Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Old orange loser faces off against a majority that hates him.
Further

Lame: Pissed Soldiers, Squeaky Tanks, Fake Deals 'R Us

Of course the long-coveted, savagely panned parade for a man-child who would be king was a bust, "a pathetic event for a pathetic president," notably in contrast to the estimated 11 million angry Americans who came out to say, "No Cons, No Clowns, No Dicks, No Kings." The sad poseur raved about Marxist lunatics who want "transgender for everybody," but he evidently missed the silent, stellar protest by scores of Army troops who in "malicious compliance" were in fact doing "the fuck Trump shuffle."

The Continental Army was established 250 years ago this weekend on June 14, 1775 by the Thirteen Colonies as they fought to defend their freedoms against autocrats. Coincidentally, June 14 is also Flag Day, International Bath Day, Knit in Public Day and the birthday of Che Guevara, yours truly and that orange stain on humanity, Commander Tinpot Bone Spur. So it was that the five-time draft dodger and aspiring despot was fundraising for "my military parade" while arguing America can't afford health care for seniors, free lunch for schoolchildren, HIV drugs for sick children or more than two dolls each so "a broken-inside narcissist can pretend he’s not the worthless piece of shit failure his father never stopped telling him he was" and have a bellicose vanity parade like all the other Big Boy Supreme Leaders like North Korea's Kim Jong Un - "We fell in love" - who isn't speaking to him any more.

Pretty much everyone else, including veterans furious about the gutting of the V.A, agreed it was a stupid, vulgar, deeply offensive, hideously timed idea, with Retired Maj. General Paul Easton of VoteVets calling it "an exercise in puffery" echoing Soviets marching around Red Square in the Cold War: "We didn’t do it because our greatest strength was our democracy. Today, that democracy is under attack." Indeed, even as House co-chairs of a new Democratic Veterans Caucus handed out small hopeful flags to colleagues, arguing, "Patriotism does not belong to one party," one party was doing its best to shred democratic governance. At that moment, ICE goons were handcuffing Sen. Alex Patilla for asking a question of Nazi Barbie Homeland as she vowed that illegally called-up military won't leave L.A. until they can "liberate" the city from its "socialist," albeit duly elected officials.

There's been a Dem mayor arrested, Dem Rep indicted, Dem comptroller detained, a goading, vicious Tinpot speech (behind bulletproof glass) at Ft. Bragg, a threat protests at his party "will be met with very big force - these are people who hate our country" (nope, just you) - and deranged taunts from a Florida sheriff that if fictional protesters "throw a brick...we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at, because we will kill you graveyard dead." Now, a few days later, we've seen real murders of Dem lawmakers in Minnesota, a Middle East increasingly, mindlessly facing conflagration, our own deportation police state's spiraling effort to render the military and every U.S institution a weapon of a madman's vengeful agenda, and untold reasons why a dog-and-pony-and-tank show for an idiot narcissist was not what we needed at this dark historic moment.

Yet here they came: 6,600 soldiers, Black Hawk helicopters, Chinooks, tanks, P-51 aircraft, B-25 bomber, 34 horses, two mules, robot dogs, paratroopers dropping, soldiers absurdly carrying drones like pizzas, a soundtrack of canned applause and bad covers of 80s rock songs, Lee Greenwood warbling "God Bless the U.S.A," an MC squawking, "Special thanks to our sponsors" - Lockheed Martin, Coinbase, Palantir, UFC, though he left out U.S. tax payers - because, "Corporate sponsorship for autocracy is such an American thing." They even hawked watches by Trump, who's wanted a parade since seeing a 2017 Bastille Day event in Paris; first term Defense Sec. James Mattis said he'd "rather swallow acid." Now Trump blathered, "We’re the hottest country in the world right now...Our warriors will charge into battle. They will plunge into the crucible of fire, and they will seize the crown of victory."

Uh huh. Facts owe: Everything he touches dies. Despite the $45 million price tag, trainloads of tanks and fears of goose-stepping storm-troopers, the day was "a flop at best," "a little underwhelming," a shoddy, bleak vision of aspiring fascism by a low-rent, third-world country whose sweaty denizens endured "a very long and uncomfortable day" of speeches, exhibits, humidity, slow lines, no shade, little food, sticky drizzle, shrieking music, kids clambering on tanks, warm Screamin’ Freedom energy drinks, too few signs - "Nobody knows what’s going on" - and sparse crowds: "I had more people at my bar mitzvah party," "I've seen more people at Applebees on a Tuesday." Much lampooned were near-empty stands of onlookers gazing silent, uncheering, perhaps pondering their life choices as lumbering tanks s-l-o-w-l-y squeaked past. The consensus from one young poet: "It was just...kind of lame."

