5
#000000
#FFFFFF
LIVE COVERAGE
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Further
Gobsmacking Fabulists 'R Us
For the anniversary of the Jan. 6 riot that almost toppled democracy (more quickly than now), the hacks and crackpots in power have concocted a deranged revisionist history of such "evil," "pathological," "Stalin-level propaganda" it's somehow dragged us even further through the looking glass. In its telling, "orderly patriots" marched to the Capitol, Democrats who "masterfully reversed reality" "staged the real rebellion," and Trump "triumphed over tyranny." Up is down. What the fuck. Orwell lives.
A few days ago, Robert Reich described the Jan. 6 insurrection as "the most shameful day in American history." He later wisely upped the ante to draw a direct line from that crime to all the rest, including his capture of Maduro, arguing they're all based on the same disturbing premise: "The hubris of omnipotence." Many have made the same connection, calling Jan. 6 a stark "fork in the road" whose moral implications - supremacy of political loyalty over the rule of law - poisoned all that followed. It became "the moment we lost the plot," "a riot that never ended," not "the final, violent death spasms of the cult of Trump" as many thought but "the dawn of Trump’s total liberation." Today, amidst all the gaslighting, denial, lies, the ongoing, well-fed hubris, we pay the price.
A few weeks ago, former special counsel Jack Smith appeared before the House Judiciary Committee, testifying that his team had "proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power." We all know Trump should be behind bars. Tragically, he isn't, because he inexplicably weaseled his way into getting elected, a complicit, lawless SCOTUS gave him an unconscionable lifeline, Merrick Garland was a dud, Biden got old, and Smith was forced to drop the case. Since then, Trump has blasted ahead with his revenge tour, his toadies have gutted the DOJ, the far-right, fueled by Charlie Kirk's death, has soared, and truth has lost at every mournful turn.
And so to Trump's "day of love” as framed by a demented J6 website, widely deemed "disgusting lies," "an absolute disgrace," and "a despicable, shameful distortion of reality by a lawless, rogue White House." With a stark black and white banner portraying a supposed gallery of villains composed of - surprise! - Democrats, along with traitorous Cheney and Kinzinger, it opens with the florid claim, "President Trump took decisive action to pardon January 6 defendants who were unfairly targeted, overcharged, and used as political examples... They were punished to cover incompetence." It boasts Trump, on his first day in office, pardoned nearly 1,600 "patriotic Americans...treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ" for "exercising their First Amendment rights."
Blasting Nancy Pelosi for creating "a scripted TV spectacle to fabricate an 'insurrection' narrative and pin blame on President Trump" and flaunting contextless quotes - "We have totally failed" - it claims Pelosi "repeatedly" acknowledged responsibility for “catastrophic security failures" after refusing Trump's gracious offer of 10,000 National Guard troops for protection (not, all of it). Thus did wily Dems reverse reality: "In truth it was the Democrats who staged the real insurrection by certifying a fraud-ridden election, ignoring widespread irregularities, and weaponizing federal agencies to hunt down dissenters. This gaslighting narrative allowed them to persecute innocent Americans, silence opposition, and distract from their own role in undermining democracy.”
Then, a timeline of fictional events: Trump "invites patriotic Americans" to DC for "a peaceful and historic protest against certifying the stolen 2020 election." He "speaks to hundreds of thousands of supporters." The crowd "responds with massive enthusiasm." The march "is orderly and spirited." Capitol Police "fire tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions, deliberately escalating tensions." The "stolen election is certified" despite "hidden suitcases of ballots," also "exploding water pipes"? Trump is "silenced," "weaponized prosecutions," "FBI entrapment," "fabricated indictments," "rigged show trials," "Trump prevails despite relentless Deep State efforts to imprison, bankrupt, and assassinate him," and of course "God’s unmistakable grace." Whew.
The triumphant finale: Trump "corrected a historic wrong - freeing Americans who were unjustly punished in one of the darkest wrongs in modern American history" - reportedly, when faced with the task, saying fuck it and giving all 1,600, even the most vile, a free ride 'cause he was too lazy to go through each case. He pardoned "patriotic citizens viciously overcharged, denied due process and held as political hostages by a vengeful regime." Those victims of "merciless persecution (for) the simple act of peacefully walking through the Capitol" were "finally freed from years of cruel imprisonment" as he "ended the nightmare of weaponized justice and delivered long-overdue vindication to those betrayed by those leaders sworn to protect them."
Speaking of: Since then, Republicans have spinelessly toed the line. To date, unholy Mike Johnson's even refused to install a legally mandated plaque at the US Capitol honoring the brave and still damaged souls in law enforcement who tried to stop the mayhem; challenged, he argues the plaque is "not implementable" as written, and that alternatives offered by Democrats "do not comply with the statute." On Tuesday's anniversary, dozens of Dem lawmakers held a forum to recount their experiences of the traumatic event and honor those who fought to protect them and uphold the law; they gathered in the basement where many had hidden that day after the Speaker's office declined their requests for a hearing room or larger auditorium upstairs.
History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce. Also on Tuesday, a twisted, ragtag "family reunion" of several dozen rioters came to D.C. to march again, ostensibly to commemorate Ashli Babbitt, who was killed as she tried to breach the Capitol; the administration paid $5 million to settle a wrongful death lawsuit with her family. The pardoned rioters, many of whom are similarly seeking millions in damages, marched draped in MAGA gear. "This is about redemption," said one. "This is the life force of MAGA." Some tangled with a handful of counter-protesters - "Eat Shit Donald Trump" - and a small fight began when one thug tried to seize the bullhorn from a protester’s hands. She was handcuffed by the police. Color us shocked.
