SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
A Martyr For Truth and Faith and Memorial Plazas
The canonization of Charlie Kirk continued Sunday with a packed, jarring, often vicious memorial service - part MAGA rally, part revival meeting, with fireworks. The event in an Arizona football stadium hailed the right-wing bigot as a prophet, martyr, savior of Western civilization and just like Jesus or MLK Jr. despite his espousal of the racist replacement theory. His tearful widow said she forgave his killer because "it is what Christ did." The mad king said fuck that nonsense - he hates his enemies.
In the ten days since Kirk's assassination on a Utah campus by a lone shooter addicted to guns and video games with a murky, shifting political profile - raised MAGA, possibly moving left - Kirk, 31, has been sanitized, glorified, venerated, his death used as a cudgel to stifle political dissent. Though he founded Turning Point USA in 2012 largely as a pro-free-market organization, over time he slowly re-shaped it into an increasingly extremist, anti-democratic part of a Christian right that somehow fell under the spell of a crooked, blasphemous, sexually assaulting felon. "He embodied the MAGA warrior," boasted one fan. "He was all Trump." Little wonder, after his killing, that Christian nationalists claimed him as a martyr in their unholy war.
"We know that the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church," said right-wing pastor Sean Feucht, vowing, "The devil is not gonna win." German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller called Kirk “a martyr for Jesus Christ” who "gave his life in following his Lord," charging he was "the victim of an atheistic ideology whose followers erupted in Satanic celebration over (his) heinous murder." He "could have been the 13th disciple," or at least a contender. He was a "MAN OF STEEL" whose body, in an "ABSOLUTE MIRACLE," stopped a bullet from killing more people. He was "a martyr for truth and faith" and a "modern civil rights leader," which is why some Okie MAGA pols want to mandate a Charlie Kirk Memorial Plaza and statue at every public university.
Never mind the racist, tribal, divisive stands, the endless culture wars in the name of propping up white power structures, the weaponizing of Christian beliefs to marginalize those deemed "un-Christian." Almost 100,000 fans and followers of Kirk and Jesus streamed into State Farm Stadium in Glendale, AZ to celebrate their own white savior; noted Elon Musk, sweeping the fearsome scene, "All for Charlie Kirk." Some stood in line for hours in almost 100-degree heat, red, white and blue outfits wilting, trash piling up, sniper teams above them, merch on all sides: t-shirts reading "Freedom," "MAGA," "In Loving Memory," featuring Charlie with wings. One woman, who evidently didn't get the somber memo, wore a Wisconsin cheese hat with "R.I.P. Charlie."
Inside, a "major mega-church vibe" reigned. Christian country and rock singers performed; people prayed and swayed with them, hands in the air. Finally prepping for speeches, a florid Turning Point display geared up, all flaring fireworks and blinding lights. "The martyr dies, and his rule has just begun," intoned Kirk colleague Mike McCoy, quoting Kierkegaard, who viewed democracy as an inversion of God's voice. Then a shabby parade of regime flunkies, fascists and clowns, unable to understand an awful death does not redeem an awful life, launched into acclaim and harangues. As they went, their increasingly aggressive battle cries sought to placate Dear Leader - dozing behind bulletproof glass - and effectively wield "the sword against evil."
Rep. Anna Paulina Luna compared Kirk to George Washington, John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr., asking, "Will you live boldly as Charlie did? Will you rise to the challenge as Charlie did?...We are all Charlie Kirk now." Far-right activist Jack Posobiec clutched a rosary and pledged to "stand and fight" for Kirk’s memory: "A century from now," he said, "when they write of the two or three pivotal moments that led to the saving of Western civilization, they will write that the sacrifice of Charles James Kirk was the turning point." RFK Jr. compared Kirk, his "spiritual brother," with Jesus. YouTuber Benny Johnson called him "a martyr in the true Christian tradition." Ever-warrior-tipsy Pete Kegseth called him "a warrior for Christ" and "an American patriot."
Tucker Carlson, atypically moderate, again argued the murder shouldn't be used to "leverage" restrictions on free speech. Even though feds have yet to find any link between Tyler Robinson and the rest of us - "Thus far, there is no evidence connecting the suspect with any left-wing groups" - Ben Carson ignored that fact as completely as everyone else and described a Marxist plot to "push God out of society," "fundamentally change who we are" as Americans, and, landing on a favorite if bewildering MAGA obsession, infiltrate the public school system in order to "indoctrinate" young people into believing "sexual perversion is normal," though surely their fixation on who sleeps with whom is likewise pretty weird and far from normal, right?