Online, many viewers mocked the sad small crowds peppering the vast National Mall: "I guess they didn't get much interest from the seat-filler Craigslist ad," "It's like watching a poorly attended golf tournament," "What a fucking clown show. What keeps surprising me is how embarrassing it all is - just one shameful, cringey, mortifying moment after another." Drawing particular ire were the sorry "clusterfuck" of sloppy slouching troops, line after line of soldiers in dutiful fatigues not marching in step but numbly, blankly, clumsily sauntering, often out of sync with the cheesy music: "How to embarrass our troops and country in one day," "Sad. Kim Jong Un will not be impressed," "Most ridiculous thing I have ever seen," "The marchers do not appear to be thrilled to be there - maybe they forgot to feed them," "I have seen first graders walking in a crosswalk do better than that."

It took a day or so for astute commentators, especially veterans, to surface and report, "This is 100% a silent protest," a deliberate rejection of “being treated like props for the benefit of an egomaniacal toddler," a "quiet, disciplined Foxtrot Delta Tango that says, 'We're here because we have to be, not because we believe in this clown show.' It’s protest through precision silence and damn, it speaks volumes." "Troops don’t forget how to march," insisted countless veterans. "Former army here. It takes about a week of drill in basic to learn how to march. Once you do, it’s ingrained in you for life." Also: "If the cadence is off, they correct. If no one’s calling it, someone steps up. Unless...they don’t want to," "I took JROTC 2 decades ago. I can still march in step. It was absolutely on purpose," "Anyone vaguely familiar with actual military knew this on sight," and "It's a big 'fuck you' to Trump from the soldiers."

They posted slick, sharp, contrasting video to argue, "The Army knows how to march." They noted nobody returned Private Tinpot's limp mock salute; the irony of clueless officials playing Fortunate Son, a song about poor kids fighting in wars that rich kids dodge; the reality that, "To anyone that hasn’t served, it’s actually HARD to be this out of step." They praised "a classic example of messaging whilst under duress, hidden in plain sight" and "showing Don the Con the respect he deserves." They reported young soldiers drinking, hanging out, doing "a lot of eye-rolling" with chatter about playing "cosplay for a dumb ass wannabe dictator like you're a court jester." They celebrated that "6,000 troops voted with their feet on Saturday to tell President Bone Spurs where he can stick any plans for deploying them to enforce martial law." And they said, sincerely, pointedly, "Thank you for your service."

Dear Leader bedecked in cartoon gloryDear Leader bedecked in cartoon gloryScreenshot from Bluesky



The White House claimed 250,000 people turned up for the whiny toddler's birthday; Planet Earth put the number at 17, or more generously 40,000, tops. Enraged by yet more failure, "a big tub of rock salt poured on his wounds of lifelong insecurity," he lashed out - because he's a racist psycopath, at brown people and their allies trying to sneak them in to vote, though they're not and they can't. ICE is "herewith ordered, by notice of this TRUTH, to do all in their power to achieve the very important goal of delivering the single largest Mass Deportation Program in History,” he raved of abducting dishwashers and house painters in L.A., Chicago, New York, "where millions upon millions of illegal aliens reside." He berated "Radical Left Democrats" who "are sick of mind," "hate our country," "want Transgender for Everybody" and "believe in Open Boarders" (sic), with friendly people staying at their houses.

Deservedly, foreign coverage of the day was merciless. Via Ireland's Waterford Whispers News, North Korea reported America "held a gaudy and vainglorious display of their dwindling military might," with "their inferior leader looking old, confused and tired (as) he sat next to an expensive prostitute and a drunk television host for the duration of the parade. In total, $40 million was spent on the parade by the debt-ridden failed state, shamefully so at a time of increasing poverty in the country. Many have noted how pudgy and overweight the Trump looks at a time when Americans struggle for food." They also cited several instances of political violence in a nation "unable to tolerate political dissent...The propaganda exercise was swallowed whole by the dull of mind and incurious of spirit. The helpless sheep believe themselves to be the envy of the world, but the world laughs in their faces."

