities and states—those where local law enforcement are directed not to cooperate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement as it seeks to arrest undocumented immigrants.

The other, Leavitt said, would "unleash America's law enforcement to pursue criminals." The New York Post reported that the order would be related to providing local police agencies with military equipment and legal support for officers accused of wrongdoing.

Watch the segment below or at this link:

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders' tour headlined with this word has drawn more than 107,000 Americans in blue and deep-red states alike. Former President Joe Biden's use of it in his farewell speech prompted a spike in Google searches. And one recent poll found that a majority of U.S. voters, including 54% of Democrats and more than two-thirds of Independents, know exactly what it means.

Yet Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the Democratic politicians insisting this week that no one does.

The word is "oligarchy"—a government ruled by a small group of elites—and as experts have warned for years, the U.S. increasingly resembles one. As Sanders (I-Vt.) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) have told huge crowds in places like Nampa, Idaho and Greeley, Colorado in recent weeks, President Donald Trump's alliance with billionaire tech mogul Elon Musk has made the country's shift even more obvious.

But even as evidence mounts that Americans understand that the political system has been captured by corporations and the wealthiest people—and are living their day-to-day lives with the results, including higher healthcare costs and disinvestment in public services—Slotkin toldPolitico on Thursday that Democrats should "stop using the term 'oligarchy,' a phrase she said doesn't resonate beyond coastal institutions."

On Bluesky, The Nation writer John Nichols said that the tens of thousands people who have packed stadiums and parks in recent weeks to hear Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez speak would disagree with Slotkin.

Slotkin's advice for Democrats, which she dubbed her "war plan" and gave ahead of several speeches she has planned, also included a call for the party to stop being "weak and woke," phrases she said she heard in Michigan focus groups.

Her comments echoed those of former Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel, a longtime Democratic operative who told California Gov. Gavin Newsom on his podcast last week that using terms like "oligarchs" and "special interests" makes Democrats "worse marketers"; Newsom appeared to agree that people don't "understand" what an oligarchy is.

Emanuel also appeared on the political and pop culture podcast "I've Had It," hosted by Jennifer Welch and Angie Sullivan, and seemed caught of guard when Welch took him to task for his suggestion that Democrats should end their advocacy for issues that affect transgender Americans.

"That is total bulls---, that is buying into the right-wing media narrative, and I'm so sick of Democrats like you selling out and saying this," said Welch. "You know who talks about trans people more than anybody? MAGA... We've got to f------ fight. They're the gender-obsessed weirdos, not us. We're the ones who fight for Social Security, we fight for Medicare, and yeah, we're not gonna bully trans people."

Semafor political reporter Dave Weigel said Emanuel's derision of the word "oligarchy" is a clear "shot at Sanders/AOC, who keep saying it."

At one stop on the Fighting Oligarchy Tour recently, Sanders told a crowd that the enthusiasm for his and Ocasio-Cortez's message is "scaring the hell out of" Trump and Musk.

But shortly after Slotkin's comments, Ocasio-Cortez remarked—without naming the senator—that "plenty of politicians on both sides of the aisle feel threatened by rising class consciousness."

Angelo Greco, a progressive strategist who works with grassroots organizations including Our Revolution and One Fair Wage, told Common Dreams on Friday that establishment Democrats' dismissal of the term oligarchy is "out of touch" and "underestimates" voters.

"Tell me that farmers don't understand what the oligarchy is when there's a consolidation of the agribusiness that impacts them. Tell me that workers in Michigan don't understand what it means when trade deals that are written by multinational corporations have led to lower wages and plant closures," said Greco. "It's condescending to say that the median person doesn't understand what oligarchy is. They're living it."

NOW READ: Time's up for the GOP

The global human rights group Amnesty International on Tuesday called on supporters of the United States' core constitutional rights to write to Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, demanding that the Trump administration stop its campaign to strip foreign students of their right to be in the country for exercising their First Amendment freedoms.

As Common Dreams reported Tuesday, since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) accosted former Columbia University student organizer Mahmoud Khalil, forced him into an unmarked vehicle, and took him to a detention center in Louisiana thousands of miles from his pregnant wife in March, the administration's attacks on international students have only intensified.

