SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Whew. Last week was...a week. Enraging, astounding, often venomous, with flailing small dicktator energy all around. There were pigs, dogs, bonesaws, pedophiles, tumbling polls, charming Marxists, almost everything he's done declared illegal and defiant Democrats threatened with death for, um, defending the rule of law. Sen. Chris Murphy's message to those still complacent before the growing dangers posed by a cornered, venal, fascist loser: "Maybe now would be the time to pick a fucking side."
Over the last bungled weeks of a shambolic presidency that's transmuted America into ugly chaos, the wannabe king has suffered enough losses - electoral, legal, political, economic - some observers argue he's finally losing his mystifying "air of impenetrability," with polls showing him underwater on every issue, including immigration. As U.S. consumer sentiment falls over 7 points to record lows - thanks disastrous tariffs! - he has a lame 26% approval rating on the cost of living, 76% of Fox viewers say the economy is bad, and even cult members shopping for the holidays are reportedly starting to notice the dissonance between his gold ballroom and their unaffordable "groceries," even if he did invent the elegant word. Hell, they might even spot the idiocy of a guy who recently revealed he had an MRI, insisted it had "the best result," but when asked if it was for his brain raved, "I have no idea what they analyzed, but whatever they analyzed, they analyzed it well."
They've also finally noted his stonewalling on what is evidently, universally unpopular pedophilia, with 80% of voters blasting his handling of his dead bestie predator's files and the "wonderful secret" they shared. Even as Congress voted to release the Epstein files and Trump signed off on it, he continues whining it's "time to move on" from "a Hoax" that just deflects from his "Great Success (with) Affordability (where we are winning BIG!)" and "gaining Trillions of Dollars of Investment" and "stopping Transgender for Everyone." Hmm. A tad suspiciously, he then ordered his Dept. of Justice (sic) to newly investigate any creepy Democrat pedophiles though they already said there'd be no more investigations; asked about that disparity, a robotic Pam Bondi declaimed there is "Information...new information" but not to worry because they will "follow the law" with "maximum transparency," blankly repeating, def not from a script, "follow the law, maximum transparency," "follow the law...."
Finally, desperately cornered into "maximum transparency" after months of dissembling and deflection and lies, Trump has taken in stride his monumental failure to get his way and hide his crimes with the calm compliance of any vaguely responsible adult who knows he's doing the right thing. Just kidding. Because, "Nothing says 'I'm definitely not worried about the Epstein Files' like telling a female reporter, 'Quiet, Piggy,'" that's what he now famously did last week during a press gaggle on Air Force One en route from D.C. to Mar-A-Lago (again). Asked by Catherine Lucey, a senior Bloomberg reporter who's covered national politics for over 20 years, what Epstein meant when he said Trump "knew about the girls" - duh - he said, "I know nothing about that" but insisted on his "very bad relationship" with his longtime bestie. When Lucey began a very sensible follow-up question - "If there's nothing incriminating in the files..." he lost it. "Quiet! Quiet, piggy," he snarled, jabbing his stubby, rancid, little finger in her face.
It was, of course, "one more unforgivable thing in a list of 20,000 unforgivable things." It was the gazillionth loutish, repulsive, misogynist dross issuing from the vile anus mouth that's spewed, "be nice;" "fat pig," "keep your voice down," "not my type," "what a nasty question," "don't be threatening," "that's enough of you," "there was blood coming out of her eyes, out of her wherever," and, "they let you do it." Perhaps because it was more of the same or that no reporter stood up to it, the atrocity drew little mainstream coverage. But for many, revulsion at his aberrant, "aggressive sexism now seemingly uncontrollable by the man himself" took off. Among pols, Gavin Newsom and his take-no-prisoners press team were almost alone to speak up, loudly. Along with legit critiques - tariffs, ballrooms, gold crap, last month's 40,000 layoffs: "Cant. Stop. Winning" - there was the pig-faced builder of ballrooms, the Trump/Epstein "piggies," the "Good Night Little Piggy" and several other grotesqueries.
Speaking of: In the following days, there was also treacherous, sycophantic Press Barbie, aka Washington Rose, excusing the "hostile sexism" widely deemed not just a crass personal offense but "a political weapon (tied) to violence, a war on women that is ultimately part of the war on democracy." First, Karoline Leavitt tried out, "This reporter behaved in an inappropriate and unprofessional way towards her colleagues" - with, obviously, zero evidence. When that didn't fly, she turned to calling for us, his lucky minions, to celebrate the mad king's "frankness." We should respect "the president being frank and honest," she said, returning to the "frankness" theme three more times as "one of the many reasons the American people reelected him." Also, "fake news," calling it "like he sees it," and getting "frustrated with reporters when you lie about him" - which we bet is a lot like patriots getting "frustrated" when foul regime flunkies brazenly lie to them about fucking everything.
- YouTube www.youtube.com
Lie, twist, embroider, digress, threaten, distort: Has there ever been a less "frank," more hideously two-faced, self-serving band of charlatans, fraudsters and crooks ostensibly running this nation? "Quiet, piggy" has, indeed, been said in various iterations to us all. Words have become hollow and weaponized, cudgels to deceive, subdue, silence enemies" - who, if they dare speak up, are pummeled by the full force of a vengeful regime. And so to six "seditious" Democratic lawmakers, all veterans, who had the chutzpah in this dark lawless time to urge members of the military to, gasp, obey the law. In last week's 90-second video, Senators Elissa Slotkin and Mark Kelly, and Reps Maggie Goodlander, Chris Deluzio, Chrissy Houlahan, Jason Crow reminded service members they don't have to obey orders they believe break the law. "Like us, you all swore an oath to protect and defend the Constititution," they said. "Our laws are clear, you can refuse illegal orders."