Fresh from his squeaky-wheeled humiliation, the Trump then took his stunning incompetence to the G7 meeting in Alberta, where the world kept laughing. He parroted Russian talking points, misstated history - Obama and "a person named Trudeau" didn't want Russia in G7 - yammered about Dems conspiring with immigrants until Mark Carney shut him up, confused the U.K. and E.U., claimed he made his first trade deal (not quite 90 in 90 days) before dropping his seemingly blank papers, earned a killer wink from the adults in the room, argued "Iran should have signed the deal I told them to sign" though he pulled out of the Iran nuclear deal, proclaimed 9 million people "should immediately evacuate Tehran!” and left G7 early while bad-mouthing Macron - "Emmanuel always gets it wrong" - for saying he'd left to work on a ceasefire when he wants "a complete give-up" by Iran. Mr. Art-of-the-Taco strikes again.


Back home, he kept failing. After the horrific shootings of Minnesota lawmakers, as MAGA-ites raved "the left has become a full blown domestic terrorist organization” about the anti-abortion, Trump-supporting perp, Trump vilely declinedto call Gov. Tim Walz because, "The guy doesn’t have a clue. He’s a mess...Why waste time?" Speaking of: Rumors swirl about the (further) plunge of what's left of his own cognitive and physical state - stumbles, diapers, catheters, "unmistakable" odor. A bonkers mob boss, he's cruel, erratic, incoherent, a dumpster fire of flip-flopping, head-swiveling "policies" frantically enacted by his Nazi goons. He's rarely outside the Oval Office or Hell-a-Lago; when he is he nods off, or does nothing but sign illegal executive orders and post vindictive rants. Never up to the emotional, intellectual, moral demands of the job, his physical slide may now be "the last penny to drop."

But even incontinent, deranged, unable to construct a sentence, he's still grifting. Adding to his $600 million earned from crappy watches, sneakers, Bibles, coins et al, he and his cretinous sons just launched a largely fictional, error-ridden Trump Mobile phone service and $499 "sleek, gold smartphone engineered for performance" that "looks both bad and impossible" which may or may not ship in August or September unless, you know, it doesn't, but is available to pre-order now to try and fill that gaping hole of endless insatiable greed where a soul should be. The blurb says it's made in America but actually, said Eric after calling L.A. protesters "mongoloids," that means it may eventually be made in America, "because our ethos is build for Americans, by Americans," maybe by some of those brown workers we've abducted to foreign gulags or are gung-ho invading at swap meets, they'll need work right?

No wonder up to 11 million Americans "radicalized by basic decency" came out last weekend to make good trouble and say we hate you rapacious shitheads. See us here, here, here with our spirited signs: "It's A Beautiful Day to Melt Some Ice. No Clowns, No Dicks, No Nazis. This Sucks. Rapist, Felon, Putting the Dick Into Dictatorship. Deport Oligarchs Not Immigrants. Rejecting Kings Since 1776. Fuck Trump. Fuck ICE." Rev. William Barber: "Remember that no one can become our king if we refuse to bow." Cue 87-year-old veteran John Spitzberg, arrested for peacefully protesting with about 75 veterans who crossed a police line; one cop cuffed him, wobbly, behind his back as comrades yelled "Shame, Shame, Shame!" and another wheeled away his walker. How did arrest at 87 feel, he was asked. "I'm just beginning, my friend," he said. "I'm gonna just get a little sleep, and I'm starting again."

Pictures of the parade crowd released by White HousePictures of the parade crowd released by White HouseScreenshot from Bluesky

SEE ALL
A screengrab of the Climate.gov front page.
News

In 'Disservice to the Public', Trump Fires Content Team for Climate.Gov

In its latest attack on climate science, the Trump administration has fired everyone who produced content for Climate.gov, the public-facing website for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Climate Program Office.

A former contractor who asked to be anonymous told The Guardian that their entire team had been let go from their government contract on May 31, the outlet reported Wednesday.

"It's targeted, I think it's clear," Tom Di Liberto, a former NOAA spokesperson who was fired earlier in the year, told The Guardian. "They only fired a handful of people, and it just so happened to be the entire content team for Climate.gov. I mean, that's a clear signal."

"I would hate to see it turn into a propaganda website for this administration, because that's not at all what it was."

The site's former program manager Rebecca Lindsey, who lost her job in the Trump administration's mass firing of probationary employees, agreed.

"It was a very deliberate, targeted attack," Lindsey told The Guardian, explaining that her former boss had told her that the orders came "from above" to cut the team's funding from a larger NOAA contract slated for renewal in May.