Since Trump's sweeping pardons, even of the worst of the worst, at least 33 rioters have been re-arrested for other crimes. The charges include plotting the murder of FBI agents who investigated Jan. 6 cases, and violent assault - punched a woman in the throat, stomped on a man’s chest at a bar. Three have been arrested for rape, and six have been charged with child-sex crimes, including child rape and child pornography, because only the best. After a five-year manhunt, the DOJ also just indicted the guy accused of planting pipe bombs outside DNC and RNC headquarters the night before Jan. 6, 2021; he's detained pending trial, but oops - it turns out the stable genius may have already pardoned him.
Others pop up in a sordid "Where Are They Now" round-up. Former Proud Boys leader and self-proclaimed “Western chauvinist" Enrique Tarrio, who formed a militia-like Ministry of Self-Defense unit,” got a 22-year-sentence, with terrorism charges included, before being pardoned. He joined Tuesday's march; before that, he was last seen getting charged with another assault, but feds declined to prosecute him. Jan. 6 shaman Jacob Chansley last made the news when he filed an unhinged $40 trillion lawsuit against Trump, declaring himself "the first legal President of the New Constitutional Republic of the United States." In that capacity, he ordered the printing of a $40 trillion coin, and gave himself $1 trillion "for my years worth of pain and suffering."
Of other Jan. 6 heroes, one was arrested on a felony charge after his off-leash dogs viciously attacked multiple people, sending four to the hospital. One was arrested for driving a van loaded with weapons near Barack Obama's home; he also livestreamed threats against Jamie Raskin, threatened to blow up a federal building, and was convicted on a weapons and hoax bomb threat charge. One was arrested for making a “terroristic threat" against Rep. Hakeem Jeffries. One, Jared Wise - "Kill ‘em! Kill ‘em!” - works at the DOJ under Ed Martin, who represented Jan. 6 defendants. And one, the Instigator-In-Chief, just overthrew the president of Venezuela in violation of the U.N. Charter and international law, among many other crimes. He has yet to serve any time; somehow, horrifyingly, he is still babbling in public.
Despite the attempts at revisionist history, "Americans remember that day for a simple reason – we watched it happen." - Gregory Rosen, former DOJ prosecutor of Jan. 6 defendants.
Jan 07, 2026
SEE ALL
News
'A Wake-Up Call': Scientists Find 2025 Among Hottest Years on Record
Climate change driven by human burning of fossil fuels helped make 2025 one of the hottest years ever recorded, a scientific report published Monday affirmed, prompting renewed calls for urgent action to combat the worsening planetary emergency.
Researchers at World Weather Attribution (WWA) found that "although 2025 was slightly cooler than 2024 globally, it was still far hotter than almost any other year on record," with only two other recent years recording a higher average worldwide temperature.
For the first time, the three-year running average will end the year above the 1.5°C warming goal, relative to preindustrial levels, established a decade ago under the landmark Paris climate agreement.
"Global temperatures remained very high and significant harm from human-induced climate change is very real," the report continues. "It is not a future threat, but a present-day reality."
"Across the 22 extreme events we analyzed in depth, heatwaves, floods, storms, droughts, and wildfires claimed lives, destroyed communities, and wiped out crops," the researchers wrote. "Together, these events paint a stark picture of the escalating risks we face in a warming world."
The WWA researchers' findings tracked with the findings of United Nations experts and others that 2025 would be the third-hottest year on record.
According to the WWA study:
This year highlighted again, in stark terms, how unfairly the consequences of human-induced climate change are distributed, consistently hitting those who are already marginalized within their societies the hardest. But the inequity goes deeper: The scientific evidence base itself is uneven. Many of our studies in 2025 focused on heavy rainfall events in the Global South, and time and again we found that gaps in observational data and the reliance on climate models developed primarily for the Global North prevented us from drawing confident conclusions. This unequal foundation in climate science mirrors the broader injustices of the climate crisis.
The events of 2025 make it clear that while we urgently need to transition away from fossil fuels, we also must invest in adaptation measures. Many deaths and other impacts could be prevented with timely action. But events like Hurricane Melissa highlight the limits of preparedness and adaptation: When an intense storm strikes small islands such as Jamaica and other Caribbean nations, even relatively high levels of preparedness cannot prevent extreme losses and damage. This underscores that adaptation alone is not enough; rapid emission reductions remain essential to avoid the worst impacts of climate change.
“If we don’t stop burning fossil fuels very, very, quickly, very soon, it will be very hard to keep that goal” of 1.5°C, WWA co-founder Friederike Otto—who is also an Imperial College London climate scientist—told the Associated Press. “The science is increasingly clear.”
The WWA study's publication comes a month after this year's United Nations Climate Change Conference—or COP30—ended in Brazil with little meaningful progress toward a transition from fossil fuels.
Responding to the new study, Climate Action Campaign director Margie Alt said in a statement that "2025 was full of stark reminders of the urgent need to cut climate pollution, invest in clean energy, and tackle the climate crisis now."
"Today’s report is a wake-up call," Alt continued. "Unfortunately, [US President Donald] Trump and Republicans controlling Congress spent the past year making climate denial official US policy and undermining progress to stave off the worst of the climate crisis. Their reckless polluters-first agenda rolled back critical climate protections and attacked and undermined the very agencies responsible for helping Americans prepare for and recover from increasingly dangerous disasters."
"Across the country, people are standing up and demanding their leaders do better to protect our families from climate change and extreme weather," Alt added. "It's time those in power started listening.”
Dec 30, 2025
SEE ALL
News
Tax the Rich, Say Mamdani, Sanders, and NYC Inauguration Crowd
"Tax the rich. Tax the rich. Tax the rich."
The chants broke out at City Hall in New York on Thursday as US Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) addressed the crowd before swearing in Mayor Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who campaigned on a platform that prioritized NYC's working class.
"Demanding that the wealthy and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes is not radical. It is exactly the right thing to do," declared Sanders—who endorsed Mamdani even before his June primary victory over former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo and "the billionaire-backed status quo."
The 34-year-old mayor on Thursday described Brooklyn-born Sanders—50 years his senior—as "the man whose leadership I seek most to emulate, who I am so grateful to be sworn in by today."
During the afternoon inauguration ceremony—which followed an early morning swearing-in at the abandoned subway station beneath City Hall—Mamdani also called for taxing the rich as he reiterated the agenda that secured him over 1.1 million votes in November.
"Beginning today, we will govern expansively and audaciously. We may not always succeed, but never will we be accused of lacking the courage to try," he said. "To those who insist that the era of big government is over, hear me when I say this: No longer will City Hall hesitate to use its power to improve New Yorkers' lives."
"Here, where the language of the New Deal was born, we will return the vast resources of this city to the workers who call it home," Mamdani vowed. "Not only will we make it possible for every New Yorker to afford a life they love once again, we will overcome the isolation that too many feel, and connect the people of this city to one another."
The mayor said that "the cost of childcare will no longer discourage young adults from starting a family, because we will deliver universal childcare for the many by taxing the wealthiest few. Those in rent-stabilized homes will no longer dread the latest rent hike, because we will freeze the rent."
"Getting on a bus without worrying about a fare hike or whether you'll be late to your destination will no longer be deemed a small miracle, because we will make buses fast and free," he continued. "These policies are not simply about the costs we make free, but the lives we fill with freedom. For too long in our city, freedom has belonged only to those who can afford to buy it. Our City Hall will change that."
The ceremony also featured remarks from another early Mamdani supporter, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), as well as the swearing-in of Jumaane Williams for a third term as New York City's public advocate and Mark Levine, the new comptroller.
"New York, we have chosen courage over fear," said Ocasio-Cortez, whose district spans the Bronx and Queens. "We have chosen prosperity for the many over spoils for the few. And when the entrenched ways would rather have us dig in our feet and seek refuge in the past, we have chosen instead to turn towards making a new future for all of us."
AOC: New York City has chosen the ambitious pursuit of universal childcare, affordable rents and housing and clean and dignified public transit for all. We have chosen that over the distractions of bigotry and the barbarism of extreme income inequality
[image or embed]
— Acyn (@acyn.bsky.social) January 1, 2026 at 1:47 PM
As NYC kicked off the new year with progressive city leadership, 2025 findings from the Bloomberg Billionaire Index sparked fresh wealth tax demands. According to the tracker, the world's 500 richest people added a record $2.2 trillion to their collective fortunes last year. About a quarter of that went to just eight Big Tech billionaires: Jeff Bezos, Sergey Brin, Michael Dell, Larry Ellison, Jensen Huang, Elon Musk, Larry Page, and Mark Zuckerberg.
In New York, Mamdani has proposed raising the state corporate tax rate from 8.85% to 11.5% and hiking taxes for individuals who make more than $1 million a year. Achieving those goals would require cooperation from state legislators.
Mamdani acknowledged Thursday that for much of history, the response from City Hall to the question of who New York belongs to has been, "It belongs only to the wealthy and well-connected, those who never strain to capture the attention of those in power."
In the years ahead, he pledged, "City Hall will deliver an agenda of safety, affordability, and abundance, where government looks and lives like the people it represents, never flinches in the fight against corporate greed, and refuses to cower before challenges that others have deemed too complicated."
"Together, we will tell a new story of our city," the mayor said. "This will not be a tale of one city, governed only by the 1%. Nor will it be a tale of two cities, the rich versus the poor. It will be a tale of 8.5 million cities, each of them a New Yorker with hopes and fears, each a universe, each of them woven together."
Jan 01, 2026
SEE ALL
News
Progressives Rip 'Spineless' Dem Leaders for 'Empty' Response to Trump's Venezuela Attack
As Donald Trump blows by Barack Obama's record for most countries bombed by a US president, progressive observers are fuming over Democratic leadership's inaction in response to the abduction of Venezuela's president and other illegal acts of war.
Congressional Democrats' reaction to Trump's brazen bombing and invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro—who faces dubious narco-terrorism charges in the US—ranged from open praise by members of the party's conservative wing like Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.) and Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), to fierce condemnation by Congressional Progressive Caucus Deputy Chair Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and other anti-war leftists including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
However, numerous observers have noted that, as Chris Lehmann wrote Tuesday for the Nation, senior Democrats including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, both of New York, "are doing what they do best on Venezuela: Nothing."
Trump "staged an illegal coup," Lehmann argued. "Chuck Schumer's response? Empty words and meaningless parliamentary maneuvers."
Schumer did co-sponsor a war powers resolution aimed at blocking Trump from using military force in or against Venezuela. However, like nearly every other resolution ever introduced in a bid to force presidential compliance with the 1973 War Powers Act, it failed to muster enough votes to pass. Trump has now ordered attacks on 10 countries, compared with seven bombed under Obama and at least six under his predecessor, George W. Bush.
"The central complaint from Democratic leaders has been that the Trump White House didn’t properly consult Congress in advance of its crime spree. And even that grievance rings hollow," Lehmann said. "Thus far, Democrats have shown no inclination to pursue an impeachment resolution against the president—the clear constitutional remedy for such abuses—even as a growing chorus of lawmakers are calling for it, together with leaders of the party’s activist base."
"Sadly," he continued, "the party’s inert approach to illegitimate acts of war well predates Trump’s Venezuela rampage; leading Democrats sat on their hands while their own president backed a genocidal war in Gaza—a lockstep posture of complicity so deeply ingrained that the Democratic National Committee refused to let any Palestinian speaker take the stage at the party’s 2024 convention."