Speaking of: Good Nazi Stephen Miller, as always, went "full devil mode," shrieking out a racist, rage-fueled, us-and-them diatribe in supposed defense of (white) "civilization": "Our lineage and our legacy hails back to Athens, to Rome, to Philadelphia, to Monticello. Our ancestors built the cities, they built the industry....They stand for what is good (to) save the West...To those trying to incite violence against us: You have nothing. You are nothing. You are wickedness. You are jealousy. You are envy. You are hatred." Whew. In contrast, Kirk's tearful widow Erika called Charlie's life "a miracle," praised their joint effort to "bring back Christian-led marriage," and said she forgave the shooter as Christ would, arguing, "The answer to hate is not hate."
Trump, very orange, was the final speaker; soon after he started droning on, 12 hours after some people had arrived, audience members began streaming out - even as he noted that Kirk could “always draw a crowd." He only managed to stay on topic a few minutes - Kirk’s "name will live forever in the eternal chronicle of America’s greatest patriots" - before veering off into self-serving delusion. He boasted his tariffs are "making us rich again" and he "stopped crime" in D.C., he claimed "one of the last things Charlie said to me is, 'Please, sir, save Chicago,' and we're going to do that," he urged MAGA to "Fight! fight! fight...The gun was pointed at (Kirk), but the bullet was aimed at all of us." And - "Sorry, Erika" - he vowed retribution.
Kirk, he noted, "did not hate his opponents, he wanted the best for them." Not him, though. "I hate my opponents," he bragged, all many millions of them, "and I don't want the best for them." En route, he mocked Joe Biden, now being treated for Stage 4 cancer, as "a mean son-of-a bitch." Kirk was "heinously murdered by a radicalized, cold-blooded monster." Some low-lifes, he claimed, reacted with "sick approval, excuses or even jubilation," in that they felt unable to mourn a life that did harm. In that, he sneered, "They are major losers." And now, rightly, the DOJ is brazenly, often brutally, going after "networks of radical left maniacs" among the less-than-human Democrat "scum." But for God's sake don't say anything mean about Charlie Kirk.
,
Sep 22, 2025
SEE ALL
News
'Dumbest People in History': Critics Shred Trump Energy Department Comments on Wind, Solar
Critics over the weekend heaped scorn on the US Department of Energy after it made demonstrably false claims about renewable energy.
In a post on X late last week, the Department of Energy (DOE) argued that "wind and solar energy infrastructure is essentially worthless when it is dark outside, and the wind is not blowing," even though batteries allow the storage of energy from both sources that can be used long after its initial generation.
The post drew immediate ridicule from social media users who expressed astonishment that the people running America's energy policy seem to be woefully ignorant about renewable energy storage.
"We are governed by some of the dumbest people in the history of this country, proudly, unashamedly, openly moronic and ignorant, and I am genuinely not sure how the US ever recovers from this," commented Zeteo editor-in-chief Medhi Hassan. "These people make George W. Bush and Sarah Palin look like savants."
The press office for California Gov. Gavin Newsom sarcastically tried to educate the president's team about how energy storage works.
"We're excited for the Trump administration to learn about BATTERIES (we have them here in California, and they've helped the Golden State shift to green, clean energy AND keep the lights on)," they wrote.
Alex Stapp, the cofounder of the Institute for Progress, also touted California's embrace of renewable energy, and he pointed out that batteries on a given day provide more than a quarter of all energy in the state at peak hours.
Fossil fuel industry watchdog Oil PAC Tracker argued that this kind of ignorant rhetoric about renewable energy was part of a pattern from US Energy Secretary Chris Wright, who is the former CEO of onshore oilfield services company Liberty Energy.
"Secretary Wright should be fired for lying to American people," they wrote. "He profits off this kind of misinformation because he is a fossil fuel executive. Killing clean energy deployment also hurts our economy, makes electricity expensive and increases our power sector emissions."
Meteorologist Matthew Cappucci also leveled the administration for pushing misinformation about renewable energy.
"The fact that such an obviously false and, frankly, asinine tweet was just issued by a federal government account is an insult to the American people," he argued. "Renewables could make up the majority of our energy in a multi-layered system with better energy storage if we actually tried."
The DOE's post came at a time when the Trump administration is shutting down wind and solar power projects across the country and when American's energy bills are rising due in part to increased demands being placed on the electric grid by artificial intelligence data centers.