Climate.gov is currently well-respected for providing accurate, accessible information about the causes and consequences of the climate emergency.

"We were an extremely well-trusted source for climate information, misinformation, and disinformation because we actually, legitimately would answer misinformation questions," the anonymous contractor said. "We'd answer reader emails and try to combat disinformation on social media."

Oliver Milman, an environmental correspondent for The Guardian U.S. who did not break the news, described it as "one of world's leading sources of information on climate change."

Now, its ultimate fate is uncertain. The contractor said that a few pre-written pieces were scheduled to be posted on the site during June, but after that, it is unclear whether the site would continue to update or remain visible to the public.

There is also what Lindsey termed a more "sinister possibility": that the administration would use the site to publish false or misleading information dismissing the reality and risks of the climate emergency.

"I would hate to see it turn into a propaganda website for this administration, because that's not at all what it was," the contractor said.

The administration did keep two web developers on staff, which means it is possible it intends to keep the website running with new content.

In either case, however, the firing of the content team builds on a pattern in which President Donald Trump and his administration are making it harder for the public to access accurate scientific information, thereby impeding people from making informed decisions. It follows moves such as the dismissal of all of the scientists working on the National Climate Assessment and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's purging of a panel of vaccine experts.

"To me, climate is more broad than just climate change. It's also climate patterns like El Niño and La Niña," the contractor said. "Halting factual climate information is a disservice to the public. Hiding the impacts of climate change won't stop it from happening, it will just make us far less prepared when it does."

Outside scientists responded to the news with dismay.

"Sigh," wrote Robert Rohde, the chief scientist at Berkeley Earth.

Eliot Jacobson, a retired professor of mathematics and computer science, called the firings "your 'moment of kakistocracy' for today," referring to government by the least qualified.

The move comes amid other attacks on Americans' ability to prepare for and respond to the climate emergency and the many extreme weather events—from heatwaves to more extreme hurricanes—that it fuels.

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) warned on Tuesday that the Trump administration's firings of heat experts at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health and the National Integrated Heat Health Information System would make it harder to respond to heatwaves—the deadliest type of extreme weather in the U.S.—as summer intersects with global heating to increase risk.

"Instead of investing in keeping people safe as temperatures spike, the Trump administration's staff and budget cuts to NOAA have left local weather service offices serving millions of people in hundreds of U.S. counties without the experienced leadership of meteorologists in charge. And firing federal heat health experts will further jeopardize protections for people," Juan Declet-Barreto, a bilingual senior social scientist for climate vulnerability at UCS, said in a statement.

"The president's proposed budget calls for more massive cuts to agencies like NOAA doing lifesaving work," Declet-Barreto continued. "And its regulatory rollbacks and cuts to climate and clean energy funding are aimed at increasing the use of fossil fuels, which are largely responsible for these rising temperatures. So, while the country suffers in what could be record-breaking temperatures, especially outdoor workers and vulnerable populations, fossil fuel executives will sit back in their air-conditioned offices watching President Trump do their bidding and grow their profits."

Meanwhile, Trump on Tuesday offered a timeline for winding down the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)—which he has long threatened to eliminate.

"I'd say after the hurricane season we'll start phasing it out," Trump said, as NBC News reported. In the future, Trump said, more responsibility would fall with the states, any federal disaster relief would be dispersed directly from the president's office, and less money would be offered.

However, a FEMA higher-up toldCNN that the president's proposal was unrealistic.

"This is a complete misunderstanding of the role of the federal government in emergency management and disaster response and recovery, and it's an abdication of that role when a state is overwhelmed," they said. "It is clear from the president's remarks that their plan is to limp through hurricane season and then dismantle the agency."

SEE ALL
Day Of Action Protests Across The Country Criticize Trump And DOGE Policies
News

'Start Over From Scratch': Nobel Laureate Economists Denounce GOP Budget Bill

Half a dozen Nobel Prize-winning economists on Monday expressed their "grave concerns" about the sprawling budget reconciliation package passed last month by the Republican-controlled U.S. House of Representatives, warning that slashing an already frayed social safety net and exploding the record deficit in service of massive tax cuts for the wealthiest households will worsen the nation's economic woes.

"The most acute and immediate damage stemming from this bill would be felt by the millions of American families losing key safety net protections like Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits," Daron Acemoglu, Peter Diamond, Oliver Hart, Simon Johnson, Paul Krugman, and Joseph Stiglitz wrote in an open letter published by the Economic Policy Institute (EPI), a progressive think tank in Washington, D.C.