Seven identified students have had their visas revoked, while the administration is pushing to revoke the residency status of at least two students who protested the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on Gaza.

The White House is using a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to claim that certain students including Khalil pose a threat to U.S. foreign policy and should be deported.

"At least 1,300 additional students are known to have had their visas revoked," reads a letter template provided to supporters by Amnesty. "However, many of these students never received notice of the revocation, nor did they participate in any protest or expressive activity on campus. Some students may have been targeted due to having committed minor crimes such as traffic violations. According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of students, many were targeted because of their country of origin, particularly those from African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Asian backgrounds."

Supporters who send the letter can urge Noem to "restore the visas and immigration status of these students and visitors, release all students from immigration detention, refrain from deporting any of them, and end the targeting of students based on their immigration statuses and for exercising their human rights."

"According to a lawsuit filed on behalf of students, many were targeted because of their country of origin, particularly those from African, Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and Asian backgrounds."

As Common Dreams reported, President Donald Trump's attacks on foreign students' First Amendment rights and his threats to universities' funding if they don't comply with his policies aimed at rooting out criticism of U.S. policy in Israel and Palestine, which both Republican and Democratic politicians have claimed is synonymous with antisemitism, have pushed schools to notify hundreds of students that their visas were revoked.

Trump's attacks on international students have shocked several federal judges, and one judge in Georgia on Friday ordered ICE to restore the legal status of students whose visas were revoked due to DHS' termination of their records in the Student Exchange and Visitor Information System (SEVIS).

DHS admitted in a court filing last week that it does not have the authority to change students' visa status via SEVIS.

"These repressive tactics and the summary revocation of people's immigration status," said Amnesty, "whether due to their speech and protest activities or their country of origin, demonstrate an utter lack of respect for their human rights to freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, due process, and to be free from discrimination."

NOW READ: Wall Street seems to have decided that Trump is mentally unstable

After a brief meeting with U.S. Vice President JD Vance on Sunday morning, Pope Francis' annual Easter speech included a condemnation of unnamed political leaders who use "fear" to oppress marginalized people including immigrants and refugees.

Pope Francis, who is recovering from a bout of pneumonia that kept him in a hospital for five weeks, met for a few minutes in the papal residence with the vice president, a Catholic convert who has drawn criticism from the Vatican for his claims that Catholic teachings support the Trump administration's mass deportation campaign.

The pope, who is 88, said little during the encounter, thanking Vance for his visit through a translator and overseeing a presentation of several Easter gifts to the vice president.

After the meeting, the pope was wheeled out to the Loggia of Blessings overlooking St. Peter's Square, where 35,000 congregants had just heard the Easter Mass delivered by Cardinal Angelo Comastri,the archpriest emeritus of St. Peter's Basilica, who filled in for Pope Francis due to his fragile health.

The pope gave a brief greeting to the crowd before another surrogate, Archbishop Diego Ravelli, read aloud Francis' Easter speech.

"How much contempt is stirred up at times towards the vulnerable, the marginalized, and migrants," the speech read. "I appeal to all those in positions of political responsibility in our world not to yield to the logic of fear which only leads to isolation from others, but rather to use the resources available to help the needy, to fight hunger, and to encourage initiatives that promote development. These are the 'weapons' of peace: weapons that build the future, instead of sowing seeds of death."

"May the principle of humanity never fail to be the hallmark of our daily actions," the pope's speech continued before condemning military attacks that violate international law: "In the face of the cruelty of conflicts that involve defenseless civilians and attack schools, hospitals, and humanitarian workers, we cannot allow ourselves to forget that it is not targets that are struck, but persons, each possessed of a soul and human dignity."

"I appeal to all those in positions of political responsibility in our world not to yield to the logic of fear which only leads to isolation from others, but rather to use the resources available to help the needy, to fight hunger and to encourage initiatives that promote development."

The Daily Beast reported that on Saturday, the pope did not attend the Vatican's official meeting with Vance, instead having Cardinal Pietro Parolin "deliver a lecture on compassion."

The Vatican released a statement saying that the meeting included "an exchange of opinions on the international situation, especially regarding countries affected by war, political tensions, and difficult humanitarian situations, with particular attention to migrants, refugees, and prisoners."

A statement from the vice president's office about the discussion omitted the topic of migration, saying Vance discussed "the plight of persecuted Christian communities around the world" and President Donald Trump's "commitment to restoring world peace" with the cardinal.

The pope has been open about his disapproval of Trump's anti-immigrant agenda and mass deportation operation, in which international students who have exercised their free speech rights as well as immigrants and asylum-seekers have been detained in recent weeks. The administration has accused hundreds of migrants of being gang members—with little to no evidence in many cases and without providing due process as required by the U.S. Constitution—and has sent them to El Salvador's Terrorist Confinement Center under a $6 million deal with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.

In February, Pope Francis wrote a letter to U.S. bishops condemning Trump's deportation operation and specifically referenced the Catholic concept of "ordo amoris"—order of love—which Vance has pointed to in defense of mass deportations.

The vice president cited the concept when he said in January, "You love your family, and then you love your neighbor, and then you love your community, and then you love your fellow citizens in your own country. And then after that, you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world."

Francis wrote in his letter to the bishops that "Christians know very well that it is only by affirming the infinite dignity of all that our own identity as persons and as communities reaches its maturity."

"Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups. In other words: the human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings!" he added. "The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the 'Good Samaritan,' that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception."

The White House's public response on Friday to an image of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a Maryland father who the Trump administration sent to a notorious prison in El Salvador last month, was to mock the migrant and the U.S. senator who successfully urged Salvadoran President Nayim Bukele to allow a visit with him—and critics said officials may come to regret that decision.

"I suspect this is going to show up in a variety of court pleadings," said former U.S. Attorney Joyce White Vance, who is now a law professor. "Whoever thought this was cute at the time may be less giddy when this becomes evidence of intent to disobey a court order."

White Vance was among those who responded to a social media post from the White House's official account on the platform X, in which it displayed the New York Times cover story featuring an image of Abrego Garcia and Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) at their meeting on Thursday.

The story headline read, "Senator Meets With Wrongly Deported Maryland Man in El Salvador"—but the White House crossed out the word "wrongly," replaced "Maryland Man" with "MS-13 Illegal Alien," and scrawled, "who's never coming back" on the article about the father and sheet metal worker.

The digital graffiti was shared with the White House's 1.6 million followers even though, as software engineer and writer Lakshya Jain said, "the White House admitted in court that they deported the wrong guy."

Journalist David Leavitt added that the White House had given a federal court "more evidence of contempt," two days after Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. warned that there was "probable cause... to find the government in criminal contempt"—punishable by fines or prison time.

Boasberg ordered the administration last month to turn around two planes that were carrying migrants to El Salvador to be imprisoned at Bukele's Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) under a $6 million deal. The White House disobeyed the order.

The administration has also flouted the U.S. Supreme Court's unanimous ruling last week that found the White House must facilitate Abrego Garcia's return to the United States. Officials have admitted he was sent to El Salvador due to an "administrative error." Although officials including Vice President JD Vance have called him a "convicted" gang member and Bukele repeatedly called him a "terrorist" in the White House earlier this week, Abrego Garcia has not been convicted of any crimes. He was also protected by a 2019 court order which found he had a credible fear of persecution if he were deported to El Salvador.

Washington Post senior political reporter Aaron Blake said that by saying Abrego Garcia is "never coming back," the White House was "basically taunting" the Supreme Court.

Attorney Aaron Regunberg added that White House officials were "explicitly declaring they will violate a unanimous Supreme Court order," and reminded Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) of his earlier remarks that such defiance from President Donald Trump would trigger "extraordinary action."

"So... where the fuck are you?" asked Regunberg Schumer.

At a press conference following his return to the U.S., flanked by Abrego Garcia's wife, Van Hollen—who was widely praised this week for taking concrete action to advocate for his constituent—on Friday accused the Trump administration of "lying about this case from the beginning."

"They've been trying to change the subject from the beginning," said Van Hollen. "As I've said, and the courts have said—from the Supreme Court to the 4th Circuit, to the District Court—what this is about is adhering to the Constitution, to the right of due process. And that's why we say: 'Bring Kilmar home,' so he can be afforded his rights under the Constitution. That's what this is about."

NOW READ: Trump has finally met his match as he fights 3 unwinnable wars

"Regulatory relief for small loan providers" was how the Trump administration described its decision not to prioritize enforcing a rule meant to protect people who are financially struggling from predatory payday lenders—but one consumer protection advocate said Monday that the announcement signals a policy that that is certain to "promote lawless behavior" by corporations.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), whose actions aimed at protecting working families and consumers from big banks and other corporations have been attacked for years by Republicans, announced last Friday that under the Trump administration, it will not enforce a rule meant to safeguard people from fees they accrue when payday lenders repeatedly attempt to debit their accounts.

Part of the 2017 payday loan rule, the bounced payment rule was set to go into effect on Sunday—barring payday lenders, "buy now, pay later" (BNPL) lending services, and other predatory lenders from continuing to make attempts to debit bank accounts after a loan customer's payment bounced twice. The lenders would be required under the rule to gain the customer's permission after two failed attempts to retrieve the payment.

When the CFPB announced last year that the rule was set to go into effect on March 30, 2025, it noted that it had "found one instance of a lender making 11 failed withdrawal attempts in one day"—subjecting the consumer to "a pile of junk fees" including nonsufficient (NSF) funds fees, overdraft charges, and others.

Adam Rust, director of financial services for the Consumer Federation of America, said Monday that the CFPB had "sided with bottom-feeder payday lenders at the expense of vulnerable borrowers struggling to make ends meet."

"The CFPB is designed to be a law enforcement agency," said Rust. "A policy of 'hear no evil, see no evil, punish no evil' is a surefire way to promote lawless behavior."

The agency said it would also not enforce rules applying to vehicle title loans, which can have high interest rates and are banned or limited in at least 30 states.

Lauren Saunders, associate director of the National Consumer Law Center, noted that former CFPB Director Kathy Kraninger, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the 5th Circuit previously upheld "the bare minimum protection against multiple NSF fees on unaffordable loans."

"It's outrageous that the CFPB will not enforce the law that prohibits payday lenders and other 200% APR lenders from continually debiting people's accounts, subjecting them to multiple NSF and overdraft fees," said Saunders. "Buy now, pay later lenders that make unaffordable loans should not be allowed to keep hitting your bank account after payments bounce twice. It's unconscionable to have greater protections for payday lenders than for people struggling to afford basic necessities."

A Pew survey in 2013 revealed that 1-in-4 payday loan customers faced an overdraft fee due to the lender's attempt to collect a payment from an account with insufficient funds.

The CFPB said it was contemplating "issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking to narrow the scope of the rule."

"By allowing payday lenders to repeatedly debit borrowers' empty bank accounts," Nadine Chabrier of the Center for Responsible Lending toldConsumer Affairs, "the CFPB's political leadership is giving a free pass for payday lenders to kick people when they're down."

All signs are pointing to a coming recession as U.S. President Donald Trump imposes tariffs on close trading partners, oversees mass firings of civil servants, and pushes for cuts to public services—but by firing economists, advisers, and other experts tasked with advising federal agencies on economic shifts, the administration is working to ensure that the government and the public can't read those signs.

As Politico reported Friday, experts serving on the Bureau of Labor Statistics' (BLS) Technical Advisory Committee were informed this week that they were no longer needed, leaving the BLS without a panel that has long advised the Labor Department on how economic changes can impact data collection.

A page for the committee was removed from the Labor Department's website, along with one that had information about the Data Users Advisory Committee, which has advised on how businesses and policymakers can use the agency's economic reports.

"It would be a bad sign for a software company to cancel all beta testing if you expect to keep making better software," Michael Madowitz, an economist at the Roosevelt Institute who served on the data users committee, told Politico. "This feels like the same sort of thing."

The dismissal of the advisers follows the disbanding by Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick of another advisory board that has worked for years to ensure the government produces accurate data on economic indicators—the Federal Economic Statistics Advisory Committee (FESAC), which worked under the Commerce Department's Bureau of Economic Analysis.

"If laying off tens or hundreds of thousands of federal workers is going to drag down macroeconomic indicators in ways that are unhelpful to them, they're apparently quite willing to just rewrite definitions so they can insulate themselves to the extent possible from the fallout."

"Reduced transparency in official statistics is perhaps the most troubling aspect of disbanding FESAC," wrote Claudia Sahm, a former Federal Reserve economist, at Bloomberg on March 11. "Cutting off agency staff from external advisers creates an environment where political interference could occur much more easily—and go undetected. With political officials such as Lutnick arguing publicly that GDP should exclude government spending, it is especially important to have external, independent experts."

On Wednesday, the Federal Housing Finance Authority also placed workers who helped compile its home price index on administrative leave.

The dismantling of much of the federal government's data analysis apparatus comes amid the illegal firing of the two Democratic members of the Federal Trade Commission just after one called on FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson to take 10 steps to lower prices for U.S. consumers.

"This administration wants to write its own narrative," Stephanie Kelton, a professor of economics and public policy at Stony Brook University, toldThe Nation after the disbanding of FESAC. "If laying off tens or hundreds of thousands of federal workers is going to drag down macroeconomic indicators in ways that are unhelpful to them, they're apparently quite willing to just rewrite definitions so they can insulate themselves to the extent possible from the fallout."

The latest advisory committee firings this week came as the Federal Reserve projected higher unemployment, faster inflation, and slower growth—or "stagflation." Economic growth this year was projected to be 2.1% in the last weeks of former President Joe Biden's administration; the Fed now expects 1.7% growth, as well as the unemployment rate rising to 4.4%.

Other negative economic indicators include the largest manufacturing decline in nearly two years, according to the New York Federal Reserve's Manufacturing Index, and declining consumer confidence, with bars and restaurants reporting their largest sales decline last month since February 2023.

Members of Trump's own administration are increasingly admitting that a recession could be in the near future, but as Lindsay Owens, executive director of progressive think tank Groundwork Collaborative, said Friday, "the Trump administration is testing whether you can prevent a recession with a disappearing act."

"Unfortunately tossing a scarf over the GDP numbers doesn't change the fact that their policies have us careening toward a downturn," said Owens. "The fact that they are ramping up their obfuscation tactics confirms it."

Since U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January, the judicial branch has served as something of a firewall against some of his attempts to subvert congressional authority and undermine long-established constitutional law, with federal judges blocking his orders to end birthright citizenship, cut foreign aid funding, and other parts of his agenda.

But as the rulings have been met with relief from rights advocates, the judges who have handed down the decisions have faced mounting threats from anonymous people or groups who appear to support Trump—with remarks from Republican lawmakers and the president himself only emboldening the threats of violence.

As The New York Times reported Wednesday, judges who have ruled against the administration's policies in recent weeks have received "bomb threats, anonymous calls to dispatch police SWAT teams to home addresses, even the delivery of pizzas, a seemingly innocuous prank" which is meant to convey an ominous message, suggested one judge who was targeted.

"They know where you and your family members live," said the judge, who is overseeing a case pertaining to the Trump administration.

On Tuesday, Trump called for the impeachment of Chief Judge James Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and derided him as a "radical left lunatic" after Boasberg barred the administration from deporting Venezuelan immigrants to El Salvador under the 1798 Alien Enemies Act. His comments followed those of Rep. Brandon Gill (R-Texas), who pledged to file articles of impeachment against the "activist" judge.

Trump's remarks prompted U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts to warn that "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision," advising those who oppose federal rulings to do so via "the normal appellate review process."

Roberts' warning didn't stop anonymous critics on social media from demanding that Boasberg be sent to Guantánamo Bay "for 20 years" and calling him a "terrorist-loving judge."

Far-right conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer, who traveled with Trump during his campaign last year, told her 1.5 million social media followers that the judge's family "is a national security threat."

U.S. Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) on Thursday likened the response of Trump and the MAGA movement to the judiciary to setting loose "flying monkeys to intimidate judges and their families."

Supreme Court Justice Amy Coney Barrett, one of the court's right-wing judges who was appointed by Trump, broke with the other conservative justices earlier this month when she ruled against the president's freeze on foreign aid—prompting allies of the president to deride Coney Barrett as a "closet Democrat" and a "DEI hire," referring to diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives that Trump has pushed to end.

Days after the ruling, Coney Barrett's sister received a threat—which turned out to be false—that there was a pipe bomb in her mailbox.

Judge John C. Coughenour of the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington also reported that he had been targeted by a "swatting" attack, in which a false tip was sent to local law enforcement, prompting officers to show up at the judge's home expecting to find an armed intruder. The attack followed Coughenour's ruling that blocked Trump's order attempting to abolish birthright citizenship.

Reuters reported earlier this this month that "U.S. marshals have warned judges of unusually high threat levels."

"Security has been bolstered for some judges assigned cases over Trump administration initiatives," the outlet reported.

The government watchdog Public Citizen said the threats against judges who rule against Trump is a "red flag."

"This presidency is starting to look a lot like a dictatorship," said the group.

Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the court reform advocacy group Demand Justice, said that "judges should not face threats of impeachment, violence, or worse, simply for doing their jobs and upholding their oaths to the rule of law and Constitution."

"Criticism and public discourse around rulings is a part of our democracy," said Buchanan. "Threats and intimidation are not."

A small Nebraska city where U.S. President Donald Trump easily won the 2024 election was the site of the latest chaotic Republican town hall on Tuesday evening, with Rep. Mike Flood facing a roomful of about 200 voters, many of whom refused to accept his excuses for the Trump administration's drastic cuts to the federal government.

Flood came to the Columbus High School auditorium prepared with a graphic showing the national debt, with a giant screen showing the sum ticking up to $36 trillion—evidently confident that the number would help explain to voters why Republicans are pushing for hundreds of billions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid and Social Security while backing billionaire Elon Musk's massive cuts to the federal workforce.

But when he displayed the number and told one voter who asked about cuts to the National Institutes of Health that, "ultimately, where we need to go is to a balanced budget," he was met with loud booing.

"How can you be against a balanced budget?" Flood asked the room—which prompted the reply, "tax the rich!" to ring out across the auditorium.

Flood was meeting with voters in Nebraska's deep-red 2nd District for the first time since Trump took office. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) recently advised GOP lawmakers to avoid town halls and claimed protesters who have shown up to numerous meetings with Republican representatives are "Democrat activists who don't live in the district," but he and other critics have presented no evidence that the anger directed at Trump's allies in Congress is coming from anywhere but their constituents.

Flood also faced questions about Musk's so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), with one attendee asking, "What makes Elon Musk a better person to audit our government for waste, fraud, and abuse than the inspectors general that Donald Trump fired?"

"Elon Musk gets $40 billion a year in funding from the federal government. What makes you think he has no conflict of interest?" asked the voter. "Do you think he would cut that before he would cut our Medicare, or our Social Security, or our jobs?"

Flood replied that he supports both Musk and DOGE, prompting more loud booing and thumbs-down gestures.

With Republican lawmakers facing angry voters, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in recent weeks has toured states including Iowa, Nebraska, and Michigan, speaking to large crowds in Republican districts. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) is scheduled to join him this week, while Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has also been holding town halls.

Watch the clip below or at this link:

The Trump administration aims to "ultimately collapse the system" that allows tens of millions of Americans to collect their earned Social Security benefits each month, said one leading advocate for the system Wednesday after officials announced a major change to the Social Security Administration.

Acting SSA Commissioner Leland Dudek claimed the agency needs to "identity-proof" Social Security beneficiaries as he told reporters that millions of people will now be required to verify their identities using an online system—and will have to provide documentation at local field offices if they're unable to use the SSA website's verification system.

The change is set to take effect March 31 and comes as President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, his billionaire ally whom he named to lead the so-called Department of Government Efficiency( DOGE) with the aim of slashing government jobs and spending, have baselessly claimed that the Social Security system is riddled with fraud and sends benefits to millions of deceased Americans and to undocumented immigrants.

A source at the SSA told Judd Legum, author of the newsletter Popular Information, that there are "no significant concerns about fraud at intake" and said the change is aimed at creating "additional hurdles to filing claims and [overwhelming] the system."

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, noted that for decades, senior citizens and people with disabilities who rely on Social Security payments have been able to verify their identities over the phone when applying for benefits.