A report released earlier this month by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis declared that Trump's energy agenda "will fail... unless the White House stops issuing stop-work orders for offshore wind."
The report further added that "renewable energy and dispatchable storage are the only option for adding significant amounts of new generation capacity to the US grid for at least the next five years," while also detailing that there are simply no short-term alternatives for rapidly building up capacity.
Susan Muller, a senior energy analyst, similarly took aim late last month at the administration's order to stop work on the Revolution Wind project off the coast of New England, which she argued would have provided fast relief to people in the region struggling to pay their utility bills.
"This stop-work order from the Trump administration is a lose-lose for pretty much everyone except fossil gas corporations," she said. "Stopping the project could not only cost thousands of jobs and ratepayers real money but have life or death consequences if we lose power in the middle of a cold snap. New England needs homegrown offshore wind energy to keep the lights on and our electricity affordable."
Sep 08, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Advocates Warn Against Ted Cruz's Industry-Friendly 'Sandbox' for AI
US Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz on Wednesday unveiled a legislative framework for artificial intelligence, including a bill to create a "regulatory sandbox," which the Texas Republican said is part of President Donald Trump's AI Action Plan.
The Strengthening Artificial intelligence Normalization and Diffusion By Oversight and eXperimentation (SANDBOX) Act "gives AI developers space to test and launch new AI technologies without being held back by outdated or inflexible federal rules," Cruz's office said in a statement.
While his office celebrated support for the bill from "notable organizations in the tech space like the Abundance Institute, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, and the Information Technology Council," the consumer watchdog group Public Citizen swiftly sounded the alarm over the industry-friendly proposal.
"Public safety should never be made optional, but that's exactly what the SANDBOX Act does," said Public Citizen Big Tech accountability advocate J.B. Branch. "Companies that build untested, unsafe AI tools could get hall passes from the very rules designed to protect the public. It guts basic consumer protections, lets companies skirt accountability, and treats Americans as test subjects."
"It's unconscionable to risk the American public's safety to enrich AI companies that are already collectively worth trillions."
"The mantra in Silicon Valley is 'move fast and break things,' and that's exactly what Big Tech will do with a green light to override the laws and regulations they don't want to follow," Branch warned. "AI corporate executives see the opportunity to deploy all sorts of unregulated and untested products that can threaten our children's safety, consumers' privacy, and American democracy."
"It's unconscionable to risk the American public's safety to enrich AI companies that are already collectively worth trillions," he added. "The sob stories of AI companies being 'held back' by regulation are simply not true, and the record company valuations show it. Lawmakers should stand with the public, not corporate lobbyists, and slam the brakes on this reckless proposal. Congress should focus on legislation that delivers real accountability, transparency, and consumer protection in the age of AI."
Brendan Steinhauser, CEO of the Alliance for Secure AI, was similarly critical of Cruz's legislation on Wednesday.
"Ideally, Big Tech companies and frontier labs would make safety a top priority and work to prevent harm to Americans. However, we have seen again and again that they have not done so. The SANDBOX Act removes much-needed oversight as Big Tech refuses to remain transparent with the public about the risks of advanced AI," he said. "This raises many questions about who can enter the so-called 'regulatory sandbox' and why. We hope that we will get answers to these questions in the coming days."
Passing the SANDBOX Act, plus streamlining AI infrastructure permitting and opening up federal datasets to AI model training, is just the first pillar of Cruz's five-part framework. Part two focuses on combating government censorship. The third section is about countering "burdensome" state and foreign AI regulations. Pillar four calls for protecting Americans from scams and fraud, as well as safeguarding US schoolchildren. The fifth prong is about bioethical considerations and AI-driven eugenics.
In the absence of federal regulation, states have acted on AI. As Reuters detailed Wednesday:
Several states have criminalized the use of AI to generate sexually explicit images of individuals without their consent. California prohibits unauthorized deepfakes in political advertising and requires healthcare providers to notify patients when they are interacting with an AI and not a human.
Colorado passed a law last year aimed at preventing AI discrimination in employment, housing, banking, and other consequential consumer decisions. The tech industry has lobbied for changes to the law, and the state legislature recently pushed forward its implementation to mid-2026.
In July, ahead of the introduction of Trump's plan, over 90 groups focused on consumer protection, economic and environmental justice, labor, and more collectively called for an AI blueprint that "delivers on public well-being, shared prosperity, a sustainable future, and security for all."
Branch, whose group is part of that coalition, said at the time that "AI is already harming workers, consumers, and communities—and instead of enforcing guardrails, this administration is gutting oversight."