Private Bonespurs, the abuser-in-chief in charge of words as weapons, went ballistic. "Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL," he thundered. "Their words cannot be allowed to stand - We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET.” For moral support, he added 16 MAGA comments; one called for hanging the perps. Still fuming, he kept raging. Soon, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP??" Then, just going for it, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” He also re-posted another MAGA stable genius: “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!” Ok. So the leader of the free speech, anti-cancel-culture party, whose frenzied campaign against potentially violent political speech after the shooting of angelic Charlie Kirk led to many hundreds of people losing their jobs for accurately critiquing Kirk's incendiary words, now accuses his opponents for encouraging political violence. Got it.
The Democratic veterans stood firm. "The president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law," they said. "But this isn’t about any one of us. This is about who we are as Americans. This is a time for moral clarity." Sen.Chris Murphy concurred. "The President just called for Democratic members of Congress to be executed...If you're a person of influence in this country (who) hasn't picked a side, maybe now would be the time to pick a fucking side." On social media, people were aghast at the spectacle of a weak strongman spiraling down, like a cornered animal. "Good fucking Christ, what an absolute buffoon," said one. Also, "'Just following orders' is not a valid defense, and never will be." Heather Cox Richardson noted that, before 1866 midterms, Andrew Johnson called for his rivals to be hanged as traitors: "Voters were so profoundly moved by his words they gave his opponents a supermajority in Congress, and the nation got the 14th Amendment.”
Republicans, with their usual backbone, stayed silent. Reptilian Mike Johnson said Dear Leader was "just defining the crime of sedition" and any Democrat "behav(ing) in that kind of talk is to me just beyond the pale," MAGA-ese for, "You talkin' to me?" Press Barbie again defended her mob boss, shrieking Dems "conspired together" to urge the military to "defy the president's lawful (sic) orders" and we should be talking about them inciting violence. But the backlash shut her up. A day later, asked, "Does the president want to execute members of Congress?” she answered, "No." Headlines befitting the surreal timeline then dutifully reported, "Trump Does Not Want to Execute Members of Congress, White House Says." The same day, a judge declared National Guard deployment to DC an unlawful order, just like in Chicago and Portland; another, in a 233-page roast, said ICE use of force was also illegal, blasting mini-perp Greg Bovino as "evasive, violent and outright lying."
At the next "veritable Comicon for serial killers," the White House rolled out a blood-red carpet for Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Bonesaw as a giddy Trump proclaimed, "We’re more than meeting. We're honoring Saudi Arabia." Never mind his own first-term CIA found they ordered the grisly murder of WaPo writer Jamal Khashoggi: Cue a weird, gleeful, blindingly gold Oval Office meeting, a state dinner with Jewish or gay CEOs who'd be stoned or jailed by Saudis, a swap of U.S fighter jets for Saudi investment. It was jolly until ABC News' Mary Bruce rightly asked about the Saudis' role in 9/11, Khashoggi's murder, Trump's blood-soaked business deals. At her impudence, the mob boss who gets to decide who says what scowled. He smeared Khashoggi, cleared Bonesaw, inanely decreed "things happen," and went after Bruce. She was "insubordinate," "a terrible reporter" who shouldn't "embarrass our guest by asking him a terrible question.” Essentially, he told Bruce, "Quiet, piggy."
@thedailyshow Trump’s playdate with Mohammed bin Salman took a handsy turn #DailyShow #Trump #MohammedbinSalman
It's unclear how productive the meeting will prove. At their last visit, the Saudis blithely played the idiot narcissist - SAD - with a mobile McDonald's truck; this time, headlines posited Bonesaw "got almost everything he wanted" from Trump, and pundits gravely noted, "We're still kind of waiting to see what all this actually means." Meanwhile, can-do House Republicans continue tackling vital issues of the day. After 10 months of mostly being on vacation and accomplishing virtually nothing but an Epstein vote they were forced into - and before breaking until December - they just passed a resolution, 285-98, denouncing the horrors of socialism. In a truly WTF move, they were helped by the votes of 86 cowardly Dems who evidently agreed with sponsor and Florida Rep. María Elvira Salazar that, "The Mamdani socialist agenda is seeping into our country like poison," aka we can't let them make our children live under Sharia law and count in Arabic numbers and let's all panic.
The next day, Trump met with Mamdani. It was not the expected fiery confrontation; rather, a savvy, charming Mamdani wrapped a star-struck Trump around his Democratic Socialist finger in a surreal scene that made MAGA heads - especially, presumably, Goebbels' bald one and J.D.s groveling one - explode. The newly gracious,Trump, a hollow, insecure, image-obsessed shell of a human ineluctably "drawn to the shine of respect in others' eyes" who "agrees with whoever's standing within 10 feet of him," pronounced Mamdani "a very rational person," a winner who will make "a great New York City mayor." Mamdani smiled. "What the hell is going on?" asked many. Also: "Trump having a man crush on Zohran was not on my Bingo card," "You can tell Mamdani spent a lot of time ferrying loose aunties around because I don't know how else you get that kind of composure," and, "We did the same thing to our dog - insult him but with a smile and friendly voice. He would wag his tail."