"The Medicaid cuts constitute a sad step backward in the nation's commitment to providing access to healthcare for all," the economists continued. "Proponents of the House bill often claim that these Medicaid cuts can be achieved simply by imposing work reporting requirements on healthy, working-age adults. But healthy, working-age adults are by definition not heavy consumers of health spending, so achieving the budgeted Medicaid cuts will obviously harm others as well."

🚨NEW: 6 Nobel laureate economists signed an open letter opposing the House budget bill 🚨 The bill adds significantly to the national debt while reducing incomes for the bottom 40%, they say. The most acute & immediate damage? Millions losing Medicaid & SNAP benefits: www.epi.org/publication/...

[image or embed]
— Economic Policy Institute (@epi.org) June 2, 2025 at 10:16 AM

Addressing the bill's staggering impact on public debt, the letter asserts that "U.S. structural deficits are already too high, with real debt service payments approaching their historic highs in the past year."

"The House bill layers $3.8 trillion in additional tax cuts ($5.3 trillion if all provisions are made permanent) on top of these existing fiscal gaps—and these tax cuts are overwhelmingly tilted toward the highest-income households," the Nobel laureates noted. "Even with the safety net cuts, the House bill leads to public debt rising by over $3 trillion in coming years (and over $5 trillion over the next decade if provisions are made permanent rather than phasing out). The higher debt and deficits will put noticeable upward pressure on both inflation and interest rates in coming years."

"The combination of cuts to key safety net programs like Medicaid and SNAP and tax cuts disproportionately benefiting higher-income households means that the House budget constitutes an extremely large upward redistribution of income," the economists warned. "Given how much this bill adds to the U.S. debt, it is shocking that it still imposes absolute losses on the bottom 40% of U.S households."

"The United States has a number of pressing economic challenges to address, many of which require a greater level of state capacity to navigate—capacity that will be eroded by large tax cuts," the letter concludes. "The House bill addresses none of the nation's key economic challenges usefully and exacerbates many of them. The Senate should refuse to pass this bill and start over from scratch on the budget."

The so-called Big Beautiful Bill is now in the Senate, where Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has vowed on behalf of Democrats to "fight it with everything we've got."

"The Republican plan is simple: Sell out working and middle-class families to pay off the rich and well-connected," Schumer said in a "dear colleague" letter on Sunday. "The bill would raise costs and taxes by an average of more than $800 for 40% of American families. Twenty million Americans would see their healthcare costs skyrocket, while almost 14 million would lose their health insurance all together, including millions of children and seniors."

Furthermore, Schumer noted that "11 million people, including 4 million children, could lose access to safe and affordable food, while every one of the 40 million Americans receiving federal food assistance would get less support every month. All the while, their radical plan would see double-digit energy cost increases for American households and businesses, and threaten close to 800,000 good-paying jobs in the clean-energy economy."

"Their entire agenda," Schumer said of Republicans, "can be boiled down to this: Billionaires win and families lose."

SEE ALL
Social Security Defenders Say Trustees Report Shows Expansion—Not GOP Cuts—Is Path Forward
News

Social Security Defenders Say Trustees Report Shows Expansion—Not GOP Cuts—Is Path Forward

A U.S. government report released Wednesday found that the combined Social Security trust funds will not be able to pay out full benefits to recipients come 2034, unless federal lawmakers act—an announcement that prompted defenders of Social Security to call for increased revenue for the social safety net program.

The report from the trustees of the Social Security and Medicare trust funds found that the former's two funds will be exhausted a year earlier than expected, and when that happens payroll tax revenue and other income sources will be able account for 81% of benefits owed to beneficiaries.

According to the report, the two funds—the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) Trust Fund and the Disability Insurance Trust Fund—could "not actually be combined unless there were a change in the law, but the combined projection of the two funds is frequently used to indicate the overall status of the Social Security program."

The OASI Trust Fund will pay 100% of total scheduled benefits until 2033, after which point the program income will be able to pay 77% of total scheduled benefits. At the end of last year, 60.1 million people received OASI benefits.

The report states that the Social Security Fairness Act, an expansion to the program that was signed into law in early January, is part of the reason for the gloomier financial outlook.

Social Security has "a modest funding shortfall, which is still years away. There is no question Congress will act to avert the shortfall, as it always has in the past. The question is what Congress will do," said Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, in a statement on Wednesday.

"There are two options for action: bringing more money into Social Security, or reducing benefits. Any politician who doesn't support increasing Social Security's revenue is, by default, supporting benefit cuts," she continued.