He said the defeat earlier this summer of a Senate measure that would have prevented state-level regulation of AI for a decade sent a clear message from the public: "No more handouts for Trump's tech bro buddies."
"We need rules and accountability," Branch said, "not a Silicon Valley free-for-all."
Sep 10, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Trump-Starmer AI Deal Slammed for Putting 'Interests of US Tech Bros' Ahead of the Common Good
Critics of the artificial intelligence pact signed Thursday by US President Donald Trump and UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer warned that the deal sacrifices the climate, data privacy, creators' copyrights, and British sovereignty on the altar of Silicon Valley profits.
Speaking at Chequers—the Buckinghamshire country estate of UK prime ministers in Buckinghamshire—Trump said that "we're taking the next logical step with a historic agreement on science and technology partnerships, and this will create new government, academic, and private sector cooperation in areas such as AI, which is taking over the world."
Laughing, Trump turned to tech bosses gathered for the event and—singling out Jensen Huang, CEO of chip-maker Nvidia—said: "And I'm looking at you guys. You're taking over the world, Jensen. I don't know what you're doing here. I hope you're right."
Along with Huang—who heads the world's largest publicly traded company—the CEOs of Apple, and ChatGPT creator OpenAI joined Trump on his UK trip.
Starmer said the deal involves more than $200 billion in total US investments and will create 15,000 jobs over the next decade. The prime minister named US companies including Amazon, Blackstone, Boeing, Citigroup, and Microsoft, and UK firms like AstraZeneca, BP, GSK, and Rolls Royce as being part of the deal.
Other companies involved in the agreement include Google and its AI laboratory DeepMind, OpenAI, Oracle, Salesforce, and ScaleAI in the United States and AI Pathfinder, DataVita, NScale, and Sage in Britain.
DeSmog UK deputy director Sam Bright reported Thursday that the investment bank led by Warren Stephens, Trump's ambassador to London, owns hundreds of millions of dollars in shares of tech companies involved in the AI deal, including Google parent company Alphabet, Microsoft, and Nvidia.
Like Amazon, Google, Meta, and Nvidia, Stephens—who is a billionaire—made a seven-figure donation to Trump's inauguration fund.
Prominent critics of the agreement include former UK Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, who is also Meta's former president of global affairs. Speaking Wednesday at a Royal Television Society conference in Cambridge, Clegg said the deal leaves Britain with "sloppy seconds from Silicon Valley" and "is just another version of the United Kingdom holding on to Uncle Sam’s coattails."
Opposition to the tech deal was also widespread Wednesday at a central London protest against Trump's visit organized by the Stop Trump Coalition.
Nick Dearden, director of the campaign group Global Justice Now and a spokesperson for the Stop Trump Coalition, noted in an interview with Wired senior business editor Natasha Bernal that the details of the pact have not been made public.
"We have not seen the text of the deal. We don’t know what we have given away," Dearden said. "We know that some of the tech barons accompanying Trump want us to drop parts of our regulation, want us to drop the digital services tax, want us to make it easier for them to acquire and merge with each other to become even bigger monopolies, so we are worried about that.”
So Trump swept into the UK to be wined and dined by the King.Big Tech bosses came too, bearing pledges of huge UK investments (mostly for data centres).Our govt, desperate for good economic news, is boosting this as a win for the UK.But the *point* of US Big Tech is to monopolise the data.
[image or embed]
— Critical Takes on Corporate Power (@criticaltakes.bsky.social) September 18, 2025 at 5:14 AM
Gobal Justice Now trade campaigner Seema Syeda said in a statement:
This toxic technology pact that favors the interests of US tech bros and rich corporations over ordinary people must be opposed at all costs. It’s a democratic scandal that the public and Parliament have been left in the dark as to its contents to date, but what we do know should ring alarm bells. Instead of bending over backwards to appease Trump in an attempt to avoid his tariff bullying, it’s time for Starmer to show real leadership and stand up to him. We can’t let an egomaniac like Trump hold our rights and democracy hostage.
Clive Teague—who was at the London rally supporting Extinction Rebellion Waverley and Borders in Surrey—told Bernal that he does not oppose AI if it is powered by renewable energy.
"We can’t keep burning fossil fuels to keep feeding into these data centers, because it’ll swamp the requirements for the rest of the world," Teague said.
Global Justice Now also warned that the tech deal could expose National Health Service (NHS) patient data to exploitation, wweaken digital privacy protections, thwart regulation of AI, and limit the government's taxation options.