In a memorable moment, one far-right dreg of the White House press corps asked Mamdani if he still thinks Trump is a fascist. Carefully starting to answer, he's interrupted by Trump mildly saying, "That's okay, you can just say yes...I don't mind." "Okay, yes," said Mamdani, still smiling; Trump pats his arm. In all, argues Bruce Fanger, it's a case study in what happens when a bully can’t rely on fear, and a principled politician refuses the role of victim. Trump, argues Fanger, needs an emotional response to his abuse - fear, flattery, even anger. "Mamdani gave him nothing," he writes of "the calm of someone who refuses to let the other person set the emotional tempo." He speaks plainly, in a "civic language," about issues. Trump, awash in grievance, ego, delusion, nostalgia, "can't decode it...They aren’t having the same conversation, (or) even on the same continent." The lesson: "Trump is only powerful when the room fears him. Mamdani didn’t. Trump folded."
At least in that moment. Then he sprang back to vitriol, bluster, lies. At length, he blasted "the traitorous sons of bitches" who told soldiers to obey the law, raved about "prices sharply down," bragged about "THE HIGHEST NUMBERS OF MY 'POLITICAL CAREER.'" More numbers for him: Racking up thousands of conflicts of interest, often on lavish witless trips abroad, he's spent $71 million on 99 fucking trips to his crappy properties and millions more on a fucking marble bathroom and Gatsby party and cheesy patio and Oval Brothel and garish ballroom to come, all amidst kidnappings of brown people, extrajudicial murders, endless abuses of power, vast obstruction of justice and rabidly working to strip food stamps as four of ten kids in the U.S. go to bed hungry. Now, after an aerial tour of Joint Base Andrews' fucking three 18-hole golf courses, three putting greens, two private practice areas and driving range, he's decided on another vital task: to do "some fix-up" on them. A fucking shameless piggy. May he fall quiet soon.
Update: More bigly, deeply gratifying, pretty embarrassing court losses: A federal judge just threw out the DOJ's ludicrous, brazenly vindictive criminal cases against both James Comey and New York A.G. Letitia James, ruling that Trump’s cute but Keystone-cops-inept beauty-queen-insurance-lawyer-turned-pretend-prosecutor Lindsey Halligan was unlawfully serving, the fourth Trump-appointed acting US attorney so unqualified they even failed at failing upwards - kinda like King Dickhead Loser himself. Huh.
Environmentalists are sounding the alarm about a slate of new proposals from the Trump administration to weaken the Endangered Species Act, which they say will put more imperiled species in danger to line the pockets of the wealthy.
On Wednesday, the Department of the Interior's Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) announced that it would once again roll back several key provisions of the ESA. Many had been in place for decades before they were slashed during President Donald Trump's first term. They were then restored under former President Joe Biden.
"These revisions end years of legal confusion and regulatory overreach, delivering certainty to states, tribes, landowners, and businesses while ensuring conservation efforts remain grounded in sound science and common sense," said Interior Secretary Doug Burgum, a billionaire ally of the fossil fuel industry.
But some of the nation's leading environmental groups say the proposals will allow the government to flout science and approve new projects that will destroy the habitats of vulnerable creatures and accelerate the already worsening extinction crisis.
“The ESA is one of the world’s most powerful laws for conservation and is responsible for keeping 99% of listed species from extinction,” said Jane Davenport, senior attorney at Defenders of Wildlife.
The group said the changes "could accelerate the extinction crisis we face today." According to a 2023 investigation by the Montana Free Press, the ESA has prevented 291 species from going extinct since it was passed in 1973. At that point, around 40% of all animals and 34% of plants were considered at risk of extinction according to NatureServe, a nonprofit that collects conservation data.
“The ESA is only as effective as the regulations that implement it," Davenport said. “Rolling back these regulations risks reversing the ESA’s historic success and threatens the well-being of plant and animal species that pollinate our crops, generate medicine, keep our waterways clean, and support local economies.”
One of the rules being rolled back requires species to receive "blanket" protections when they are added to the list of threatened species. Instead of those blanket protections—which protect these newly-added species from killing, trapping, and other forms of harm—the FWS will instead create individual designations for each species.
According to Jackson Chiappinelli, a spokesperson for Earthjustice, some of the species that would lose protection under this rule would be the Florida manatee, California spotted owl, greater sage grouse, and monarch butterfly, which it said could remain unprotected for years after being listed.
Another major change would let the government consider "economic impacts" when deciding which habitats are required to be protected. In 1982, Congress modified the ESA to clarify that the secretary of the interior must make decisions "solely on the basis of the best scientific and commercial data available," an amendment specifically intended to prevent economic factors from overawing environmental concerns.
The Interior Department said "the revised framework provides transparency and predictability for landowners and project proponents while maintaining the service’s authority to ensure that exclusions will not result in species extinction."
But Chiappinelli contends that the change would "violate the letter of the law" and warns that "the federal government could decide against protecting an endangered species after considering lost revenue from prohibiting a golf course or hotel development to be built where the species lives."
"If finalized, the rules would bias listing decisions with unreliable economic analyses, obstruct the ability to list new protected species, and make it easier to remove those now on the federal endangered or threatened list," said Ian Brickey, a spokesperson for the Sierra Club.
The proposed rules would also reduce the requirements for other federal agencies to consult with wildlife agencies to determine whether their actions could harm critical habitats. It also eliminates the requirement for agencies to "offset" habitat damage when approving new projects, such as logging or drilling, that harm protected species.