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the advocacy group the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, struck a similar line on Wednesday.

"What's needed—and what the majority of the American people support—is increasing revenue flowing into Social Security, which has been capturing a declining share of income as wealth inequality worsens," he said. He noted that "the payroll wage cap" is depriving the system of adequate revenue. Wages up to $176,100 are taxed at 6.2% for Social Security as of 2025.

"It is time to adjust the payroll wage cap so that the wealthy begin paying their fair share," according to Richtman.

Advocates also used the release of the report to denounce any targeting of Social Security, especially efforts to undermine the Social Security Administration carried out by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

During the first few months of Donald Trump's second presidency, billionaire Elon Musk, who was tapped to lead DOGE, and his allies fanned a false narrative alleging rampant fraud at the Social Security Administration, and used those "claims to justify an aggressive effort to gain access to personal information on millions of Americans," according to June reporting from the The New York Times.

Due to pressure from DOGE, nearly 50% of the Social Security Administration's executives and thousands of employees there have left, either by retiring or taking buyouts. Per the Times, as much as 12% of staff is expected to leave because of DOGE's cost-cutting efforts.

"Despite Donald Trump's promise to protect Social Security, Elon Musk's DOGE is undermining it every day," said Altman, referencing the Times' reporting, including the loss of senior executives. "This is an incalculable loss of institutional knowledge and expertise."

Richard Fiesta, the executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, also called out DOGE's work at the Social Security Administration, and referenced efforts to raise the Social Security retirement age beyond 67.

While there is no current legislative push to increase the Social Security retirement age, in December three Republican senators voted for a failed amendment that would have gradually raised the Social Security retirement age. Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky put the amendment forward in response to the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act.

"Republicans in Congress have made clear they are eager to cut the benefits Americans have worked a lifetime to earn," according to Fiesta.

SEE ALL
Supporters of trangender youth rally outside Children's Hospital Los Angeles
News

Warnings of 'Untold Harm' After US Supreme Court Rules Against Trans Youth

LGBTQ+ advocates decried Wednesday's U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding Tennessee's prohibition on gender-affirming medical treatments for minors as a dangerous green light for states to violate personal privacy and ban healthcare that many transgender people say saved their lives.

Writing for the 6-3 majority in U.S. v. Skrmetti, Chief Justice John Roberts stated that S.B. 1, Tennessee's 2023 ban on gender-affirming care for people under age 18, does not violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. The majority concurred with a lower court's ruling that S.B. 1 is not subject to heightened scrutiny, a standard of judicial review also known as intermediate scrutiny used to determine a law's constitutionality, especially in cases involving classifications based on sex or gender.

"The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."

"This case carries with it the weight of fierce scientific and policy debates about the safety, efficacy, and propriety of medical treatments in an evolving field," Roberts wrote. "The voices in these debates raise sincere concerns; the implications for all are profound. The equal protection clause does not resolve these disagreements. Nor does it afford us license to decide them as we see best."

"Our role is not 'to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic' of the law before us... but only to ensure that it does not violate the equal protection guarantee of the 14th Amendment," the ruling adds. "Having concluded it does not, we leave questions regarding its policy to the people, their elected representatives, and the democratic process."

BREAKING: In a 6-3 Roberts decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care is not subject to heightened scrutiny. This decision will strip millions of trans people off their constitutional rights.www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24p...

[image or embed]
— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) June 18, 2025 at 7:17 AM

Roberts was joined in the majority by right-wing Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett. Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

Sotomayor wrote in her dissent that "there is no constitutional justification" for the decision, which "does irrevocable damage to the equal protection clause and invites legislatures to engage in discrimination by hiding blatant sex classifications in plain sight. It also authorizes, without second thought, untold harm to transgender children and the parents and families who love them."

She continued:

Transgender adolescents' access to hormones and puberty blockers... is not a matter of mere cosmetic preference. To the contrary, access to care can be a question of life or death. Some transgender adolescents suffer from gender dysphoria, a medical condition characterized by clinically significant and persistent distress resulting from incongruence between a person's gender identity and sex identified at birth. If left untreated, gender dysphoria can lead to severe anxiety, depression, eating disorders, substance abuse, self-harm, and suicidality. Suicide, in particular, is a major concern for parents of transgender teenagers, as the lifetime prevalence of suicide attempts among transgender individuals may be as high as 40%. Tragically, studies suggest that as many as one-third of transgender high school students attempt suicide in any given year.

S.B. 1—introduced by Tennessee state Sen. Jack Johnson (R-23)—who was also behind the state's public drag banprohibits minors from undergoing hormone therapy or taking prescribed puberty blockers. Three transgender teens and their parents, as well as a Tennessee doctor who treats trans youth, challenged the law, claiming it violated the equal protection clause.

The plaintiffs were joined by the Biden administration along with the national and state ACLU, Lambda Legal, and the law firm Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP in asking the Supreme Court to review the ban after the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld it in September 2023.

Responding to Wednesday's ruling, Allison Scott of the Campaign for Southern Equality—which manages the Trans Youth Emergency Project (TYEP)—said: "I am heartbroken today. No one should be forced to leave their home state to access healthcare—and it is outrageous to see the U.S. Supreme Court uphold these bans and continue to allow the government to interfere with the personal medical decisions of families."

Scott was alluding to the argument often made by proponents of bans on not only trans healthcare but also abortion and other reproductive rights that people seeking such care are free to go where it is legal—even as some states pass laws banning such travel.

There are approximately 300,000 people aged 13-17 and 1.3 million adults in the United States who identify as transgender, according to the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which notes that more than two dozen states have passed laws similar to S.B. 1.

(Image: Human Rights Campaign Foundation)

Transgender activist Alejandra Caraballo, a civil rights attorney and instructor at the Harvard Law School Cyberlaw Clinic, said on the social media site Bluesky, "I can't begin to tell you just how incredibly fucked trans people are here."

"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people and they will get even harsher and more cruel," Caraballo added. "The Supreme Court is green-lighting the eradication of trans people from society."

Caraballo and others including the ACLU and trans rights activist Erin Reed noted that the decision is somewhat limited because it leaves previous rulings against anti-trans laws intact. However, Caraballo warned that "while the decision didn't explicitly say heightened scrutiny doesn't apply to all contexts involving trans people, it held that it was on the basis of medical diagnosis."

Therefore, "the government could just do whatever it wants to trans people based on gender dysphoria," she wrote. "For instance, they could strip everyone with gender dysphoria of security clearance in the government. Declare everyone with gender dysphoria a national security threat and purge them from the government entirely. The trans military ban will be upheld under this."

"Most importantly, states can now just ban gender-affirming care for everyone, including adults," Caraballo added. "We'll likely see that coming soon in addition to federal government efforts to eliminate access for all trans people."

"This will pour gasoline on the Trump administration's attacks on trans people."

U.S. President Donald Trump has renewed and expanded his first-term attacks on transgender people, including by issuing a day one executive order declaring that only two genders exist, another order advocating action against educators who "facilitate the social transition of a minor," and yet another directing the Department of Education—which he has vowed to abolish—to notify school districts that allowing transgender girls and women to compete on female teams violates Title IX, the federal law prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sex in education.

Trump also appointed a transphobe to head the Justice Department's civil rights office, ordered the removal transgender people and issues from federal agency websites, and reinstated his first-term ban on new military enlistment by trans people, who—according to the White House—cannot lead an "honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle."

"Every day I speak with families of transgender youth who are worried about the future," TYEP patient navigator Van Bailey said after Wednesday's ruling. "Many are panicking, unsure of where or when they'll get the medicine that their child needs to continue leading a healthy, happy life. These laws are cruelly thrusting families into impossible choices, and it is deeply unfair."

As we wait for legal guidance from our partners at @aclu.org and @lambdalegal.org, we want to share what we already know:The Supreme Court’s decision in U.S. v. Skrmetti is devastating, and we will not stop fighting.

[image or embed]
— Christopher Street Project (@christopherstreet.bsky.social) June 18, 2025 at 8:34 AM

ACLU LGBTQ & HIV Project co-director Chase Strangio—the first openly trans attorney to argue before the Supreme Court—said that "today's ruling is a devastating loss for transgender people, our families, and everyone who cares about the Constitution."

However, Strangio also noted that "the court left undisturbed Supreme Court and lower court precedent that other examples of discrimination against transgender people are unlawful."

"We are as determined as ever to fight for the dignity and equality of every transgender person and we will continue to do so with defiant strength, a restless resolve, and a lasting commitment to our families, our communities, and the freedom we all deserve," he added.

Jennifer Levi, senior director of transgender and queer rights at GLAD Law, said in a statement that "the court today failed to do its job."

"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone," Levi added. "Instead, it chose to look away, abandoning both vulnerable children and the parents who love them. No parent should be forced to watch their child suffer while proven medical care sits beyond their reach because of politics."

"When the political system breaks down and legislatures bow to popular hostility, the judiciary must be the Constitution's backbone."

National Center for LGBTQ Rights legal director Shannon Minter asserted: "The court's ruling abandons transgender youth and their families to political attacks. It ignored clear discrimination and disregarded its own legal precedent by letting lawmakers target young people for being transgender."

"Healthcare decisions belong with families, not politicians," Minter added. "This decision will cause real harm."

Sasha Buchert, counsel and director of the Nonbinary and Transgender Rights Project at Lambda Legal, called the ruling "heartbreaking" and contended it will make it "more difficult for transgender youth to escape the danger and trauma of being denied their ability to live and thrive."

"But we will continue to fight fiercely to protect them," Buchert added. "Make no mistake, gender-affirming care is often lifesaving care, and all major medical associations have determined it to be safe, appropriate, and effective. This is a sad day, and the implications will reverberate for years and across the country, but it does not shake our resolve to continue fighting."

The Supreme Court’s Skrmetti decision is a pivotal moment in our fight for LGBTQ+ equality. Here are three ways to TAKE ACTION:

[image or embed]
— Human Rights Campaign (@hrc.org) June 18, 2025 at 9:26 AM

Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Lambda Legal, and other advocacy organizations are planning to hold a "decision day" rally at noon Wednesday outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

HRC lamented that Skrmetti "sets a dangerous precedent and threatens access to care for trans people across the country."

"We are showing up loud and clear: We will not go back," HRC said. "We will not be erased."

SEE ALL
Benjamin Netanyahu
News

'Netanyahu Was Wrong in 2002. He Is Wrong Now': Sanders Warns Against Joining Israeli PM's War

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Thursday pointed to testimony that Benjamin Netanyahu delivered to Congress more than two decades ago to help make the case that the United States should not join the Israeli prime minister's ongoing military campaign in Iran.

During a House hearing in 2002, Netanyahu—who was not then the prime minister of Israel—argued in favor of the U.S. invasion of Iraq, predicting it would "have enormous positive reverberations on the region."

Netanyahu also said confidently that then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein was "seeking" and "advancing toward the development of nuclear weapons"—a claim that the Israeli leader has made repeatedly, for decades, about Iran's government.

Sanders (I-Vt.), who opposed the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, said in a statement Thursday that Netanyahu "was wrong. Very wrong."

"The war in Iraq resulted in 4,492 U.S. military deaths, over 32,000 wounded, and a cost of roughly three trillion dollars. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis also died as a result of that tragic war," Sanders continued. "Netanyahu was wrong regarding the war in Iraq. He is wrong now. We must not get involved in Netanyahu's war against Iran."

Sanders' statement comes as the Trump administration is seriously considering intervening in the war Israel started last week with a barrage of airstrikes in Iran, an assault that has since escalated and killed more than 600 people, including many civilians.

Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have justified the unlawful assault by claiming that Iran is on the brink of developing a nuclear weapon—a narrative that Israel's prime minister has peddled for decades, even as U.S. intelligence agencies and international inspectors say there's no evidence to support it.

"Since 1992, when Netanyahu addressed Israel's Knesset as an MP, he has consistently claimed that Tehran is only years away from acquiring a nuclear bomb," Al Jazeerareported Wednesday. "'Within three to five years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear bomb,' he declared at the time. The prediction was later repeated in his 1995 book, Fighting Terrorism."

"In 2009, a U.S. State Department cable released by WikiLeaks revealed him telling members of Congress that Iran was just one or two years away from nuclear capability," the outlet continued. "Three years later, at the United Nations General Assembly, Netanyahu famously brandished a cartoon drawing of a bomb to illustrate his claims that Iran was closer than ever to the nuclear threshold."

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin NetanyahuIsraeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu delivered a speech to the United Nations General Assembly on September 27, 2012 in New York City. (Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Earlier this week, Trump publicly rejected U.S. intelligence assessments and echoed Netanyahu's baseless claim about Iran's nuclear weapon ambitions, telling reporters, "I think they were very close to having one."

Trump has reportedly approved plans for a U.S. attack on Iran but has so far held off on giving the final order, adding urgency to congressional efforts to avert a potentially catastrophic war.

Sanders is leading a bill that would bar the president from using federal funds for an unauthorized attack on Iran.

SEE ALL