Also sounding the alarm on the US-UK AI deal are scores of creators and creative groups including Elton John, Paul McCartney, and the Writers' Guild of Great Britain, who decried what they say is the Starmer government's failure to adequately protect copyrighted works from unauthorized use by AI companies.
As the Prime Minister prepares to meet President Trump during the state visit, WGGB has joined over 70 of the UK’s leading creators + creative orgs in signing an open letter demanding the Government explains its failure to protect the rights of UK copyright holderswritersguild.org.uk/creators-ai/
[image or embed]
— Writers' Guild of Great Britain (@writersguildgb.bsky.social) September 16, 2025 at 2:44 AM
"Artificial intelligence companies have ingested millions of copyright works without permission or payment, in total disregard for the UK’s legal protections," they said in an open letter. "The first duty of any government is to protect its citizens—not to promote corporate interests, particularly where they are primarily based abroad."
Sep 18, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Texas Families Sue to Stop Display of Ten Commandments in Public Schools
The battle over Texas' Senate Bill 10 continued on Monday, with families in the state filing a federal lawsuit to block the display of a Protestant Christian version of the Ten Commandments in a "conspicuous place" in every public school classroom.
"This lawsuit, brought on behalf of a new group of Texas families, underscores a critical principle: Public schools across the state must uphold—not undermine—the constitutional protections afforded to every student," said Jon Youngwood, global co-chair of the litigation department at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, which represents the plaintiffs.
"As multiple courts have reaffirmed, the First Amendment safeguards the rights of individuals to choose whether and how they engage with religion, and that protection extends to every classroom," Youngwood continued.
The new complaint, filed in the Western District of Texas, explains that "last month, this district court ruled that SB 10 is 'plainly unconstitutional' and likely violates the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment... And in June, the US Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit held the same regarding a Louisiana statute similar to SB 10."
"Despite these precedents, the defendant school districts have pressed forward with actually posting SB 10 displays in classrooms, or have confirmed they will do so shortly—even after receiving a letter from plaintiffs' counsel," the filing explains.
"All students—regardless of their race or religious background—should feel accepted and free to be themselves in Texas public schools."
After US District Judge Fred Biery, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, issued a preliminary injunction against SB 10 last month, Republican Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton, who is running for US Senate, said that only the school districts involved in that case are affected and all others must abide by the law. Paxton also appealed the previous decision to the 5th Circuit.
With the latest filing, the families are seeking a declaratory judgment that SB 10 is unconstitutional. In both Texas cases, the plaintiffs are represented by not only Simpson Thacher but also Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the state and national ACLU, and the Freedom From Religion Foundation.
"This lawsuit is a continuation of our work to defend the First Amendment and ensure that government officials stay out of personal family decisions," said Chloe Kempf, staff attorney at the ACLU of Texas. "All students—regardless of their race or religious background—should feel accepted and free to be themselves in Texas public schools."
The families behind this latest filing have various beliefs. Nichole Manning, for example, called SB 10 "a calculated step to erode the separation of church and state and the right for my family to exercise our nonreligious beliefs."
Another plaintiff, Lenee Bien-Willner, said that "forcing religion, any religion, on others violates my Jewish faith."
"It troubles me greatly to have Christian displays imposed on my children," she said. "Not only is the text not aligned with Judaism, but the commandments should be taught in the context of a person's faith tradition. State-sponsored religion, however, does not belong in the public classroom."
Even some Christians are opposed to the Texas law. Plaintiff Rev. Kristin Klade said that "as a devout Christian and a Lutheran pastor, the spiritual formation of my children is a privilege I take more seriously than anything else in my life."
"The mandated Ten Commandments displays in my children's public school impede my ability to 'train up my child in the way he should go' (Proverbs 22:6)," she said. "I address questions about God and faith with great care, and I emphatically reject the notion that the state would do this for me."
Sep 22, 2025
SEE ALL
News
'It Is Genocide': Sanders Says Israel Is 'Openly Pursuing a Policy of Ethnic Cleansing' in Gaza
Joining numerous genocide and Holocaust experts, human rights groups in Israel and around the world, and a United Nations commission, Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday accused the Israeli government of engaging in a genocide against the Palestinian people.
In an editorial titled "It Is Genocide," the independent Vermont senator leveled his harshest criticism yet of the far-right Israeli government led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Picking up on the findings of a report from the United Nations’ (UN) commission of inquiry released on Tuesday, Sanders recounted the massive human suffering that Israel has inflicted on Gaza in the 23 months since Hamas launched a surprise attack that killed 1,200 Israelis.