“Without rigorous consultations,” Davenport said, “projects could push species like the northern spotted owl and Cook Inlet beluga whale closer to extinction.”
The new proposals follow several efforts by the Trump administration to weaken protections for endangered species. Earlier this year, it proposed weakening the half-century-old definition of what counts as "harm" to endangered species to exclude habitat destruction.
The Department of Agriculture, meanwhile, has proposed rescinding the 2001 "Roadless Rule," which has shielded nearly 45 million acres of protected national forest from logging, oil and gas drilling, and road construction.
Amid the government shutdown, the administration announced its intent to lay off more than 2,000 Interior Department employees, including 143 from the FWS, though a federal judge blocked those layoffs.
It also attempted to sneak a provision into July's One Big Beautiful Bill Act that would have mandated the sale of millions of acres of public lands, but it was stripped out in the Senate following fierce backlash.
"The Trump administration is stopping at nothing in its quest to put corporate polluters over people, wildlife and the environment," said Loren Blackford, the Sierra Club's executive director. "These regulations attempt to undermine the implementation of one of America’s bedrock environmental laws, and they could seal the fate of animals that, without these protections, would disappear from the Earth."
Tyson Foods, the largest meat supplier in the United States, is shutting down a Nebraska beef-processing plant that employs more than 3,000 people just months after the company rewarded shareholders by boosting its dividend and ramping up stock buybacks.
The company said late last week that its decision to shutter the Lexington, Nebraska plant and scale back shifts at its Amarillo, Texas facility is "designed to right size its beef business and position it for long-term success" even as beef prices are close to record highs. The Wall Street Journal reported that Tyson and other meatpackers, which are facing federal scrutiny for allegedly colluding to drive up prices, "have been losing hundreds of millions of dollars processing beef because of the lowest amount of cattle on U.S. pastures since the 1950s."
Tyson, the latest company to cut thousands of jobs after prioritizing stock-boosting share buybacks, said it intends to provide "relocation benefits" to impacted workers, but provided no details.
"Tyson Foods recognizes the impact these decisions have on team members and the communities where we operate," the company said in a statement.
The plant in Lexington, which has a population of 11,000, is one of the largest beef-processing facilities in the United States. US Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.), a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, said in a statement that she was "extremely disappointed" by Tyson's decision to close the Lexington plant, warning it would "have a devastating impact on a truly wonderful community, the region, and our state."
"It’s no secret that just a few years ago, packers like Tyson were making windfall profits while the rest of the industry was continuously in the red," Fischer added. "As we head into the holiday season, I call on Tyson to do everything in its power to take care of the families affected by this short-sighted decision."
Tyson's announcement came days after the company said its adjusted operating income increased by 26% this fiscal year compared to 2024. The company also said it repurchased 3.5 million of its own shares for $196 million.
In early August, Tyson announced that its board "approved an increase of 43 million shares authorized for repurchase under the company’s share repurchase program."
Stock buybacks have long been associated with mass layoffs, wage stagnation, and other harms to workers.
"Tens of thousands of workers are losing their jobs in thousands of companies only because CEOs and their major stockholders want to make a quick killing by artificially jacking up the price of their stock," Les Leopold, executive director of the Labor Institute, told Common Dreams last year after mass layoffs at John Deere.
"We must always call stock buybacks for what they really are: blatant stock manipulation," he added.
Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito on Friday temporarily restored a controversial Trump-backed Texas redistricting plan that could grant Republicans an extra five seats in the House of Representatives.
Alito's order came in response to a ruling from a federal court in Texas on Tuesday, which blocked the redrawn congressional maps on the basis that they were "racially gerrymandered."
"It is ordered that the November 18, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, case No. 3:21-cv-259 is hereby administratively stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court," Alito wrote around one hour after Texas appealed the district court's ruling.
Alito was the justice to issue the stay because he handles emergency requests from the Fifth Circuit, which includes Texas.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again."
Friday's ruling is not the final say on the fate of Texas' new maps, but allows the state to continue preparations for the 2026 midterm elections under the redistricting while the full Supreme Court considers the case. Texas has asked for a ruling by December 1, one week before the December 8 filling deadline for congressional races. The state is set to hold primary elections in March.
Alito has asked the civil rights organizations fighting to block the maps for more materials by Monday, November 24—a sign, according to Politico, that he planned to put the case "on a fast-track."
Texas was the first state to heed President Donald Trump's request to redraw its maps in order to give Republicans an advantage in the 2026 midterm elections and attempt to prevent the Democrats from retaking the House. In response, Missouri and North Carolina also redrew their maps to give the GOP one extra seat each. However, California voters then retaliated by approving a proposition to redistrict in a way that would see an additional five Democrats elected. All of these plans now face legal challenges.
As the fight for control of the House continues through maps and courts, Texas Democratic activists haven't given up on voters.
"Well, the Supreme Court fucked us yet again," said Allison Campolo, who chairs the Democratic Party of Tarrant County, Texas, on social media Friday, "but—We in Texas know the cavalry doesn't come for us. We save ourselves."
"100 people came out to our party headquarters tonight and we were absolutely PACKED with candidates running for every seat and bench from the top to the bottom of the ticket," Campolo continued. "Texas Democrats are here to save our county, our state, and our country. We'll be seeing you at the polls."
Nearly five years after inciting an attempted insurrection, President Donald Trump on Thursday called for sedition charges against Democrats in Congress who reminded members of the US military and intelligence services that "you must refuse illegal orders."
"We know you are under enormous stress and pressure right now," says Sen. Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), a former Central Intelligence Agency analyst, in the 90-second video circulated on social media Tuesday.
Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), a former Navy captain, notes in the video that "like us, you all swore an oath" to the US Constitution
Reps. Jason Crow (Colo.), Chris Deluzio (Pa.), Maggie Goodlander (NH), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.)—all veterans of the US military and intelligence community—join the senators in calling on service members to stand up to any illegal orders from the Trump administration and "don't give up the ship."
Miles Taylor, a former chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security who anonymously spoke out against Trump in a high-profile op-ed and book during his first term, said that it is "pretty insane that we are living in a moment where a video message like this [is] necessary."
Also responding to the video on the platform X, Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff for policy and homeland security adviser, claimed that "Democrat lawmakers are now openly calling for insurrection."
Kelly hit back, citing the January 6, 2021 attack: "I got shot at serving our country in combat, and I was there when your boss sent a violent mob to attack the Capitol. I know the difference between defending our Constitution and an insurrection, even if you don't."
Slotkin also responded, saying: "This is the law. Passed down from our Founding Fathers, to ensure our military upholds its oath to the Constitution—not a king. Given you're directing much of a military policy, you should buff up on the Uniformed Code of Military Justice."
Trump weighed in on his Truth Social platform just after 9:00 am on Thursday morning, writing: "It's called SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR AT THE HIGHEST LEVEL. Each one of these traitors to our Country should be ARRESTED AND PUT ON TRIAL. Their words cannot be allowed to stand—We won’t have a Country anymore!!! An example MUST BE SET."
"This is really bad, and Dangerous to our Country. Their words cannot be allowed to stand. SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR FROM TRAITORS!!! LOCK THEM UP???," Trump continued, linking to the right-wing Washington Examiner's coverage and signing both posts "President DJT."
Just over an hour later, the president added, "SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!"
Responding with a lengthy joint statement, the lawmakers behind the video reiterated their commitment to the oaths they took, and said that "what's most telling is that the president considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law."
"Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders," they added. "Every American must unite and condemn the president's calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.)—who has for years faced threats from Trump supporters, including Arizona state Rep. John Gillette (R-30) in September—stressed that the president's "calls for political violence are completely unacceptable."
Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), another frequent target of right-wing threats, similarly took aim at Trump's sedition remarks, saying, "None of this is normal."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said on the chamber's floor Thursday: "Let's be crystal clear: The president of the United States is calling for the execution of elected officials. This is an outright threat, and it's deadly serious. We have already seen what happens when Donald Trump tells his followers that his political opponents are enemies of the state."
"We all remember what January 6th was like. We lived through January 6th. We have lived through the assassinations and attempted assassinations this year. We have members whose families have had to flee their homes," he continued. "When Donald Trump uses the language of execution and treason, some of his supporters may very well listen. He is lighting a match in a country soaked with political gasoline. Every senator, every representative, every American—regardless of party—should condemn this immediately and without qualification."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Thursday: "Trump tried to overthrow our government almost five years ago, and is calling for Dems to be put to death for sedition. If you're threatening Dems for reminding the military that they are obligated to not follow illegal orders, you're admitting your orders are illegal."
The Democrats' video and Trump's outburst come as members of Congress and legal experts lambast the Trump administration's deadly bombings of boats allegedly running drugs in the Caribbean and Pacific Ocean. Critics have emphasized that even if the targeted vessels are transporting illicit substances, the strikes are illegal.
Trump is also under fire for his attacks on immigrants in Democrat-led communities. Kelly and Slotkin, along with Democratic Sens. Tammy Duckworth (Ill.), Richard Blumenthal (Conn.), and Ron Wyden (Ore.), recently introduced the No Troops in Our Streets Act, which would limit the administration's ability to deploy the National Guard and inject $1 billion in new resources to fight crime across the country.
"Our brave military men and women signed up to defend the Constitution and our rights, not to be used as political props or silence dissent," said Duckworth, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who has been especially critical of the administration's operation in the Chicagoland area, including efforts to deploy the National Guard there.
"These un-American, unjustified deployments of troops into our cities do nothing to fight crime—they only serve to intimidate Americans in their own neighborhoods," she added. "I'm introducing this legislation with my colleagues to stop Trump's gross misuse of our military and devote more resources toward efforts that would actually help our local law enforcement—which Trump has actually defunded to the tune of $800 million."
With thousands of US troops patrolling the Caribbean, at least eight warships deployed in the region, and the BBC reporting that it tracked four US military planes that flew near Venezuela Thursday night, lawmakers and other leaders from across Europe on Friday issued a unified demand for the Trump administration to deescalate the tensions it has ratcheted up in recent weeks.
The administration's "show of force has already proved lethal," said the leaders, with more than 80 people—including fishermen and an out-of-work bus driver—having been killed in the US military's strikes on more than 20 boats, which the administration has insisted were trafficking drugs to the US. The White House has publicized no evidence of the claims.
President Donald Trump has not taken further military action against Venezuela since he was presented with "options" for potential strikes last week by officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, nor has he followed through with threats he's made against Mexico and Colombia.
But the European leaders—including British Members of Parliament Zarah Sultana and Jeremy Corbyn, former Greek Finance Minister Yanis Varoufakis, and Spanish Member of European Parliament Irene Montero Gil—noted that Trump "severed diplomatic channels with Caracas and approved covert [Central Intelligence Agency] operations in Venezuela" as the military buildup continues in the region.
The Trump administration has insisted it is engaged in a legal "armed conflict" with drug cartels in Venezuela, which it has accused of trafficking fentanyl to the US—though experts say drug boats originating in Venezuela are "are mainly moving cocaine from South America to Europe," and analysis by both the United Nations and US intelligence agencies have shown the South American country plays virtually no role in the production or transit of fentanyl.
The US Congress has not authorized any military action against drug cartels or Venezuela's government, and lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have attempted to pass war powers resolutions blocking the US from striking more boats or targets on land in Venezuela, only to have the resolutions voted down.
In his second term, Trump has sought to tie Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to drug cartels—despite a declassified US intelligence memo showing officials rejected the claim—and designated Cartel de los Soles a foreign terrorist organization last week, giving the White House what Hegseth called "new options" to go after the group.
But the escalation that Trump claims is the latest battle in the "War on Drugs" comes two years after he explicitly announced his desire to take control of Venezuela's oil, and following years of condemnation of Maduro's socialist government from Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
The European leaders said the administration's narrative about the threat Venezuela poses to the US and the escalation is simply the "latest attempt to threaten and undermine the sovereignty of Latin America and the Caribbean nations."
"Declassified documents have confirmed the CIA’s hand in overthrowing democratically elected governments in Latin America, such as Salvador Allende’s Chile in 1973, João Goulart’s Brazil in 1964, and Jacobo Árbenz’s Guatemala in 1954. The human cost of these regime change operations was catastrophic, and their political legacy endures," reads the letter, which was organized by Progressive International.
A military intervention by the US in Venezuela "would mark the first interstate war by the United States in South America," the leaders said, yet "the pretext for intervention is as tired as it is familiar."
"Under the banner of combating the 'narco-terrorists,' Trump celebrates lethal strikes against peaceful fishermen arbitrarily labeled as carrying drugs," the leaders said.
As in the past, they added, moving the War on Drugs to Venezuela would deliver "not security but a torrent of bloodshed, dispossession, and destabilization."
"Therefore, we condemn in the strongest terms the military escalation against Venezuela," they said. "Our demand is clear and our resolve is firm: No war on Venezuela."
As Peoples Dispatch reported Thursday, many European leaders have "subordinated" themselves to Trump and have avoided speaking out against the US escalation with Venezuela, but left-wing political parties have led the way in denouncing the US deployment of soldiers and warships to the region.
The Workers' Party of Belgium said recently that the world is "witnessing an unprecedented military escalation in 20 years, a multifaceted aggression that threatens not only Venezuela, but any project of sovereignty and social justice in Latin America."
"After years of complaining that there wasn't enough viewpoint diversity in acceptable media discourse, Bari Weiss now appears to suggest that there's too much," said one critic.
Since Paramount's new Trump-aligned billionaire owner, David Ellison, installed the right-wing pundit Bari Weiss as the editor-in-chief of CBS News, fear has abounded about how she might attempt to reshape the network to fit her worldview.
Weiss once fashioned herself as a champion of "ideological diversity," in contrast to what she deemed a takeover of academia and media by intolerant "woke" types who'd fostered an "illiberal" atmosphere of political conformity.
But now that she's at the helm of one of America's most storied news organizations, she seems to view her role much differently.
During a panel at the Jewish Leadership Conference, a gathering of conservative and pro-Israel Jewish figures, this week Weiss laid out her goals for how she plans to use her powerful position.
"I think it's about who's in the room," Weiss said. "I think it's about redrawing the lines of what falls in the 40-yard lines of acceptable debate and acceptable American politics and culture."
She said her goal for the network is to create a new form of "centrist" news, not by adopting a dispassionate "voice from nowhere," but by amplifying people who are "clearly and identifiably on the center-left and the center-right in conversation with one another."
"This is an opportunity to speak for the 75%, for the people that are on the center-left and the center-right," Weiss said.
Weiss gave an example of two figures she thought would represent this paradigm: "I was in... Chicago last week... where Dana Loesch, former spokeswoman for the [National Rifle Association], was debating Alan Dershowitz on guns. Now, these are people who have wildly different opinions on the Second Amendment, and yet showing they can have good faith, very passionate, very charismatic disagreement, and still like each other at the end of the day is very important."
Weiss contrasted these preferred figures with those "rising in the podcast charts," whom she said "don't represent the values and the worldview of the vast majority of Americans." These included pundits on the extreme right like Nick Fuentes and Andrew Tate, who have expressed overt Nazi sympathies, as well as former Fox News host-turned independent podcaster Tucker Carlson, who has given each of these men friendly interviews.
But she also mentioned Hasan Piker, a popular left-wing Twitch streamer who has faced accusations of antisemitism, including from members of Congress, for his denunciation of Israel's "genocide" in Gaza, which has resulted in the death or injury of more than 10% people living in the strip over the past two years. Piker has called antisemitism "completely unacceptable," adding that he finds "the conflation of antisemitism and anti-Zionism to be very dangerous."
what makes this funnier is that her outlet cbs news is currently trying to set up a debate with me ?! https://t.co/FuGjZnK0CH
— hasanabi (@hasanthehun) November 25, 2025
One critic on social media wrote that "after years of complaining that there wasn't enough viewpoint diversity in acceptable media discourse, Bari Weiss now appears to suggest that there's too much."