"The new process would force seniors and people with disabilities to navigate a needless technical hurdle in applying for their earned benefits. If these claimants (who do not always have computers or smartphones, reliable internet service, or the technical skills to complete the process online) cannot verify their identity online, they would have to call SSA via the already overburdened phone line to set up an appointment, and travel in person to an SSA field office," said Richtman.

"The combination of fewer workers, fewer offices, and a massive increase in the demand for in-person services could sabotage the Social Security system."

With DOGE pushing to cut 7,000 jobs within the SSA and close at least 47 regional and local field offices, the change would particularly harm the ability of people in rural areas, with mobility limitations, and with limited internet access to obtain their monthly benefits.

"The combination of fewer workers, fewer offices, and a massive increase in the demand for in-person services could sabotage the Social Security system," said Legum, who reported on the SSA memo on Monday.

Doris Diaz, the SSA acting deputy commissioner for operations, is among those who have warned Dudek against forcing seniors to verify their identities online, saying the change would cause longer wait and processing times and would send an estimated 75,000-85,000 beneficiaries to increasingly understaffed field offices per week.

Nancy Altman, president of Social Security Works, which works to counter right-wing claims about Social Security and lobbies to strengthen the system, told Common Dreams that "despite Leland Dudek's claims, the only thing putting the American people's personal Social Security data at risk is that Dudek turned it over to DOGE operatives."

The new plan "will make it far harder for the American people to claim their earned benefits. It could even cause major delays, and ultimately collapse the system, by overwhelming the field offices," said Altman.

"It is part of what appears to be an ongoing effort to cause Social Security to collapse," she added.

Richtman said that the only "rational conclusion" regarding the coming change in SSA operations is that Trump and Musk want to "undermine public support for Social Security by rendering the SSA dysfunctional, so that the program can be squeezed for cash, cut, and privatized."

"Intentionally erecting obstacles for the people who've earned these benefits (and who pay for SSA operations with every paycheck) betrays at the least an indifference—and more likely, an outright hostility—to the elderly, people with disabilities, their families, and survivors who rely on Social Security," said Richtman. "One has to ask why the world's richest man—who has received in the tens of billions of dollars in federal contracts—is targeting the agency that helps so many Americans keep their heads above water financially."

Nearly a year and a half after the advocacy group Jewish Voice for Peace began leading nationwide demonstrations against Israel's U.S.-backed assault on Gaza, hundreds of organizers and supporters of the group risked arrest Thursday as they assembled in the lobby of Trump Tower in New York City, demanding the release of Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil.

"Three hundred Jews and friends in Trump Tower, because we know what happens when an autocratic regime starts taking away our rights and scapegoating and we will not be silent," said Sonya Meyerson-Knox, communications director for Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). "Come for one—face us all."

The latter phrase was emblazoned on banners that were displayed by campaigners, who chanted, "Never again for anyone, never again is now!" and, "Free Mahmoud, free them all!"

New York City police officers began arresting participants in the sit-in early in the afternoon.

Jane Hirschmann, a Jewish New York resident whose grandfather and uncle were abducted by the Nazis in Germany as Adolf Hitler rose to power, said Khalil's detention "is further proof that we are on the brink of a full takeover by an authoritarian regime."

"As Jews of conscience, we know our history and we know where this leads," said Hirschmann. "This is what fascists do as they cement control. This moment requires all people of conscience to take bold action to resist state violence and repression. Free Mahmoud now."

Actors Morgan Spector, Debra Winger, and Arliss Howard were in attendance at the sit-in, along with writer and artist Molly Crabapple and New York City Council member Alexa Aviles.

Khalil was abducted by plainclothes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents last Saturday night as he was returning home to his Columbia-owned apartment with his wife, who is eight months pregnant. He was a graduate student at the university until this past December, and took a central organizing role in student-led protests and negotiations against Columbia's investment in companies that profit from Israel's apartheid policy in Gaza, including the bombardment it began in October 2023 in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack.

Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and a citizen of Algeria, was detained under the State Department's "catch and revoke" program, with the Trump administration revoking his green card and threatening to deport him. Administration officials have admitted that they are not accusing Khalil of breaking any laws by participating in Palestinian solidarity protests, but they said he is viewed as "adversarial to the foreign policy and national security interests of the United States of America."

After a hearing Wednesday, a federal judge is considering whether Khalil should be sent back to New York, where he was detained, from the Louisiana ICE facility where he is being held. The same judge blocked Khalil's deportation this week.

With declining consumer interest in Tesla vehicles sending CEO and Trump administration ally Elon Musk into an apparent panic over the electric automaker's plummeting stock—spurring an impromptu car show on the White House lawn Tuesday with President Donald Trump scolding Americans for not buying Musk's products—recent reports from across Europe and Canada suggest the two right-wing leaders are pushing global consumers to reject not just Tesla, but a wide array of American goods.

As The Guardian reported Wednesday, numbers released this week by Statistics Canada showed waning enthusiasm for Canadians to visit their southern neighbor, with 23% fewer Canadians taking road trips into the U.S.—the most popular mode of cross-border travel—this year so far compared to February 2024.

With Trump initiating a trade war with Canada—falsely claiming the country is a major source of fentanyl flowing into the U.S.—by imposing 25% tariffs on all Canadian imports and threatening to take over the country as the "cherished Fifty First State," consumers have been downloading apps like "Maple Scan" and "Is This Canadian?" to avoid purchasing U.S.-made products.

"A lot of people feel betrayed by our closest ally," Emma Cochran, an Ottawa-based marketer, toldNBC News on Wednesday.

Cochrane partnered with a colleague to make hats and shirts emblazoned with the phrase, "Canada is not for sale," one of which was worn by Ontario Premier Doug Ford last week.

"This felt like a way that we could participate and just kind of say, 'We're going to stand up for Canada,'" she told NBC.

Canadian officials announced retaliatory tariffs on $21 billion in goods on Wednesday after Trump raised global steel and aluminum tariffs to 25%—backing off of an earlier threat of a 50% levy.

As some Canadian provinces began pulling U.S. liquor brands from government-run stores and replacing bottles with "Buy Canadian Instead" signs, the CEO of the Kentucky-based Brown-Forman, which makes Jack Daniel's, called the boycott "frustrating."

"That's worse than a tariff because it's literally taking your sales away," Whiting said on an earnings call last week.

Nick Talley, a physician-scientist in New South Wales, Australia, said Trump "presumably... thought everyone would just bow down" after he imposed tariffs and raised prices for consumers around the world.

Danish grocery company Salling Group has also taken action to oppose Trump's threat to take control of Greenland, an autonomous territory within the Danish kingdom.

The company is still carrying U.S.-made products but is marking European-made goods with a black star to identify them for shoppers.

A Verian/SVT survey in Sweden on Tuesday found that "the U.S.'s actions in world politics... have led many Swedes to hesitate in the face of American products."

Twenty-nine percent of Swedish residents said they had refrained from buying U.S. goods in the last month amid Trump's trade war, his temporary suspension of aid to Ukraine after publicly berating Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy at the White House earlier this month, and Musk's meddling in European politics by expressing support for British right-wing extremist Tommy Robinson and German political party Alternative for Germany, which has embraced Nazi slogans and came in second in last month's elections.

Norwegian fuel company Haltbakk urged "all Norwegians and Europeans" to join in boycotting the U.S. after the confrontation between Trump and Zelenskyy, which the firm called "the biggest shit show ever presented 'live on TV' by the current American president and his vice president."

The company has provided fuel to U.S. ships in Norwegian ports but said it would no longer do so as the international community expressed shock over Trump's treatment of Zelenskyy and Ukrainian victims of Russia's invasion.

Meanwhile, European consumers have continued to make their views on Musk—a "special government employee" of Trump's who has spearheaded the slashing of federal jobs and spending and threatened to cut $700 billion from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid—by refusing to buy Tesla cars.

February sales were down 76% in Germany, 53% in Portugal, 55% in Italy, and 48% in Norway and Denmark—contributing the company's plummeting share price and loss of $800 billion in market cap.

Trump offered to buy a Tesla before staging a showing of five of the cars at the White House Tuesday, claiming American consumers are "illegally" boycotting the company, but as Channel 4 in the U.K. reported, "the company will have to find a lot more buyers to make up for a sharp decline in sales across Europe" as both boycotts and protests at Tesla dealerships spread.