"Out of a population of 2.2 million Palestinians in Gaza, Israel has now killed some 65,000 people and wounded roughly 164,000," he wrote. "The full toll is likely much higher, with many thousands of bodies buried under the rubble. A leaked classified Israeli military database indicates that 83% of those killed have been civilians. More than 18,000 children have been killed, including 12,000 aged 12 or younger."
The raw death toll doesn't capture the extent of Israel's genocidal actions, Sanders continued, and he pointed to the systematic destruction of infrastructure in Gaza that has made the exclave unlivable.
"Satellite imagery shows that the Israeli bombardment has destroyed 70% of all structures in Gaza," he said. "The UN estimates that 92% of housing units have been damaged or destroyed. At this very moment, Israel is demolishing what's left of Gaza City. Most hospitals have been destroyed, and almost 1,600 healthcare workers have been killed. Almost 90% of water and sanitation facilities are now inoperable."
Sanders went on to accuse Israel of "openly pursuing a policy of ethnic cleansing in Gaza and the West Bank" with the full support of the US government. He also noted the consistently dehumanizing rhetoric that high-level Israeli officials have used against Palestinians, including statements labeling them "animals," as well as a desire to erase "all of Gaza from the face of the earth."
In response to this genocide, Sanders said, "we must use every ounce of our leverage to demand an immediate ceasefire, a massive surge of humanitarian aid facilitated by the UN, and initial steps to provide Palestinians with a state of their own."
Pro-Palestinian activists have pushed Sanders for nearly two years to label Israel's actions a genocide. While he has consistently condemned the Israeli military's mass killings of Palestinian civilians, Wednesday marked the first time he described them as a genocide.
Twenty members of Congress have now described Israel's assault as a genocide, according to Prem Thakker of Zeteo. Rep. Becca Balint (D-Vt.) also said Wednesday that she believes "Israel is committing a genocide against the Palestinian people." She and Sanders are the first Jewish members of Congress to say so.
"I feel compelled to speak out," said Balint, "because I know there are so many others like me who are horrified by what they see."
Sep 17, 2025
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
Supreme Court to Weigh 90-Year-Old Precedent and Let Trump Fire FTC Commissioner
"Rest in peace to the presidency, and long live the king," quipped one attorney.
Sep 22, 2025
As US President Donald Trump faces mounting accusations of authoritarian conduct, the Supreme Court's right-wing majority on Monday empowered him to proceed with firing a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission and agreed to review a 90-year-old precedent that restricts executive power over independent agencies such as the FTC.
Trump in March fired the FTC's two Democratic commissioners, Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya, without cause. Slaughter fought back, and US District Judge Loren AliKhan allowed her to return to work while the case continued. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld that decision, but it was halted Monday by the nation's top court.
Monday's decision was unsigned, though the three liberals collectively dissented, led by Justice Elena Kagan. In addition to letting Trump move forward with ousting Slaughter, the majority agreed to reconsider the precedent established with Humphrey's Executor v. United States, a 1935 case that centered on whether the Federal Trade Commission Act unconstitutionally interfered with the executive power of the president.
In Humphrey's Executor, the high court found that Congress' removal protections for FTC members did not violate the separation of powers. Along with revisiting the precedent established by that landmark decision in December, the justices plan to weigh whether a federal court may prevent a person's removal from public office.
The court's stay allowing Trump to fire Slaughter was granted as part of the court's emergency process, or shadow docket. In a short but scathing dissent, Kagan noted that it is part of a recent trend: "Earlier this year, the same majority, by the same mechanism, permitted the president to fire without cause members of the National Labor Relations Board, the Merits Systems Protection Board, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission."
"I dissented from the majority's prior stay orders, and today do so again. Under existing law, what Congress said goes—as this court unanimously decided nearly a century ago," she wrote. In Humphrey's Executor, Kagan continued, "Congress, we held, may restrict the president's power to remove members of the FTC, as well as other agencies performing 'quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial' functions, without violating the Constitution."
"So the president cannot, as he concededly did here, fire an FTC commissioner without any reason. To reach a different result requires reversing the rule stated in Humphrey's: It entails overriding rather than accepting Congress' judgment about agency design," she argued. "The majority may be raring to take that action, as its grant of certiorari before judgment suggests. But until the deed is done, Humphrey's controls, and prevents the majority from giving the president the unlimited removal power Congress denied him."