While Weiss said she does not mean for her narrowing of the discourse to be done in a "censorious, gatekeeping way," Weiss has long been criticized for her attempts to silence critics of Israel.
As David Klion wrote in the Guardian in September, Weiss' publication, the Free Press, which Ellison purchased in September for an eye-popping $150 million, has championed the second Trump administration's efforts to force institutions of higher learning to crack down on anti-Israel speech on college campuses, which it has portrayed as part of a crusade against "antisemitism."
"The pattern is clear: If you work at a liberal institution and you want the Trump-controlled federal government to step in and discipline it, Bari Weiss is there to help," Klion wrote.
Prior to Weiss' ascendance, CBS News and other major networks had already faced scrutiny for their near-total lack of Palestinian perspectives in their coverage of the Israel-Gaza war. In December 2024, Adam Johnson reported in the Nation that across the major Sunday shows on NBC, ABC, CNN, and CBS, there had been 2,557 mentions of Gaza since October 7, 2023, but only one Palestinian guest had appeared across all four of them, while Israeli guests had been featured 20 times.
Staffers at CBS have raised concerns about Weiss having an even more aggressive "hall monitor" approach to policing coverage in her new position. Critics say that her singling out of Dershowitz and Loesch as representatives for the bounds of acceptable opinion suggests that she will pursue rigid ideological conformity at the network.
"Everyone Bari Weiss thinks is too extreme to be included always has one thing in common: opposition to Israel," noted independent journalist Glenn Greenwald.
"Hey, I know what the kids want more of right now: Alan Dershowitz!"
— John Ganz (@lionel_trolling) November 25, 2025
As other critics noted, Dershowitz and Loesch are not figures that many would associate with the "center-left" and the "center-right" as Weiss claims.
While the clear majority of Democratic voters now believe Israel is committing a genocide in Gaza, Dershowitz—who left the party to become an independent last year—has referred to such accusations as antisemitic "blood libel," and denounced protesters against Israel's military campaign as the equivalent of "Hitler Youth."
The lawyer has also defended many of the most egregious actions by Israel, including its attacks on hospitals, which have killed over 1,400 people according to UN figures from August: "Sometimes attacking a hospital saves lives," was the title of one video he published on November 16, 2023.
"If you’re going to redraw the lines to square up more with what 75% of Americans believe, how are you going to cover aid to Israel, which is wildly unpopular among that 75%?" one social media user wrote in response to Weiss, referencing recent polls showing that the vast majority of Americans now disapprove of Israel's military actions in Gaza.
Loesch, meanwhile, is far from a moderate or a cordial participant in polite disagreement. She is widely credited with helping to morph the NRA from purely a gun advocacy group into a vehicle for a broader right-wing culture war.
She has personally described gun safety advocates as “tragedy dry-humping whores,” and the political left as "godless." Meanwhile, she's appeared to threaten journalists explicitly, saying they "need to be curb-stomped," after previously calling them "the rat bastards of the Earth" and "the boil on the backside of American politics."
The example Bari Weiss gave of the "charismatic" mainstream debates she believes will revitalize CBS -- namely, the gun control debate she arranged between Alan Dershowitz and Dana Loesch -- has so far been watched by a grand total of 860 people in the 5 hours since posting: https://t.co/hZp1bBbfe9 pic.twitter.com/osN4CwD9nY
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 25, 2025
Rather than reflecting the consensus of American opinion, Greenwald noted, the "charismatic" conversation between Dershowitz and Loesch on gun control had garnered a grand total of 860 views on YouTube within five hours of being posted.
"I’ve been writing about elite vs. popular politics for a long time," said Zachary D. Carter, a senior reporter at HuffPost. "[I] don’t think I’ve ever seen elite consensus more disconnected from public reality."
Meanwhile, newly released documents suggest the administration is gearing up to have troops in the region until the end of Trump's term.
Following reports that the Trump administration is eyeing a "deadly new phase" of military actions against Venezuela, including land strikes, a new report suggests that the US troops stationed near the South American nation are being denied holiday leave in anticipation of immediate action.
On Monday, NewsNation White House Correspondent Kellie Meyer reported via social media that the United States Southern Command (SOUTHCOM) is "restricting/limiting leave over the Thanksgiving and Christmas holidays in preparation for possible land strikes in the next 10 days to two weeks."
SOUTHCOM has denied the claim, with a spokesperson saying: "Our service members and civilian employees are always afforded the opportunity to take leave throughout the year, and that includes holiday periods."
As of yet, reports only suggest that the US may be planning imminent airstrikes against Venezuela. But as documents reported Tuesday by The Intercept revealed, the US is planning to maintain "a massive military presence in the Caribbean almost to the end of President Donald Trump’s term in office—suggesting the recent influx of American troops to the region won’t end anytime soon."
According to the report: "One spreadsheet outlining supplies for 'Puerto Rico Troops' notes tens of thousands of pounds of baked goods are scheduled for delivery from November 15 of this year to November 11, 2028. Foodstuff set to feed the troops include individually wrapped honey buns, vanilla cupcakes, sweet rolls, hamburger rolls, and flour tortillas." The food is slated to be delivered to every branch of the military, including the Coast Guard, Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine Corps.
“The procurement’s length of time and the level of effort seemed to point to these operations continuing at the current level for several years,” said Mark Cancian, an analyst with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. “That’s significant because it means that the Navy will maintain a large presence in the Caribbean that is far larger than what it has been in recent years. It further implies that the Navy will be involved in these counter-drug operations.”
The Pentagon currently has more than 15,000 troops stationed in the region, the most since 1989, when the US launched a land invasion of Panama to topple the drug-running dictator Manuel Noriega, whom it had previously supported.
The reports came shortly after the US State Department designated the so-called "Cartel de los Soles," which the US accuses Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of leading, as a "terrorist organization." This is despite the fact that it is not actually an organized cartel at all, but a media shorthand developed to refer to the alleged connections that high-level Venezuelan officials have to the drug trade.
“It is not a group,” Adam Isaacson, director for defense oversight at the Washington Office on Latin America organization, told the Associated Press Tuesday. “It’s not like a group that people would ever identify themselves as members. They don’t have regular meetings. They don’t have a hierarchy.”
Colombian journalist Juan Esteban Silva explains that the terrorist designation, despite its factual flimsiness, "gives the US authority to conduct covert operations, bring terrorism and drug charges, issue international arrest warrants, freeze assets, and block transactions. It also enables extraterritorial prosecution, travel restrictions, broader law enforcement and military cooperation, and asset seizures."
Maduro's government called the designation an "infamous, vile lie to justify an illegitimate and illegal intervention against Venezuela under the classic US format of regime change."
It comes after Reuters reported Sunday that “covert operations" in Venezuela "would likely be the first part of the new action against Maduro" and that the US was “prepared to use every element of American power” to achieve its goals in the region.
While stopping drug trafficking was the initial justification for the administration’s push for regime change, White House messaging has shifted in recent days, with officials telling Fox News that it "goes beyond the Maduro regime" and is also about "getting Russia, China, and Iran out of the Western hemisphere."
On Monday, US Rep. María Salazar (R-Fla.) gave a more candid explanation for the potentially imminent military action and the need for regime change on Fox Business.
Maduro, she said, "is understanding that we're about to go in." She went on: "Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day, because it will be more than a trillion dollars in economic activity. American companies can go in and fix all the oil rigs and everything that has to do with the Venezuelan petroleum companies."
Prior to returning to office, Trump said at a rally in 2023 that he regretted not invading Venezuela during his first term: "We would have taken [Venezuela] over; we would have gotten to all that oil; it would have been right next door.”
Though the White House appears increasingly committed to military action against Venezuela, it is overwhelmingly unpopular among Americans.
A CBS News/YouGov survey published on Sunday found that 70% of Americans—including 91% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans—are against the “US taking military action in Venezuela,” and a majority don’t believe a direct attack on Venezuela would even achieve the Trump administration’s stated goal of reducing the flow of drugs to the United States.
The same poll found that just 13% of Americans consider Venezuela to be a "major threat" to "US security," while 48% consider it a "minor threat," and 39% consider it to be "not a threat."
Alfons López Tena, a former member of the Catalan parliament and an analyst on public and international affairs, expressed shock at the Trump administration's brazenness despite the total lack of public consent for war.
"The US doesn’t feel at all like a country marching into war, 70% oppose military action in Venezuela," he said. "The government's cursory explanations show they are so heedless of public opinion that they don't even feel the need to mount a proper propaganda campaign."
Nathan J. Robinson, the editor-in-chief of the left-wing magazine Current Affairs, meanwhile, said he's not surprised.
"It's no mystery to a leftist when the US government's foreign policy is out of step with popular opinion," he said, "because we understand foreign policy is shaped by narrow elite interests."
"They're not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil—where have we heard this one before?"
"Going to war for oil, the sequel."
That's how one film and television producer responded to a Monday clip of US Rep. María Salazar (R-Fla.) discussing President Donald Trump's potential military invasion of Venezuela on Fox Business.
Amid mounting alarm that Trump may take military action, Salazar said there were three reasons why "we need to go in" to the South American country. The first, she said, is that "Venezuela, for the American oil companies, will be a field day."
After journalist Aaron Rupar noted her remarks on social media, many critics weighed in, including Justice Democrats, which works to elect progressives to Congress.
"They're not even hiding it anymore. A US-led regime change war abroad to line the pockets of Big Oil—where have we heard this one before?" the group said, referring to the invasion of Iraq.
Fred Wellman, a US Army combat veteran and podcast host running as a Democrat in Missouri's 2nd Congressional District, replied on social media: "They are sending our troops to war for the oil companies and not even pretending to lie about it. These sick SOBs are going to get our kids killed and it's all a big joke."
Salazar also described Venezuela as a launching pad for enemies of the US and claimed the country's president, Nicolás Maduro, leads the alleged Cartel de los Soles, or the Cartel of the Suns—which the Trump administration on Monday designated as a foreign terrorist organization.
Venezuela's interior and justice minister, Diosdado Cabello, has long claimed the cartel doesn't exist, calling it an "invention." As the UK's BBC reported Monday:
Cabello, who is alleged to be one of the high-ranking members of the cartel, has accused US officials of using it as an excuse to target those they do not like.
"Whenever someone bothers them, they name them as the head of the Cartel de los Soles," he said in August.
Gustavo Petro, the left-wing president of Venezuela's neighbour, Colombia, has also denied the cartel's existence.
"It is the fictional excuse of the far right to bring down governments that do not obey them," he wrote on X in August.
The terrorist designation and Salazar's comments came as the Trump administration is under fire for blowing up boats it claims are running drugs off the coast of Venezuela, and after a CBS News/YouGov survey showed on Sunday that 70% of Americans—including 91% of Democrats and 42% of Republicans—are against the "US taking military action in Venezuela."