"Democrats likewise enthusiastically hailed Barack Obama’s raid in Pakistan to kidnap and execute Osama bin Laden with little thought that it would serve as a precedent for later imperial errands like Maduro’s ouster," Lehmann added.
Truthdig contributor Conor Lynch on Monday noted the stark contrast between the Democratic Party's left wing and its leadership in response to Trump's aggression, highlighting a warning from Graham Platner, a military veteran and progressive US Senate candidate from Maine, about politicians “on both sides of the aisle trying to convince us all that somehow this was justified.”
Lynch wrote that "more than two decades and countless deaths later, the party that led the US into disastrous quagmires in the Middle East is intent on leading the country into yet another war."
While there are more anti-war Democratic voices in Congress than there have been since the Vietnam War era, many senior Democrats in both chambers have a history of approving wars. Every current Democratic lawmaker who was in office in 2001 voted to authorize the so-called War on Terror, while Schumer, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), and several House Democrats still in office assented the following year to the disastrous invasion and occupation of Iraq.
"Most Democrats supported the invasion of Iraq," Lynch continued. "This was partly due to the initial public support for the war and the George W. Bush administration’s fabricated intelligence about [former Iraqi President] Saddam Hussein’s 'weapons of mass destruction' (much like the Trump administration’s fabricated claims about the Venezuelan government’s support for 'narco-terrorism')."
"Today there is no excuse for Democrats to stand by as another Republican president—this one historically unpopular—launches an illegal invasion in our own backyard," Lynch asserted. "Indeed, it is not only morally correct but politically smart to oppose the illegal attack on Venezuela, as there is little appetite for another regime change crusade among the American public."
"If there was ever a time for Democrats to grow a spine, it’s now," Lynch added. He pointed to Rep. Ro Khanna's (Calif.) declaration on Saturday that "if you cannot oppose this regime change war for oil, you don’t have the moral clarity or guts to lead our party or nation.'"
Progressive Democrats of America (PDA) issued a similar call Sunday, urging members of Congress "to reject the shameful bipartisan complicity in this campaign of escalating aggression, and to replace it with a sound, sensible foreign policy grounded in diplomacy, human rights, and the self‑determination of all people, including the Venezuelan people."
"This is not foreign policy," PDA said of Trump's aggression. "This is militarized authoritarianism. We must act to stop it now, before it spreads to inflame the entire region, if not the entire globe in a dangerous, unnecessary conflict. We are outraged, but this moment demands more than outrage. It demands organized, coordinated resistance."
Jan 07, 2026
SEE ALL
News
‘To Be Clear,’ Contrary to Vance’s Claims, ICE Agents Do Not Have ‘Absolute Immunity,’ Say Legal Experts
When Vice President JD Vance told reporters at a press briefing Thursday that Jonathan Ross, the federal immigration agent who was filmed fatally shooting Renee Good in Minneapolis, has "absolute immunity," he was not referring to any recognized statute in United States law, according to legal experts.
Instead, said Human Rights Campaign press secretary Brandon Wolf, "masked federal agents who can gun people down with 'absolute immunity' is called fascism."
Vance addressed reporters at the White House the day after Good was fatally shot at close range while serving as a legal observer of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) surge of federal agents in Minneapolis, where the Trump administration is targeting members of the Somali community in particular.
Widely available footage taken by onlookers shows ICE agents including Ross approaching the car and, according to at least one witness, giving her conflicting instructions, with one ordering her to leave the area and another telling her to get out of the car. The wheel of Good's car was seen turning as she began to drive away, just before Ross fired his weapon at least three times.
President Donald Trump, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and Vance immediately blamed Good for her death, saying she had committed an act of domestic terrorism and had tried to run Ross over with her car.
Vance doubled down on Thursday when a reporter asked him why state officials in Minnesota were being cut off from investigating Good's death—a fact that has left the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which had been planning to launch a probe, with few tools to bring a case to prosecutors.
The vice president said Minnesota prosecutors should instead investigate people who "are using their vehicles and other means" to interfere with ICE's operations before claiming that Ross is protected from being held accountable for his actions.
"That guy's protected by absolute immunity," said Vance. "He was doing his job. The idea that [Minnesota Gov.] Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals in Minneapolis are going to go after him and make this guy's life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous."
Vance: He is protected by absolute immunity. He was doing his job. The idea that Tim Walz and a bunch of radicals are going to go after him and make his life miserable because he was doing the job that he was asked to do is preposterous. pic.twitter.com/AfwpFvhLsC
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 8, 2026
Robert Bennett, a veteran lawyer in Minneapolis, told Mother Jones that he has worked on hundreds of cases regarding federal law enforcement misconduct.
"I’ve deposed thousands of police officers,” he said. “ICE agents do not have absolute immunity.”
He continued:
There’s plenty of case law that allows for the prosecution of federal law enforcement agencies, including ICE. And it’s clear under the law that a federal officer who shoots somebody in Minnesota and kills them is subject to a Minnesota investigation and Minnesota law.
Mary Moriarty, the Hennepin County attorney, whose jurisdiction includes Minneapolis, appeared incredulous Friday when asked about Vance's claim.
"I can't speak to why the Trump administration is doing what it's doing or says what it says," she told a reporter before adding unequivocally, "the ICE officer does not have complete immunity here."
Q: Is this ICE officer immune to charges?
HENNEPIN COUNTY ATTORNEY MORIARTY: I can't speak to why the Trump administration says what it says. I can say the ICE officer does not have complete immunity here. pic.twitter.com/N2ThNOun6w
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 9, 2026
Constitutional law expert Michael J.Z. Mannheimer of Northern Kentucky University told CNN that more than a century of legal precedent has shown that state prosecutors can file charges against federal officials for actions they take while completing their official duties.
“The idea that a federal agent has absolute immunity for crimes they commit on the job is absolutely ridiculous,” Mannheimer said.
Should the state take up the case, Ross could attempt to raise an immunity argument if he were able to move the case to a federal court, where a judge would then conduct a two-part analysis—determining whether Ross was acting in his official capacity and whether his action was "reasonable" considering all the facts on the ground, gathered from video evidence and eyewitness testimony.
While holding Ross accountable may be an uphill battle, former federal prosecutor Timothy Sini told CNN, "officers are not entitled to absolute immunity as a matter of law," contrary to Vance's claim.
Gun control advocate David Hogg called the vice president's comments "insanely dangerous."
"Just so you all understand what our vice tyrant is saying here this means ICE is allowed to shoot and kill Americans with ZERO consequences," said Hogg. "It’s important to note that absolute immunity is something that basically no cop gets. It goes even beyond qualified immunity."
Police officers are typically shielded from liability for civil damages by qualified immunity, provided they can prove their actions did not violate "clearly established" constitutional rights. "Absolute immunity" is typically applied to judges, prosecutors, and legislators who are acting within their official duties.
On Friday, US Reps. Dan Goldman (D-NY) and Eric Swalwell (D-Calif.) announced they would introduce a bill aimed at stripping ICE officers of qualified immunity.
Goldman noted that under current law, it would be difficult to prosecute an ICE agent because the legal standard "allows for the officer’s own view to carry a lot of weight.”
"So what this bill does is only for civil enforcement officers—not criminal enforcement officers who are dealing with real bad guys, not moms driving cars—it would say that it’s an objective test,” he said on a podcast by the New Republic. “And if you are acting completely outside of your duties and responsibilities, you don’t have immunity from a civil lawsuit, and you don’t have a defense from a criminal charge.”
Goldman added that the bill would make clear that ICE agents' "only authority is to investigate and civilly arrest immigrants for immigration violations."
“And so they should have never been in the situation they were in, where they were trying to take a woman out of a car," he said. "That was not part of what they should be doing. They could ask her to move if they needed to. It doesn’t look like from the video that she was doing anything that was obstructing them.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who has expressed outrage over Good's killing and demanded that ICE leave the city immediately, called Vance's claims about absolute immunity "pretty bizarre" and "extremely concerning" in comments to reporters on Friday, and called on the press to "get to a point where we're not trusting everything that [administration officials] are saying."
"That's not true in any law school in America, whether it's Yale or Villanova or anywhere else," said Frey. "That's not true. If you break the law, if you do things that are outside the outside the area of what your job responsibilities require, and this clearly seems to be at the very least, at the very least, this is gray... This is a problem and it should be investigated."
Frey: I think he also asserted that because you work at the federal government that you somehow have absolute immunity from committing crimes. That's not true in any law school in America, whether it's Yale or Villanova or anywhere else. That's not true pic.twitter.com/kqEwYdeVMI
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026
Vance's comments, said political scientist Norman Ornstein, made clear that "we are in a police state."
"The notion expressed by Trump, Vance and Noem that there is absolute immunity for a cold blooded murder if it’s carried out by one of their agents is the final straw," he said. "If we do not turn this around, we are done for as a free society and a decent country."
Jan 09, 2026
SEE ALL
News
GOP Senators Break Ranks With Trump to Help Advance Venezuela War Powers Resolution
Amid President Donald Trump's admission that his intervention in Venezuela could last years, US senators voted Thursday to advance legislation aimed at blocking the president's use of military forces against the oil-rich South American nation.
Senators voted 52-47 to advance a war powers resolution introduced last month by Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Rand Paul (R-Ky.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) "to block the use of the US armed forces to engage in hostilities within or against Venezuela unless authorized by Congress" as required by the 1973 War Powers Act.
The Senate will now continue debating the measure, which, if passed by both the upper chamber and the House of Representatives, would be subject to a likely veto by Trump—who has sunk two previous war powers resolutions unrelated to Venezuela.
In addition to Paul, four other GOP senators voted to advance the resolution: Susan Collins of Maine, Josh Hawley of Missouri, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Todd Young of Indiana. While lawmakers often assent during the procedural phase, only to cast ballots against legislation during final votes, at least one of the GOP senators signaled they will vote the same as they did Thursday.
"While I support the operation to seize [Venezuelan President] Nicolás Maduro, which was extraordinary in its precision and complexity, I do not support committing additional US forces or entering into any long-term military involvement in Venezuela or Greenland without specific congressional authorization," Collins said in a statement, referring to Trump's threats to acquire the Danish territory by force if he deems it necessary. Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) this week introduced a bill that would ban the president from any such action.
"I believe invoking the War Powers Act at this moment is necessary, given the president’s comments about the possibility of ‘boots on the ground’ and a sustained engagement ‘running’ Venezuela, with which I do not agree," added Collins, who is facing a serious challenge for her Senate seat from candidates including former Maine Gov. Janet Mills and progressive Graham Platner, both Democrats who oppose US military action in Venezuela.
At the time of bipartisan war powers resolution's introduction last month, Trump had not yet attacked Venezuelan territory, although he had threatened to do so, deployed warships and thousands of US troops to the region, authorized covert CIA action to topple Maduro, and ordered the bombing of boats the administration claimed—without evidence—were smuggling drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.
However, Trump dramatically escalated US intervention in Venezuela, first with a December drone strike on a port facility and then by bombing and invading the country and abducting Maduro and his wife.
Asked during a Wednesday interview with the New York Times whether the US intervention in Venezuela would last a year, or longer, Trump replied, "I would say much longer," explaining that "we will rebuild" the country "in a very profitable way," including by "taking oil" from it.
The specter of yet another US "forever war" like the ongoing open-ended War on Terror that's left nearly 1 million people dead in at least seven countries since 2001 has prompted the introduction of several congressional war powers resolutions. So far, none have passed.
“If there was ever a moment for the Senate to find its voice, it is now," Schumer said on the Senate floor ahead of Thursday's vote. "Today, the Senate must assert the authority given to it on matters of war and peace. We must send Donald Trump a clear message on behalf of the American people: No more endless wars. Donald Trump’s ready for an endless war in Venezuela, and lord knows where else. The American people are not.”
Kaine made it clear during his pre-vote Senate floor remarks that the resolution does not challenge the "execution of a valid arrest warrant against Nicolás Maduro," which—despite experts concurring that the invasion and abduction were illegal—he called "good for America and good for Venezuela."
However, Kaine said, given that Trump's intervention "will go on for a long period of time," US troops "should not be used for hostilities in Venezuela without a vote of Congress as the Constitution requires.”
“No one has ever regretted a vote that just says, Mr. President, before you send our sons and daughters to war, come to Congress," he added.
However, such votes have very rarely succeeded in stopping any president from proceeding with military action.
In 2019 during Trump's first term, the House and Senate both passed a war powers resolution introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to cut off US military support for the Saudi-led coalition’s atrocity-laden war on Yemen. Trump vetoed the measure, and senators lacked the two-thirds majority needed to override his move.
The following year, both houses of Congress passed another war powers resolution—this one introduced in the Senate by Kaine—to terminate military action against Iran. But Trump again vetoed the legislation, and the Senate could not muster the two-thirds majority required for an override. After returning to office last year, Trump ordered sweeping attacks on Iran—and is threatening to do so again.
While Trump took to his Truth Social network to blast the five Republican senators who voted to advance the war powers resolution on Thursday and Vice President JD Vance called the War Powers Act "fundamentally a fake and unconstitutional law," progressive and anti-war advocacy groups hailed the advancement.
"With this historic, bipartisan vote to prevent further war in Venezuela, Congress has begun the long-overdue work of reasserting its constitutional role in decisions of war and peace," Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian said in a statement.
"We commend the leadership of Sens. Kaine and Paul in forcing this vote, and we thank Sens. Collins, Young, Hawley, and Murkowski for their principled votes," Kharrazian continued. "Senators should move quickly to adopt the resolution to prevent further unauthorized military escalation and the House should follow suit."
"Congress should also make clear, using the full force of the law, that no president has the authority to unilaterally launch hostilities anywhere in the world," he added, "whether in Venezuela or against other countries the administration has openly threatened, including Cuba, Greenland, Colombia, and Iran.”
"The dam has broken." Afghanistan War Veteran Max Rose applauds the Senate’s bipartisan vote advancing the War Powers Resolution. He calls it a stunning rebuke of Trump’s unilateral wars, reminding the President that the military belongs to America, not him.
[image or embed]
— VoteVets (@votevets.org) January 8, 2026 at 9:05 AM
Jose Vasquez, executive director of Common Defense and an Army veteran, said, "The vote is a victory for the Constitution, the stability of the region, and for the veterans and military families who organized, spoke out, and refused to accept another reckless slide toward forever war."
"By drawing this vote, Congress sends an essential message that accountability still matters and that no one person or presidential administration can send Americans to war," he added. "Veterans will remain organized and vigilant, but today shows what is possible when Congress listens to the will of the people and leans toward peace rather than war."
Jan 08, 2026
SEE ALL
LATEST NEWS
US Voters and DNC Fight Trump DOJ Efforts to Seize Sensitive Voter Data
"We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts," said the ACLU of Wisconsin legal director.
Jan 09, 2026
Residents of Wisconsin and Washington, DC this week continued the legal fight against efforts by President Donald Trump's administration to gain access to confidential information about registered voters as the Democratic National Committee issued a related warning to 10 state governments.
The group Common Cause on Thursday highlighted its recent motion to intervene in United States v. Evans, a federal lawsuit brought by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) against the District of Columbia's Board of Elections, led by Monica Evans.
Lawyers from the ACLU National Voting Rights Project filed the motion in the US District Court for the District of Columbia on behalf of Common Cause and two DC voters, Ruth Goldman and Chris Melody Fields, in late December.
As the filing notes, the Trump administration wants to obtain personal details about adults in DC and all 50 states "to build an unauthorized national voter database and to target voters for potential challenges and disenfranchisement."
The Republican administration has sued nearly half of US states plus DC in a bid to get their voter information.
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote."
Ethan Herenstein, staff attorney with the ACLU project, explained in a statement that "federal law does not authorize the Department of Justice to demand sweeping access to voters' most sensitive personal information."
"Handing over voter data without any parameters or protections in place is a huge violation of privacy and invites exactly the kind of errors that have historically led to eligible voters being wrongly purged or denied their right to vote," Herenstein warned.
Maryam Jazini Dorcheh, senior director of litigation at Common Cause, said that "voters in DC, and all voters, rightly expect the government to keep their personal information secure and only use it for its intended purpose of maintaining accurate records."
"We are committed to defending voters' rights and privacy in Washington, DC and nationwide, and this case is one of many where we are stepping in to ensure those protections are upheld," she continued.
The Trump administration's attempt to build a national voter database could be the catalyst for disenfranchising voters nationwide and putting our private data at risk.We're taking legal action to defend the states rightfully refusing to cooperate with the U.S. Justice Department's scheme.
[image or embed]
— ACLU (@aclu.org) January 6, 2026 at 11:29 AM
Demonstrating that commitment, Common Cause and the ACLU also partnered with attorneys from Law Forward on Thursday to file a motion to intervene in a similar suit the administration launched against the Wisconsin Elections Commission (WEC), which has refused to hand over vote data.
"If provided this data, the Justice Department could easily manipulate the data to spread disinformation about voting and attempt to baselessly target eligible voters and remove them from the rolls," said Ryan Cox, legal director at the ACLU of Wisconsin. "We've seen this play out in numerous other states, and there is no reason to believe that this administration wouldn't weaponize Wisconsinites' private data toward those same ends. We must prevent this federal power grab and protect our democracy from these corrupt partisan stunts."
Eric Neff, the acting chief of the DOJ's Voting Section, said in federal court last month that Arkansas, Indiana, Kansas, and Wyoming—which all have Republican secretaries of state—have "complied voluntarily" with the department's data demand. He also said that several other states "have expressed with us a willingness to comply" based on an agreement called a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "that we have sent them." The DNC issued warnings to 10 of those states on Friday.
Daniel Freeman, the DNC's litigation director, sent letters to election leaders Alabama, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Utah "to address an imminent violation of the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)," pointing to Neff's comments about the MOU.
Specifically, the letter warns that the MOU's 45-day removal demand "has the potential to violate two provisions of the NVRA: the notice and waiting provision governing removal based on a suspected change in residence... and the quiet period provision barring systematic voter list maintenance in the months before a federal election."
"This letter does not constitute written notice of violations of the NVRA," Freeman noted. "Rather, the DNC sends this letter in the hope that the imminent violations set out above may still be avoided. Nonetheless, the DNC stands ready to issue a formal notice should evidence of ongoing violations come to light."
In a Friday statement, DNC Chair Ken Martin accused Trump and US Attorney General Pam Bondi of a "big government power grab" aimed at gathering "sensitive personal information like driver's license numbers, Social Security numbers, and party affiliation, opening the door to privacy concerns and further political retribution."
"The DNC won't stand idly by as the Trump DOJ tries to get access to voters' sensitive information and put eligible voters at risk of being wrongfully purged from voter rolls, which is why we are calling on secretaries of state and election officials across the country to stand up for voters and reject the Trump administration's illegal agreement," he said. "To be clear: Democrats stand ready to fight back and defend voters, and we're prepared to use the tools at our disposal to do so."
Some state officials have already publicly responded. Nebraska Secretary of State Bob Evnen accused the DNC of "grandstanding" and said that he has no plans to sign an MOU but will send the state's registration list next month "unless barred by a court order," while a spokesperson for the Texas Secretary of State's Office told Votebeat and the Texas Tribune that the state sent its voter roll last month.
Others have been tight-lipped. The office of Utah Lt. Gov. Deidre Henderson—who gave the administration a public statewide voter registration list last year—told Deseret News on Friday that she doesn't have anything additional to add at this time. Mississippi Today reported that Secretary of State Michael Watson's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
TJ Lundeen, a spokeperson for the South Carolina Election Commission, told the Post and Courier that the agency's legal team is reviewing the DNC's letter. Lunden added that any deal with the DOJ will be presented and voted on during a public meeting.
Meanwhile, a DOJ spokesperson told Axios, which reported on the DNC letters, that "organizations should think twice before interfering in a federal investigation and encouraging the obstruction of justice, unless they'd like to join the dozens of states that are learning their lesson in federal court."
White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson also weighed in, telling the outlet that "the Civil Rights Act, National Voting Rights Act, and Help America Vote Act all give the Department of Justice full authority to ensure states comply with federal election laws, which mandate accurate state voter rolls."
"President Trump is committed to ensuring that Americans have full confidence in the administration of elections, and that includes totally accurate and up-to-date voter rolls free of errors and unlawfully registered noncitizen voters," she added of the Republican leader who notably tried to cling to power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
The current fight over voter data dates back to Trump's controversial March executive order on US elections. In October, DC-based District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly permanently blocked the part that required proof of US citizenship on federal voter registration forms. The ACLU was also involved in that legal battle. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the group's Voting Rights Project, welcomed the ruling as a "clear victory for our democracy."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Progressives Say 'No Taxpayer Subsidies' as Big Oil Balks at Trump's Call to Invest in Venezuela
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," implored Sen. Elizabeth Warren.
Jan 09, 2026
ExxonMobil's CEO told President Donald Trump during a Friday meeting that Venezuela is currently "uninvestible" following the US invasion and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro, underscoring fears that American taxpayers will be left footing the bill for the administration's goal of exploiting the South American nation's vast petroleum resources.
Trump had hoped to convince executives from around two dozen oil companies to invest in Venezuela after the president claimed US firms pledged to spend at least $100 billion in the country. However, Trump got a reality check during Friday's White House meeting, as at least one Big Oil CEO balked at committing financial and other resources in an uncertain political, legal, and security environment.
“If we look at the legal and commercial constructs and frameworks in place today in Venezuela today, it’s uninvestable,” ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods told Trump during the meeting. “Significant changes have to be made to those commercial frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections, and there has to be a change to the hydrocarbon laws in the country.”
Exxon CEO: If you look at the commercial constructs, frameworks in place in Venezuela today, it's uninvestable. Significant changes have to be made to these frameworks, the legal system. There has to be durable investment protections and change to the hydrocarbon laws. pic.twitter.com/vpdH6ftfzm
— Acyn (@Acyn) January 9, 2026
There is also skepticism regarding Trump's promise of "total safety" for investors in Venezuela amid deadly US military aggression and regime change.
However, many of the executives—who stand to make billions of dollars from the invasion—told Trump that they remain eager to eventually reap the rewards of any potential US takeover of Venezuela's vast oil resources.
The oil executives' apparent aversion to immediate investment in Venezuela—and Trump's own admission that the American people might end up reimbursing Big Oil for its efforts—prompted backlash from taxpayer advocates.
"Trump must not give these companies billions in handouts and stick American taxpayers with the bill," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said on social media Friday. "And oil execs should commit now: no taxpayer subsidies, no special favors from the White House."
Sam Ratner, policy director at the group Win Without War, said Wednesday that "already today, Trump was saying that US taxpayers should front the money to rebuild Venezuelan oil infrastructure, all while oil companies keep the proceeds from the oil."
"This is not just a war for oil, but a war for oil executives," Ratner added.
Noting that "Big Oil spent nearly $100 million to get Trump elected in 2024," former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich—who served during the Clinton administration—described Friday's meeting as "returning the favor" and "oligarchy in action."
According to an analysis by the advocacy group Climate Power, fossil fuel industry interests spent nearly $450 million during the 2024 election cycle in support of Trump and other Republican candidates and initiatives.
Trump shows you his priorities–Big Oil companies.“Running” Venezuela is all about enriching his donors.The American people are done fighting foreign wars to pad the pockets of oil executives.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jason Crow (@crow.house.gov) January 9, 2026 at 12:35 PM
Reich and others also noted that Trump informed oil executives about the Venezuelan invasion even before he notified members of Congress.
"That tells you everything you need to know: It was never about 'narcoterrorism' and always about oil," Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) said on Bluesky.
The legal watchdog Democracy Forward this week filed a Freedom of Information Act request demanding information about any possible Trump administration collusion with Big Oil in the lead-up to the Venezuela invasion.
Other observers shot down assertions by Trump and members of his administration that the attack on Venezuela and Maduro's ouster are ultimately about restoring democracy.
"Want to know who’s meeting with Trump this morning about Venezuela’s future?" Rep. Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) asked on X.
"Not pro-democracy leaders," she said. "Oil and gas executives."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Schumer, Jeffries Refuse to Join Democrats' Growing Calls to Slash ICE Spending
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," said Sen. Chris Murphy.
Jan 09, 2026
The killing of Renee Good by a federal immigration officer in Minneapolis this week came as Republicans in Congress were planning to bring a homeland security spending bill to the House floor, deciding on whether the agency that's surged thousands of armed agents into communities across the country should have increased funding—and progressive lawmakers are demanding that the Democrats use the upcoming government funding deadline to hopefully reduce the department's ability to wreak further havoc.
"I just don’t understand how we provide votes for a bill that funds the extent of the depravity," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told CNN Thursday. "I know we can’t fix everything in the appropriations bill but we should be looking at ways we can put some commonsense limitations on their ability to bring violence to our cities."
But the top Democratic leaders, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) both appeared to have little interest in discussing how their party can use the appropriations process as leverage to rein in US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agencies that have taken part in President Donald Trump's mass deportation operation.
Both Schumer and Jeffries sharply criticized Wednesday's shooting and the Trump administration's insistence that, contrary to mounting video evidence, the ICE agent who shot Good was acting in self-defense.
But Jeffries said Thursday that he was focused on passing other appropriations bills that were ultimately approved by the House.
“We’ll figure out the accountability mechanisms at the appropriate time," Jeffries told reporters.
With Congress facing a January 30 deadline for approving government spending packages—and with public disapproval of ICE at an all-time high—several lawmakers have said this week that right now is the "appropriate time" to rein in the agency in any way the Democrats can.
"Statements and letters are not enough, and the appropriations process and the [continuing resolution] expiring January 31 is our opportunity," Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) told Axios.
Schumer also refused to say whether the Democrats would use the appropriations process as leverage to cut funding to ICE, whose budget is set to balloon to $170 billion following the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Republicans will need Democratic support to pass a spending bill in the Senate, where 60 votes are required.
The Senate leader said only that he has "lots of problems with ICE" when asked whether he would support abolishing the agency—a proposal whose support has gone by 20 percentage points among voters in just one year, according to a recent survey. Both leaders also would not commit to slashing the homeland security budget should the Democrats win back majorities in Congress this year.
"It’s hard to be an opposition party when you refuse to oppose the blatantly illegal and immoral things being done by the opposition," said Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health.
Sharing a clip of Jeffries' remarks to reporters about the agency's funding, historian Moshik Temkin said that "people need to understand that at its core ICE is a bipartisan project, increasingly funded and normalized over multiple Democratic administrations and congressional majorities, and a few of them (not this guy) are starting to realize how foolish, weak, and misguided they were."
Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) are among the progressive lawmakers calling on the Democrats to demand reduced funding for ICE—even if it means another government shutdown months after the longest one in US history late last year, which began when the Democrats refused to join the GOP in passing a spending bill that would have allowed Affordable Care Act tax credits to expire. Ultimately, some Senate Democrats caved, and the subsidies lapsed.
"We can't just keep authorizing money for these illegal killers," Jayapal told Axios. "That's what they are, this rogue force."
Ocasio-Cortez told the Independent that Democrats should "absolutely" push to cut funding.
“This Congress, this Republican Congress, while they cut a trillion dollars to Americans’ healthcare, and they exploded the ICE budget to $170 billion making it one of the largest paramilitary forces in the United States with zero accountability as they shoot US citizens in the head—absolutely,” she said.
On the podcast The Majority Report, Emma Vigeland and Sam Seder called on progressive Democrats to demand Schumer's ouster in light of his refusal to take action to rein in ICE as its violence in American communities escalates.
It's time for Democrats to oust Chuck Schumer from leadership pic.twitter.com/ByWMJ495zb
— Majority Report (@majorityfm) January 9, 2026
"Change the news cycle and show that you'll be an opposition party," said Vigeland. "Call for his ouster."
Seder added that Schumer "has the ability to wage a fight to prevent the funding of DHS. He has the ability to do that and he doesn't want it. He's running away from any leverage he has, deliberately."
Keep Reading
Show Less
Most Popular
Progressive Newswire
Social Security Needs Full Staffing — Not a Scheme Destined to Fail
Jan 09 2026 · 02:13pm EDT
Trump’s Losing Streak Continues as Jobs Report Shows Weak 2025 Labor Market
Jan 09 2026 · 09:42am EDT