More broadly, Kagan declared that "our emergency docket should never be used, as it has been this year, to permit what our own precedent bars. Still more, it should not be used, as it also has been, to transfer government authority from Congress to the president, and thus to reshape the nation's separation of powers."
Kagan, of course, is correct that the Supreme Court will soon overturn Humphrey's Executor and allow the president to fire leaders of any independent agency (other than the Fed—maybe?!). She's also right to bemoan the fact that SCOTUS effectively overruled Humphrey's on the shadow docket already.
— Mark Joseph Stern (@mjsdc.bsky.social) September 22, 2025 at 3:20 PM
Sandeep Vaheesan, legal director at the anti-monopoly think tank Open Markets Institute, slammed the court in a Monday statement.
"Today, in a one-paragraph order, the Supreme Court authorized President Trump's illegal firing of Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and his ongoing destruction of the independent, bipartisan Federal Trade Commission," Vaheesan said.
"As Justice Kagan wrote in her dissent, Commissioner Slaughter was fired without cause and is clearly entitled to her position under the FTC Act and controlling Supreme Court precedent," he added. "The court could override Congress' decision to create an independent FTC on specious constitutional grounds but until it takes that step Commissioner Slaughter has a right to her job.”
While the justices agreed to take Slaughter's case, they turned away petitions from two ousted Democratic appointees referenced by Kagan: Cathy Harris of the Merit Systems Protection Board and Gwynne Wilcox of the National Labor Relations Board. According to SCOTUSblog: "The court did not provide any explanation for its decision not to take up Harris' and Wilcox's cases at this time. They will continue to move forward in the lower courts."
The New York Times noted that "the justices are separately considering the Trump administration’s request to remove Lisa Cook as a Federal Reserve governor. The Supreme Court has yet to act, but has suggested that the central bank may be insulated from presidential meddling under the law."
However, as Law Dork's Chris Geidner highlighted on social media, the second question the justices will consider in the Slaughter case, regarding courts preventing removals from public office, "would have implications even for the 'Fed carveout' exception that the court suggested exists."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Warren Calls for Probe as Whistleblowers Accuse Trump Appointees of 'Systematically Destroying' Fair Housing Act
Warren says new whistleblower reports "show the extent of the Trump administration's attack on civil rights and show how the administration appears to be ignoring the law."
Sep 22, 2025
US Sen. Elizabeth Warren is calling for an investigation into the Department of Housing and Urban Development after several whistleblowers reported that Trump appointees have gutted enforcement of the decades-old law banning housing discrimination.
A New York Times report published Monday, quotes "half a dozen current and former employees of HUD’s fair housing office" who "said that the Trump political appointees had made it nearly impossible for them to do their jobs" enforcing the 1968 Fair Housing Act "which involve investigating and prosecuting landlords, real estate agents, lenders and others who discriminate based on race, religion, gender, family status or disability."
In a video posted to social media, Warren (D-Mass.) explained that “if you’re a mom protecting her kids from living with an abusive father or if you’re getting denied a mortgage because of the color of your skin, you have civil rights protection under US law. But the Trump administration has been systematically destroying these federal protections for renters and homeowners.”
According to the Times, when President Donald Trump's Department of Government Efficiency, formerly led by billionaire Elon Musk, launched its crusade to dismantle large parts of the federal government at the start of Trump's second term earlier this year, the Office of Fair Housing (OFH) had its staff cut by 65% through layoffs and reassignments, with the number of employees dropping from 31 to 11. Just six of the remaining staff now work on fair housing cases.
The number of discrimination charges pursued by the office has plummeted since Trump took office. In most years, it has 35. During Trump's second term, the office has pursued just four. Meanwhile, it's obtained just $200,000 total in legal settlements after previously obtaining anywhere from $4 million to $8 million per year.
Emails and memos obtained by the Times show a pattern of Trump appointees obstructing investigations:
In one email, a Trump appointee... described decades of housing discrimination cases as “artificial, arbitrary, and unnecessary.”
In another, a career supervisor in the department’s [OFH] objected to lawyers being reassigned to other offices; the supervisor was fired six days later for insubordination.
In a third, the office’s director of enforcement warned that Trump appointees were using gag orders and intimidation to block discrimination cases from moving forward. The urgent message was sent to a US senator, who is referring it to the department’s acting inspector general for investigation.
Several lawyers said they have been restricted from using past cases in enforcement and communicating with certain clients without approval from Trump's appointees.
