LIVE COVERAGE
Quiet, Piggy
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.
‘Who Wants to Live Like This?’ Locals Fume as Meta AI Data Center Upends Entire Community
The tiny town of Holly Ridge, Louisiana will soon be home to a massive $27 billion artificial intelligence data center being built by Facebook parent company Meta that, when finished, will be the largest in the world.
However, residents of Holly Ridge do not feel honored that they are at the epicenter of Meta's ambitious data center buildout, which they say has upended their entire community.
As reported by New Orleans-based public radio station WWNO last week, the nonstop parade of trucks driving through Holly Ridge has led to a 600% increase in vehicle crashes over the last year, including three truck crashes that occurred just outside Holly Ridge Elementary School.
Penelope Hull, a fourth-grade student at the school, told WWNO that the data center construction trucks are highly disruptive to learning even on days when they don't get into accidents, as they often cause the classroom walls to shake.
"You can't pay attention," she said. "And then you get off track and you lose what the teacher was telling you to do."
Hull also said that the school has had to shut down its playground out of concern that Meta construction trucks will crash into children playing during recess.
The threat of trucks crashing into schools isn't the only problem that the data center has brought. Local residents Joseph and Robin Williams told WWNO that they've noticed their tap water is frequently rust colored since Meta started building the data center, and they say their electricity frequently goes off for hours on end with no warning.
Similar issues were documented by progressive media outlet More Perfect Union, which sent its reporters down to Holly Ridge and found residents felt their concerns were being completely ignored by both Meta and their local elected officials.
"We had no voting on it, no community meetings, no nothing," one local woman told More Perfect Union. "It was done all under the table."
Another local resident told More Perfect Union that Holly Ridge has become "totally different" ever since Meta began AI data center construction.
"Who wants to live like this?" he asked as he looked on at more construction trucks barreling through the community.
Zuckerberg is building a data center in Louisiana the size of Manhattan — while Meta runs ads about how small towns love their data centers, we found furious locals who plan to leave town completely. pic.twitter.com/xHLG4KJMLO
— More Perfect Union (@MorePerfectUS) November 19, 2025
According to a Monday report in the Wall Street Journal, the massive Meta Louisiana data center is being funded through debt that is being papered over with accounting gimmicks that the paper notes are likely "too good to be true."
Specifically, the Journal said that Meta has created a joint venture known as a variable interest entity with investment manager Blue Owl Capital, in which Meta will rent the data center for up to 20 years as a way to keep the debt from its construction off its books.
"This lease structure minimizes the lease liabilities and related assets Meta will recognize, and enables Meta to use 'operating lease,' rather than 'finance lease,' treatment," the Journal explained. "If Meta used the latter, it would look more like Meta owns the asset and is financing it with debt."
However, the report noted that Meta is relying on "some convenient assumptions" in justifying its use of this accounting tactic, some of which "appear implausible" and "are in tension with one another," which makes it hard to justify keeping debt from the data center off its books.
"Ultimately, the fact pattern Meta relies on to meet its conflicting objectives strains credibility," reports the Journal. "To believe Meta’s books, one must accept that Meta lacks the power to call the shots that matter most, that there’s reasonable doubt it will stay beyond four years, and that it probably won’t have to honor its guarantee—all at the same time."
Commenting on the Journal's story about the data center financing, Wired editor Tim Marchman described it in a post on Bluesky as "the equivalent of a 500-foot neon sign reading 'FRAUD.'"
'Vought Should Resign,' CFPB Workers Say of 'Pledge' to Be Nice to Wall Street Fraudsters
“Why is Russell Vought showing the world his weird, creepy pledge of allegiance to big corporations? Have some dignity, Russell."
That's what Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Union member Alexis Goldstein said on Monday about the CFPB acting director's new "humility pledge" that examiners with the agency's Supervision Division will be forced to read to financial institutions before conducting reviews next year.
Several other CFPB Union members joined Goldstein in blasting Vought's pledge, including treasurer Gabe Hopkins, who said that "whoever wrote this has never even spoken to an examiner before, only been wined and dined by industry lobbyists."
The lengthy pledge states in part that the CFPB's "goal is to work collaboratively with the entities to review entities' processes
for compliance and/or remedy existing problems," and the agency "is doing so by encouraging self-reporting and resolving issues in Supervision, where feasible, instead of via Enforcement."
CFPB Union president Cat Farman inquired: "Is this fan fiction I'm reading? What's next, 'Russell Vought Tells CFPB Examiners to Serve Tea to Their Wall Street Masters in Tiny French Maid Aprons'?"
"Instead of traumatizing CFPB workers with his roleplay fantasies," Farman argued, "Vought should resign so we can finally do our jobs protecting Americans from Wall Street fraud again."
CFPB Workers don’t consent to Vought’s creepy “Humility Pledge” fantasy. nteu335.org/2025/11/24/c...
[image or embed]
— CFPB Union (@nteu335.bsky.social) November 24, 2025 at 11:17 AM
Vought—also the Senate-confirmed director of the Office of Management and Budget, a role he previously held during President Donald Trump's first term—has unsuccessfully tried to shutter the CFPB completely this year.
As the New York Times reported Monday:
The new pledge is, for now, mostly symbolic. Mr. Vought halted nearly all work at the bureau shortly after his arrival in February, and bank examinations have not resumed. The agency's hundreds of examiners have been told to spend their time closing out all open matters; they are currently barred from initiating new ones.
And Mr. Vought has refused to request money for the consumer bureau from the Federal Reserve, which funds its operations. The bureau warned in court filings that it would run out of operating cash early next year.
In a Friday statement announcing the pledge, the Vought-led agency claimed that under the Biden administration, the Supervision Division "was the weaponized arm of the CFPB."
The agency added that "where these exams were previously done with unnecessary personnel, outrageous travel expenses, and with the thuggery pervasive in prior leadership, they will now be done respectfully, promptly, professionally, and under budget."
Given that Vought "stopped all supervision exams in 2025, refuses to fund CFPB, and says he's shutting us down by 2026," CFPB Union member Doug Wilson asked: "So how will we supervise banks in 2026 if CFPB is closed? How can bank exams be 'under budget' if there is no budget?"
Ripping Vought's pledge and press release as "incredibly disrespectful to Supervision's dedicated workers," fellow CFPB Union member Tyler Creighton said that the pair of documents also "misunderstands or misconstrues Supervision's prior work."
"Supervision's workers have always conducted examinations professionally, efficiently, conscientiously, and with a focus on remedying consumer harm," Creighton said. "We will continue to do so as soon as Donald Trump and Vought end their 10-month suspension of examinations and let us get back to work for the American people."
Another CFPB Union member, Steve Wheeler, highlighted that "they're trying to make it sound like it’s groundbreaking to send notifications of exams ahead of time and keep data pulls relevant to the examined area, when those are things we already do."
Originally proposed by now-Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the CFPB was created in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis via the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act, signed in 2010 by then-President Barack Obama.
Warren joined the CFPB Union members in calling out the new pledge, declaring that "Donald Trump is Wall Street first."
Union member Ravisha "Avi" Kumar pointed out that "under previous administrations, CFPB examiners protected consumers from banks, like Wells Fargo, that incentivized their employees to cut corners and overlook consumer harm. CFPB forced the banks to return that stolen money to consumers."
"Ironically, under this administration, Vought says he will incentivize examiners to rush jobs (cut corners) and stick to the surface (overlook consumer harm)," Kumar added. "How is that still consumer financial protection?"
The pledge announcement came a day after CFPB officials told staff that much of the agency workforce will be furloughed at the end of the year and that remaining consumer litigation will be sent to the US Department of Justice (DOJ).
"This is Russ Vought's latest illegal power grab in his ongoing plan to shut down the CFPB and protect CEOs instead of consumers," said Farman. "CFPB attorneys are afraid DOJ will dismiss these cases."
"Vought's already helped Wall Street swindle $18 billion from Americans this year," the union leader continued. "If Vought is going to keep refusing to fund CFPB in order to illegally dismantle the agency, while he wastes over $5 million of CFPB's dwindling budget on personal bodyguards, then it's time for Congress to impeach and remove Russell Vought from power."
'We Are Being Held to Ransom': Trump-Starmer Deal Would Force NHS to Pay More for Medicines
The government of British Prime Minister Keir Starmer faced swift backlash on Monday after the Trump administration announced a deal under which the United Kingdom's prized National Health Service would pay higher prices for new medicines in exchange for tariff exemptions.
The agreement in principle, outlined in a statement by the Office of the United States Trade Representative, was seen by UK lawmakers and advocacy groups as a gross capitulation to US President Donald Trump and the pharmaceutical industry that would harm the NHS and British patients for years to come.
"Giving in to Big Pharma’s demands to hike the price of medicines spells disaster for our NHS, and for the lives of ordinary people," said Global Justice Now, a UK-based group. "We are being held to ransom. Our government must stand up to Big Pharma and for our NHS by reversing course."
Under the three-year deal, the NHS would boost the net price it pays for new pharmaceutical drugs, many of which emerge from the US, by 25%—a change that's expected to cost British taxpayers roughly £3 billion. In return, Trump has agreed not to impose tariffs on UK pharmaceuticals.
Helen Morgan, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Shropshire, denounced the new agreement as "a Trump shakedown of the NHS." As evidence, she pointed to US Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s celebration of the bilateral deal.
"It cannot go ahead," said Morgan. "RFK Jr. has put it in black and white: Trump demanded these pay rises to put Americans first, and our government rolled over. Patients stuck on crammed hospital corridors, or unable to get an ambulance, won’t forget it."
"The British people didn’t vote for this," Morgan added. "The government must put this agreement to a vote in parliament.”
Andrew Hill, a visiting health economics researcher at the University of Liverpool, similarly criticized the deal.
“The UK hasn’t benefited from this at all, but we’re having to pay all this extra money," said Hill. "More money spent on drugs means less money spent on ambulances, doctors, nurses, simple health interventions."
In addition to facing the threat of Trump tariffs, the UK government was under pressure from the powerful pharmaceutical industry to jack up NHS drug spending. The Guardian reported in September that "big pharmaceutical companies have ditched or paused nearly £2 billion in planned UK investments so far this year" as the firms "accused the government of not spending enough on new medicines."
Survey data released just ahead of Monday's deal announcement shows that 64% of the British public is opposed to the NHS paying higher prices for medicines.
"This is a betrayal of NHS patients," said Diarmaid McDonald, executive director of the advocacy group Just Treatment. "Big Pharma have got what they want. Donald Trump has got what he wants. In the face of their coordinated threats, the government has folded and thousands of patients will pay for this with their lives, as precious funds get stripped from other parts of the health service to line the pockets of rich pharmaceutical execs."
"MPs need to urgently hold the government to account," McDonald added, "and demand they publish the evidence showing the impact of this catastrophic move.”
"This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients."
Asked at a Monday press briefing if the deal would actually benefit US patients and consumers, as the Trump administration has claimed, or if the alleged revenue generated by the agreement would just be "sucked up" by the drug companies, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt did not have an immediate answer.
"I'm going to be honest with you, Ed," Leavitt told the reporter: "I'll get you an answer to that question after the briefing."
Peter Maybarduk, Public Citizen’s Access to Medicines director, argued in a statement that the agreement wouldn't help Americans or Britons.
" Drug prices are far too high everywhere, including in the UK, backed by patent monopolies and contributing to rationing and preventable suffering," said Maybarduk. "This outrageous giveaway to Big Pharma does nothing to lower prices in the United States. It only hurts UK patients while distracting from the serious action needed at home to hold Pharma accountable and make medicine affordable and available for all.”
'This Is the Scandal': DHS Data Show ICE Mostly Targeting People With No Criminal Convictions
The libertarian Cato Institute this week further undermined the Trump administration's claims that it is targeting "the worst of the worst" with its violent immigration operations in communities across the United States by publishing data about the criminal histories—or lack thereof—of immigrants who have been arrested and booked into detention.
David J. Bier, the institute's director of immigration studies, previously reported in June that 65% of people taken by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) had no convictions, and 93% had no violent convictions.
Monday evening, Bier shared a new nonpublic dataset leaked to Cato. Of the 44,882 people booked into ICE custody from when the fiscal year began on October 1 through November 15, 73% had no criminal convictions. For that share, around two-thirds also had no pending charges.
The data also show that most of those recently booked into ICE detention with criminal convictions had faced immigration, traffic, or vice charges. Just 5% had a violent conviction, and 3% had a property conviction.
"Other data sources support the conclusions from the number of ICE book-ins," Bier wrote, citing information on agency arrests from January to late July—or the first six months of President Donald Trump's second term—that the Deportation Data Project acquired via a public records request.
The data show that as of January 1, just before former President Joe Biden left office, 149 immigrants without charges or convictions were arrested by ICE. That number surged by 1,500% under Trump: It peaked at 4,072 in June and ultimately was 2,386 by the end of July—when 67% of all arrestees had no criminal convictions, and 39% had neither convictions nor charges.
Bier also pointed to publicly available data about current detainees on ICE's website, emphasizing that the number of people in detention with no convictions or pending charges “increased a staggering 2,370% since January from fewer than 1,000 to over 21,000."
In addition to publishing an article on Cato's site, Bier detailed the findings on the social media platform X, where various critics of the administration's immigration crackdown weighed in. Among them was Congresswoman Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.), who said: "These are the facts. I've spoken to dozens of people held inside ICE detention centers in Arizona and this tracks."
US Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) declared: "This is the scandal. Trump isn't targeting dangerous people. He's targeting peaceful immigrants. Almost exclusively."
The US Department of Homeland Security, which includes ICE, also jumped in, as did DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin. Responding to Murphy, McLaughlin said in part: "This is so dumb it hurts my soul. This is a made-up pie chart with no legitimate data behind it—just propaganda to undermine the brave work of DHS law enforcement and fool Americans."
Bier and others then took aim at McLaughlin, with the Cato director offering the raw data and challenging her to "just admit you don't care whether the people you're arresting are threats to others or not."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said that "DHS's spokeswoman lies AGAIN," calling out her post as "either a knowing lie or an egregious mistake."
"The data David J. Bier published was distributed to multiple congressional staffers and is just a more detailed breakdown of data, which is publicly available on ICE's own website," he stressed.
Journalist Jose Olivares noted that this is "not the first time Tricia McLaughlin has said that ICE's own data is 'propaganda.' Months ago, she slammed me and my colleague at the Guardian on PBS... even though we used ICE's own data for our reporting."
'Truly Barbaric': Number of People Killed or Maimed by Landmines Hits Five-Year High
The 27th annual Landmine Monitor report revealed on Monday that antipersonnel landmines and other explosive remnants of war killed at least 1,945 people and injured another 4,325 in 2024—the highest yearly casualty figure since 2020 and a 9% increase from the previous year.
Since the Mine Ban Treaty entered into force in 1999, "casualty records have included 165,724 people recorded as killed (47,904) or injured (113,595) or of unknown survival outcome (4,225)," according to the new report from the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Ban Landmines (ICBL).
The ICBL published the report as state parties to the treaty kicked off a meeting in Geneva, Switzerland. It details not only casualties but also treaty updates; production, transfers, and stockpiles of mines; alleged or confirmed uses; existing contamination; and international efforts to aid victims and clean up impacted regions.
Also known as the Ottawa Treaty, it is now supported by 166 countries, after the Marshall Islands ratified the pact in March and Tonga acceded in June. Despite that progress, there have also been steps backward, as Mark Hiznay, Landmine Monitor editor for ban policy, highlighted in a Monday statement.
"Five states renounced their treaty obligations in a matter of months," Hiznay said, "when evidence shows if they use mines, it can take decades and enormous resources to clear contaminated land and assist the new victims, who will feel the impact of mine use long after the conflict has ceased."
The state parties in the process of legally withdrawing are Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland. ICBL director Tamar Gabelnick argued Monday that "governments must speak out to uphold the treaty, prevent further departures, reinforce its provisions globally, and ensure no more countries use, produce, or acquire antipersonnel mines."
"Turning back is not an option; we have come too far, and the human cost is simply too high," Gabelnick warned.
The 2025 Landmine Monitor is out now.Casualties from landmines and unexploded bombs have risen. On average, 17 people were killed or injured every day in 2024, nearly half of them children.As states meet for the Mine Ban Treaty this week, MAG urges renewed commitment.More ➡️ buff.ly/CP8m0BL
[image or embed]
— MAG (Mines Advisory Group) (@minesadvisorygroup.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 5:35 AM
There have been recent reports of mine use by both state parties to the pact and countries that have refused to embrace the treaty. The publication notes alleged use by government forces in Myanmar; by Iran, along its borders with Afghanistan and Pakistan; and by North Korea, along its borders with China and South Korea. Additionally, in July, Thailand accused a fellow state party, Cambodia, of using mines along their disputed border. Cambodia has denied the allegations.
Another state party, Ukraine, is trying to unlawfully "suspend the operation" of the treaty while battling a Russian invasion, and the report points to "increasing indications" of mine use by Ukrainian forces in 2024-25. Russia—one of the few dozen nations that have not signed on to the agreement—has used mines "extensively" since invading its neighbor in February 2022.
The United States has also never formally joined the treaty and has come under fire for recent decisions. After initially aiming to accede to the treaty, the outgoing Biden administration last year approved a plan to provide antipersonnel landmines to Ukraine. This year, the Trump administration has made deep cuts to foreign aid that have disrupted mine clearance operations.
The global ban on antipersonnel landmines saves civilian lives but faces serious threats from countries leaving the treaty and new landmine use.Immediate and strong action is needed to counter these life-threatening developments.New Landmine Monitor 2025, out now⤵️
[image or embed]
— Jan Kooy (@kooyjan.bsky.social) December 1, 2025 at 5:14 AM
"Even when fighting stops, these hidden killers remain active for decades, continuing to destroy lives long after the combat has stopped," Anne Héry, advocacy director at the group Humanity & Inclusion US, said in a Monday statement. "States parties must live up to their obligations under the Mine Ban Treaty: to condemn, in the strongest possible terms, any use of antipersonnel mines by any actor, under any circumstance."
"A large part of the victims recorded in the Landmine Monitor 2025, like in the previous years, are injured or killed by landmines and explosive remnants long after the fighting has ended, when people return to their homes believing they can start a new life," she continued. "Landmines are truly barbaric weapons that kill and injure largely outside periods of active conflict."
On Wednesday, Humanity & Inclusion US executive director Hannah Guedenet will join fellow experts for a virtual briefing "to discuss the latest Monitor reports, the human cost of these weapons, and the role US leadership must play at this pivotal moment," the group leader previewed in a Monday opinion piece for Common Dreams.
"Bringing these insights directly to policymakers and advocates is essential to strengthening global norms and advancing effective solutions," she wrote. Despite never joining the Mine Ban Treaty or the 2010 Convention on Cluster Munitions, "the United States has long been one of the world's largest supporters of mine clearance and victim assistance, helping make former battlefields safe for farming, economic investment, and community life."
"The case for action is both moral and pragmatic. Every mine removed or cluster bomb destroyed reopens land for cultivation, enables displaced families to return home, and prevents future casualties. These are tangible, measurable outcomes that support US foreign policy priorities: stability, economic recovery, and the protection of civilians in conflict," she added. "In a time of never-ending partisan fights, this is a place where both sides can come together and agree on the right steps forward."
Billionaire-Funded ‘Trump Accounts’ for Kids Slammed as 'Another Tax Shelter' for the Rich
"If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare," said one children's advocate.
After Silicon Valley CEO Michael Dell and his wife, philanthropist Susan Dell, announced Tuesday their plan to invest $6.25 billion in seed money in individual investment accounts for 25 million American children, adding to the number of kids who would receive so-called "Trump Accounts" that were included in the Republican spending bill this year, advocates acknowledged that a direct cash investment could feasibly help some families.
But the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) was among those wondering whether the Dells' investment of $6.25 billion—a fraction of their $148 billion fortune—would ultimately benefit wealthy investors far more.
“While we support direct investments in families, the Trump Accounts being hailed by the White House are a policy solution that doesn’t meet most families’ needs,” said Amy Matsui, the vice president of income security and child care at NWLC. “As currently structured, these accounts will just become another tax shelter for the wealthiest, while the overwhelming majority of American families, who are struggling to cover basic costs like food, childcare, and housing, will be hard pressed to find the extra money that could turn the seed money into a meaningful investment."
The Dells, who are behind Dell Technologies, announced the investment plan months after President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law. The tax and spending law includes a provision that would start an investment account for every US citizen child born between January 2025-December 2028, with a $1,000 investment from the US government.
As Jezebel reported, the couple's contribution would got to an additional 25 million children, up to age 10, who were born prior to the 2025 cut-off date for the initial Trump Accounts.
"Around 80% of children born between 2016-2024 would theoretically qualify, although there are cutoffs based on household income: Applying families would have to live in ZIP codes where the median household income is less than $150,000 per year," wrote Jim Vorel.
In the corporate press, the Dells were applauded for making what they called the largest single private charitable donation to US children, but Vorel questioned the real-world impact of "a gift of $250, thrown vaguely in the direction of millions of American families by members of our billionaire ruling class."
"What can that money realistically do in terms of providing for a child’s future?" he wrote. "Is it the seed that is going to allow them to go to college, to buy a house some day? Does that really seem likely? Or are we primarily talking about billionaires running PR campaigns for a president who recently hit new second term lows in his overall approval numbers?"
The success of the individual investment accounts hinges on whether Americans and their employers—who can contribute up to $2,500 per year without counting it as taxable income—will be able to consistently and meaningfully invest money in the accounts until their children turn 18, considering that about a quarter of US households are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a recent poll.
"Do you know many families in 2025 that would describe themselves as having a spare $5,000 per year to immediately start investing in a government-backed investment account, even if that might be relatively sound financial strategy? Or are the families in your orbit already scraping to get by, without being able to commit much attention to investing in the future?" asked Vorel, adding that the artificial intelligence "bubble" is widely expected to soon burst and drag the stock market in which Trump is urging families to invest "into a deep pit of despair."
"As is so often the case, the families most benefited by the concept of Trump Accounts will be those ones who are already on the best financial footing, aka the wealthiest Americans," he wrote.
Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass was among those who said the Dells' investment only served to demonstrate how "they should pay more in taxes" to ensure all US children can benefit from public, not private, investment in education, healthcare, and other social supports.
"The government should not be funding only what can secure the sympathies of erratic rich people," said Cohn.
The NWLC argued the Trump Accounts are an example of the White House's embrace of "pronatalism"—the belief that the government should incentivize Americans to have more children—but fall short of being a policy that would actually make a measurable positive impact on families.
“In the end, this policy mirrors the rest of the law: another giveaway to the richest Americans that leaves everyone else further behind," said Matsui. "If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare, an expanded Child Tax Credit, and undoing the historic cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.”
‘What Is the Administration Trying to Hide?’ Dems Demand Public Testimony From Trump Budget Chief
"He has unlawfully blocked funding and created a massive affordability crisis across the country. Congress and the American people deserve answers."
A group of House Democrats on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump's budget chief, Russell Vought, to publicly testify on the administration's unlawful withholding of funds approved by Congress and broader economic agenda, which the lawmakers said is "driving up costs, weakening the labor market, and inflicting real economic harm on the American people."
"We remain alarmed that you persist in implementing an extreme agenda that jeopardizes the economic security of the American people and shows open disregard for Congress' constitutional power of the purse," House Budget Committee Democrats, led by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), wrote in a letter to Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a lead architect of the far-right Project 2025 agenda.
The lawmakers accused Vought of dodging the House Budget Committee, noting that the head of OMB typically appears before the panel shortly after the release of the president's annual budget request. Trump unveiled his budget blueprint all the way back in May.
"Not only has the committee yet to hear from OMB, you have also found time for multiple closed-door meetings with House Republicans," the Democrats wrote. "Under Democratic chairs, the public was never shut out from these important exchanges. What is the administration trying to hide?"
The letter points to Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports finding that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated federal law by withholding or delaying the disbursement of funds authorized by Congress, including National Institutes of Health research grants and money for Head Start.
The House Democrats also condemned Vought's attacks on government transparency, citing his agency's decision earlier this year to cut off public access to a database that tracks federal spending. OMB later partially restored the database after losing a court fight.
"If you fail to appear before this committee before the end of the year, this will be the only administration in the last 50 years to not send the OMB director—a basic standard you yourself met during President Trump’s first administration (appearing in both 2019 and 2020)," the lawmakers wrote on Tuesday. "If you disagree... it will make one point unmistakably clear: you know you cannot defend an extreme agenda."
We’re demanding that Russ Vought, Trump’s OMB Director and the architect of Project 2025, testify before the House Budget Committee.
He has unlawfully blocked funding and created a massive affordability crisis across the country. Congress and the American people deserve answers. pic.twitter.com/kxde5mCYs9
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) December 2, 2025
After playing a key role in crafting the notorious Project 2025 agenda ahead of Trump's 2024 election win, Vought has emerged as one of the most powerful figures in the administration, wielding power at OMB so aggressively that ProPublica recently dubbed him "the shadow president."
"What Vought has done in the nine months since Trump took office goes much further than slashing foreign aid," the investigative outlet noted. "Relying on an expansive theory of presidential power and a willingness to test the rule of law, he has frozen vast sums of federal spending, terminated tens of thousands of federal workers and, in a few cases, brought entire agencies to a standstill."
One anonymous administration official told ProPublica that "it feels like we work for Russ Vought."
"He has centralized decision-making power to an extent that he is the commander-in-chief," the official said.
Second US Strike on Boat Attack Survivors Was Illegal—But Experts Stress That the Rest Were, Too
"It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained," said one human rights leader.
As the White House claims that President Donald Trump "has the authority" to blow up anyone he dubs a "narco-terrorist" and Adm. Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley prepares for a classified congressional briefing amid outrage over a double-tap strike that kicked off the administration's boat bombing spree, rights advocates and legal experts emphasize that all of the US attacks on alleged drug-running vessels have been illegal.
"Trump said he will look into reports that the US military (illegally) conducted a follow-up strike on a boat in the Caribbean that it believed to be ferrying drugs, killing survivors of an initial missile attack. But the initial attack was illegal too," Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said on social media Monday.
Roth and various others have called out the US military's bombings of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific as unlawful since they began on September 2, when the two strikes killed 11 people. The Trump administration has confirmed its attacks on 22 vessels with a death toll of at least 83 people.
Shortly after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that some passengers initially survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. Then, the Washington Post and CNN reported Friday that Bradley ordered the second strike to comply with an alleged spoken directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to kill everyone on board.
The administration has not denied that the second strike killed survivors, but Hegseth and the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, have insisted that the Pentagon chief never gave the spoken order.
However, the reporting has sparked reminders that all of the bombings are "war crimes, murder, or both," as the Former Judge Advocates General (JAGs) Working Group put it on Saturday.
Following Leavitt's remarks about the September 2 strikes during a Monday press briefing, Roth stressed Tuesday that "it is not 'self-defense' to return and kill two survivors of a first attack on a supposed drug boat as they clung to the wreckage. It is murder. No amount of Trump spin will change that."
"Whether Hegseth ordered survivors killed after a US attack on a supposed drug boat is not the heart of the matter," Roth said. "It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained. There is no 'armed conflict' despite Trump's claim."
The Trump administration has argued to Congress that the strikes on boats supposedly smuggling narcotics are justified because the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels that the president has labeled terrorist organizations.
During a Sunday appearance on ABC News' "This Week," US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "I think it's very possible there was a war crime committed. Of course, for it to be a war crime, you have to accept the Trump administration's whole construct here... which is we're in armed conflict, at war... with the drug gangs."
"Of course, they've never presented the public with the information they've got here," added Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "But it could be worse than that. If that theory is wrong, then it's plain murder."
Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the US Naval War College, rejects the Trump administration's argument that it is at war with cartels. Under international human rights law, he told the Associated Press on Monday, "you can only use lethal force in circumstances where there is an imminent threat," and with the first attack, "that wasn't the case."
"I can't imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water... That is clearly unlawful," Schmitt said. Even if the US were in an actual armed conflict, he explained, "it has been clear for well over a century that you may not declare what's called 'no quarter'—take no survivors, kill everyone."
According to the AP:
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group and a former State Department lawyer, agreed that the US is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
"The term for a premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder," Finucane said, adding that US military personnel could be prosecuted in American courts.
"Murder on the high seas is a crime," he said. "Conspiracy to commit murder outside of the United States is a crime. And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118 makes murder an offense."
Finucane also participated in a related podcast discussion released in October by Just Security, which on Monday published an analysis by three experts who examined "the law that applies to the alleged facts of the operation and Hegseth's reported order."
Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman, and Tess Bridgeman emphasized in Just Security that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) did not apply to the September 2 strikes because "the United States is not in an armed conflict with any drug trafficking cartel or criminal gang anywhere in the Western Hemisphere... For the same reason, the individuals involved have not committed war crimes."
"However, the duty to refuse clearly unlawful orders—such as an order to commit a crime—is not limited to armed conflict situations to which LOAC applies," they noted. "The alleged Hegseth order and special forces' lethal operation amounted to unlawful 'extrajudicial killing' under human rights law... The federal murder statute would also apply, whether or not there is an armed conflict."
Goodman added on social media Monday that the 11 people killed on September 2 "would be civilians even if this were an armed conflict... It's not even an armed conflict. It's extrajudicial killing."



