A memo also reportedly went out to employees informing them that documents “contrary to administration policy” would be thrown out, and that “tenuous theories of discrimination” would no longer be pursued.
Among those supposedly "tenuous" cases have been ones involving appraisal bias—the practice of undervaluing homes owned by Black families—zoning restrictions blocking housing for Black and Latino families, and cases related to discrimination against people over gender or gender expression.
The administration has also abandoned cases related to the racist practice of "redlining"—the decades-old practice of denying mortgages to minorities and others in minority neighborhoods—with memos from Trump appointees calling the concept "legally unsound."
The changes follow a sweeping set of executive orders from Trump during his first week in office, targeting "diversity equity, and inclusion" (DEI) programs. Employees at the Office of Fair Housing told the Times that Trump appointees had begun to describe much of the department's work as "an offshoot of DEI."
A HUD spokesperson, Kasey Lovett, told the Times that it was "patently false" to suggest that the administration was trying to weaken the Fair Housing Act. She pointed out that HUD was still handling approximately 4,100 cases this year, on par with the previous year. As the Times notes, "Lovett did not address, however, how many of the cases had been investigated or had resulted in legal action."
According to the Times:
Hundreds of pending fair housing cases were frozen, and some settlements revoked, even when accusations of discrimination had been substantiated, according to the interviews and the internal communications.
In one instance, a large homeowner’s association in Texas was found to have banned the use of housing vouchers by Black residents. That case had been referred to the Justice Department, but the referral was abruptly withdrawn by the new Trump appointees.
Four current staff members have provided the trove of documents to Warren, who announced Monday that she'd sent a request to Brian Harrison, HUD’s acting inspector general, to open an investigation into its handling of discrimination cases.
Warren said that the documents "show the extent of the Trump administration's attack on civil rights and show how the administration appears to be ignoring the law."
In a press release from the Democrats on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, Warren, the ranking member, highlighted the particularly devastating impact staffing cuts have had on the enforcement of complaints under the Violence Against Women Act, which the Times says only two of the six lawyers remaining at HUD have experience with.
According to Warren, whistleblowers said the cuts were "placing survivors in greater danger of suffering additional trauma, physical violence, and even death."
Warren said that as a result of the hundreds of dropped cases, "Now people are asking, 'well, why would I file a case at all if nothing's going to happen?'"
Calling for an independent investigation, Warren said, "We wrote these laws to make this a fairer America, and now it's time to enforce those laws."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jimmy Kimmel Returning to ABC After Grassroots Campaign Decrying His Suspension
"We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday," said Disney.
Sep 22, 2025
Late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel will be back on the air this week after his suspension last week raised alarms about the Trump administration using the power of the federal government to silence critics.
ABC parent company Disney announced in a Monday statement that Kimmel, a little more than a week after he was suspended following a pressure campaign from Trump-appointed Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Chairman Brendan Carr.
"Last Wednesday, we made the decision to suspend production on the show to avoid further inflaming a tense situation at an emotional moment for our country," Disney explained. "It is a decision we made because we felt some of the comments were ill-timed and thus insensitive. We have spent the last days having thoughtful conversations with Jimmy, and after those conversations, we reached the decision to return the show on Tuesday."
Kimmel was suspended last Wednesday over remarks he'd made two days earlier about slain right-wing activist Charlie Kirk. In his opening monologue, Kimmel accused US President Donald Trump and his allies of trying “to score political points," while also suggesting that Kirk's alleged killer, Tyler Robinson, could belong to the far right.
Following the monologue, Carr appeared on a right-wing podcast and said that ABC stations could have their licenses revoked unless they stopped showing Kimmel.
“There’s actions we can take on licensed broadcasters,” Carr said. “And frankly, I think that it’s sort of really past time that a lot of these licensed broadcasters themselves push back on Comcast and Disney and say... we are not going to run Kimmel anymore until you straighten this out because we licensed broadcasters are running the possibility of fines or license revocation from the FCC if we continue to run content that ends up being a pattern of these distortions.”
The decision to suspend Kimmel after threats from a Trump official sparked protests against Disney, and several prominent artists on Monday signed a letter organized by the ACLU that slammed the company for apparently caving to government demands for censorship.
"Jimmy Kimmel was taken off the air after our government threatened a private company with retaliation for Kimmel’s remarks. This is a dark moment for freedom of speech in our nation,” the letter stated. “This is unconstitutional and un-American. The government is threatening private companies and individuals that the president disagrees with. We can’t let this threat to our freedom of speech go unanswered.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire