LIVE COVERAGE
Fog Of Bullshit: Racist Clowns, Liars and Psycopaths
The surreal and deadly lurches on. In the last, frantic, script-flipping week, MAGA went from threatening to kill Dems who reminded troops to obey the law to scurrying to parse or ignore the news their macho, bungling Secretary of War Crimes evidently blew apart (at least) two guys in the water for no reason - an action universally deemed either murder or war crime, but def against the law. Now see Kegseth et al thrash, bluster, scapegoat the other guy. Trump doctrine: Deport, raze, blame, kill first; think (sic) later.
Most notably, a flailing presidency of "malevolence tempered by incompetence" - Cue the bonkers holiday greeting, "A very Happy Thanksgiving salutation to all of our Great American Citizens and Patriots who have been so nice in allowing our Country to be divided, disrupted, carved up, murdered, beaten, mugged, and laughed at" - is now embroiled in the detritus of a toxic, slapdash revenge tour targeting perceived, if often outlandish, enemies, both here and abroad. Last week's berserk campaign focused on six, uppity Democratic lawmaker and veterans who dared post a brief video reminding the military of their oaths to follow all laws and if needed disobey orders that don't - a bedrock tenet of the military engraved on a plaque at West Point: "Should orders and the law ever conflict, our officers obey the law." Pretty radical.
The measured response from the Mob-Boss-in-Chief: Charging them with "SEDITION," "TREASON," "MILITARY TRIBUNALS," and calling them "traitorous sons of bitches" who should be "EXECUTED." Even as death threats followed, he was swiftly joined by every MAGA lickspittle, especially the lickspittlest - Whiskey Pete, the preening, fragile, manly creator of the War Dept. famed for strutting on stages to spout lethal bullshit about a "warrior ethos" that demands "more lethality, less (sic) lawyers" 'cause who needs rules and laws? Shrieking the Dems' "screed" was "despicable, reckless, and false," he zeroed in on Sen. Mark Kelly - Macho Twit Goes After Actual Mensch - announcing he'd gotten "serious allegations of misconduct” by Kelly; he'd "determine further action," and maybe recall Kelly to active duty so he could court-martial him.
It was a brilliant move by a National Guardsman whose drunken, inept, sexual assaulting career peaked in a Civil Affairs job and a weekend TV host gig until his appointment, savaged as "an affront" to anyone who ever served, especially after he leaked war plans. Veterans viscerated him as "an absolute jackass," "an imposter," "a coward," "a blowhard" in makeup, "that officer, a total blue falcon" who screws his comrades. So did pols. Sen. and former Marine Ruben Gallego: "This is fucking insane." Kelly, in contrast, is a decades-long, much-decorated Navy pilot who saw 39 combat missions in Operation Desert Storm, an astronaut who flew four space shuttle missions including the mission to recover the Columbia crash victims, a husband who retired to nurse his wife back to health after she was shot in the head, and a respected Senator.
Kelly, who's seen worse, fought back: "He runs around on stage talking about lethality and the warrior ethos (like) a 12-year-old playing army, and it is ridiculous. It is embarrassing. This is not a serious person." He noted the "wild" irony of Hegseth going after him under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which is what the six traitors recited: "You can't make this shit up." He posted an image of his 20-plus medals to explain how he'd served and loved this country. In response, nasty little Pete sneered to "Captain" Kelly not only did he do "sedition" but his medals "are out of order," and he'd get to that. Alexander Vindman (and half of America): "Ever heard of a picture being mirrored? Good reminder: You’re out of your depth." Shut down, Pete went after our real enemy, vowing to cut support for a DEI-infected Boy Scouts who've become "genderless" and failed to "cultivate masculine values."
This is what he's been busy doing. This is who this petty macho arrogant sadist is. This is the guy who, as the Washington Post reported days later, allegedly ordered a SEAL Team on Sept. 2, in the first of nearly two dozen military strikes on fishing boats in the Caribbean that have killed 83 mostly anonymous "narco-terrorists" in extrajudicial assassinations, to "kill everybody" after the smoke from an initial strike cleared and revealed two wounded survivors in the water, clinging to wreckage of the burning boat. "Kill them all," writes JoJoFromJerz. "That was the order, plain, deliberate, and damnable, issued by the booze and bronzer-brined (Hegseth) as if American power were his personal cudgel and human life his disposable currency. The directive slithered down the chain of command like toxic runoff." In moments, the two helpless men were "blown apart in the water."
The "double-tap" strike was needed, the Pentagon argued, to sink the boat and avoid a "navigation hazard” - a claim Rep. and Marine veteran Seth Moulton called "patently absurd," just like Trump's "novel" claim the U.S. is in an "armed conflict" with oil-rich Venezuela' and its drug cartels. Despite American opposition, to date he's threatened ground strikes, hinted at regime change, and unilaterally declared Venezuelan airspace closed along with 83 killings so politically and legally dubious the U.K. has stopped sharing intelligence on traffic in the Caribbean to not be complicit. All this, despite a total lack of evidence the victims are drug traffickers or any accountability for their deaths, and the fact most fentanyl doesn't even come from the Caribbean. One pundit: "So what gave him the idea blowing up small boats in international waters was a thing?"
Warrior Pete is on it anyway, damn near swooning from blood lust, with his dumb renaming stunt - "WAR.GOV/JOINTHEFIGHT - rabid calls for "lethality," firing of military Judge Advocate Generals who act as legal guardrails against possible future illegal commands (hmm) and queasy zeal for the fight: "Trump ordered action - and the Department of War is delivering! Operation SOUTHERN SPEAR defends our Homeland!" The WaPo story of his verbal command to "kill everybody" shouldn't surprise anyone; it's part of the long, sordid, bellicose narrative arc of a laws-are-bullshit buffoon who only feels big if he makes others small, or per Trump, "like, dead," and can then brag about it. An over-the-top, uber-macho cartoon version of a weak man willing to do anything to get by, he fits right in with all the regime's other flame-throwing hacks, clowns and sycophants.
Meanwhile, the consensus of every military expert or lawyer asked is that Hegseth is, by his actions, either a war criminal or a murderer. The legal bottom line: "There is no basis in law for the maritime attacks. Period. Full stop." Even if there were, international and US law render the targeting of defenseless persons - showing them no quarter - "patently illegal." They add, "Violations of these obligations are war crimes, murder, or both. There are no other options." And anyone who issues or follows those orders should be prosecuted. Many cite a "textbook war crime," as in, "If we were at war, Hegseth committed one. If not, it's outright murder." Laurence Tribe, who taught law at Harvard for 50 years, helpfully adds the DOD Law of War Manual, Sec. 18.3.2.1 includes the "requirement" to refuse illegal orders. Their key example? "Orders to fire upon the shipwrecked."
Also, in case anyone ever believed Trump's "war" was about drugs: Last week he pardoned former Honduran president and cocaine kingpin Juan Orlando Hernández, sentenced last year in a US court to 45 years in prison for conspiring to traffic over 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S.; with his brother, he also helped turn Honduras into a major producing hub and transit point for cocaine heading to the US, and once said he wanted to “stuff the drugs right up the noses of the gringos." That brazen Trumpian flaunting of his "charade" of a drug war may be why even key Repubs on House and Senate Armed Services Committees are saying, on the record, they may even do some oversight of this crime by their mad king among so many; it remains to be seen how many are willing to "fall on their swords" for the grossly incompetent, unsavory Hegseth.
South Park's latest, savage skewering of "fucking douchebag Pete Hegseth" may help them decide, or not. Trump sends him to town to free Peter Thiel; armed with his selfie stick but thrown out by the "woke" police chief, he teargasses the annual, Saudi-sponsored 5K Turkey Trot, mistaking the race for an Antifa mob; then he bickers with ICE Barbie - who shoots another dog livestreaming and yelling, "Like and subscribe, guys! The Department of War will not be intimidated!" Possibly confusing art with life, Hegseth tried Friday to sneeringly meme his way from the outrage by trashing "fake news," doubling down with, "We have only just begun to kill narco-terrorists," and posting a grotesque, quickly blasted, parody of kids' icon Franklin the Turtle firing rockets at small boats. Up next: "Franklin Goes to the Hague For War Crimes" and "Franklin On Trial at the ICC."
The White House, meanwhile, feverishly tried to quiet the uproar. Press Barbie babbled the second strike was "in self-defense to protect Americans in vital United States interests" (sic) and insisted "presidentially-designated Narco-terrorist groups are subject to lethal targeting." Also, they suddenly found a scapegoat, Admiral Frank Bradley: "Bus, meet Admiral Bradley. Admiral Bradley, meet bus." Hegseth "authorized Adm Bradley to conduct these kinetic strikes. (He) worked well within his authority and the law to ensure the boat was destroyed and the threat to the United States was eliminated," said Barbie, a renowned scholar of maritime law. Pete's stupid, rank deceit reportedly set off "furious backlash" at the Pentagon. "He is selling out Bradley and sending chills down the spines of his chain of command," said Sen. Chris Murphy. "A case study in how not to lead."
The morning after the Sept. 3 attack, Hegseth told former Fox News cohorts he monitored the strike in real time: "I watched it live." At Tuesday's Cabinet circle jerk, Trump dozed from his night's hypomanic episode of rage-posting160 times, and Pete's story shifted. He saw the first strike, but "at the Dept.of War we got alotta things to do" so he didn’t stay for when "sensitive site exploitation digitally occurs" blah blah and went to a meeting; hours later, he learned "the commander had made the - which he had the complete authority to do" blah blah under bus and "we have his back." Asked if he saw survivors, he lost it: "The thing was on fire. This is called the fog of war. This is what you in the press don’t understand. You sit in your air-conditioned offices, plant fake stories, nit pick, kill everybody, not based on anything, American heroes, I wrote a book, yada yada, war fighters!
Wait. "The fog of war"? You mean the fog of bullshit? You mean the cloud of smoke you see in your air-conditioned office far away as drones on a screen incinerate small boats and the poor souls in them, or a rare survivor who desperately hangs on in the flames and water as you flick a switch to kill him too? That fog of "war"? Fuck you, you gutless piece of self-serving shit, whining you are doing "what is necessary, dark and difficult things (on) behalf of the American people." On Tuesday, the Columbian family of one victim filed the first court petition charging their husband and father, Alejandro Carranza Medina, 42, was illegally killed in a 2nd US strike on Sept. 15. They said he was a fisher who often set out for marlin and tuna; they named Trump and Hegseth as his killers. Trump had bragged that day of "a SECOND Kinetic Strike against positively identified, extraordinarily violent drug trafficking cartels." He said they were "from Venezuela."
‘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."
Indiana House Unveils New Map Rigged for GOP After Months of Trump Threats
After months of escalating attacks against Indiana's Republican lawmakers by President Donald Trump, the state House GOP has revealed a new map for the 2026 midterms designed to hand every US House seat in the state to Republicans.
Republicans won 58% of the vote across Indiana's US House elections in 2024, granting them an already overrepresentative seven of the state's nine congressional seats. The new map, published Monday, would eliminate the remaining two seats in the state held by Democrats.
As Bolts magazine editor and founder Daniel Nichanian explained on social media, under the new map, "Indianapolis would be cracked into GOP seats, and Gary would be drowned in red." In other words, the new map would transparently dilute the power of Indiana's two largest concentrations of nonwhite voters.
The redrawing of Indiana's map comes amid a wider push spearheaded by Trump for Republican states to pursue unprecedented mid-decade gerrymandering in hopes of clinging to a governing trifecta against what is expected to be a wave year for Democrats in 2026.
A similar effort has been undertaken in Texas to potentially add five more seats to the GOP ranks, which is currently under appeal at the US Supreme Court. Trump has likewise pressured Republican lawmakers in Missouri, Utah, and North Carolina to draw maps that would net the GOP even more seats. This power grab has been met with redistricting efforts by some blue states, most notably California, which passed a new map last month, likely adding five more seats to the Democratic column.
Indiana's new map could be put to a vote in the state House as soon as December 8, where it would then be kicked up to the Senate. That is where Trump has run into some resistance, and he hasn't taken it well.
In mid-November, a group of 19 Republican state senators joined a united Democratic caucus to vote down the new map—one of the no votes, state Sen. Kyle Walker (R-33), said he'd "spent the past several months listening closely to [his] constituents on mid-decade redistricting" and found "93% opposed."
After the map was voted down, Trump lit into some of the holdouts in a rant on Truth Social. He said he was "disappointed" in the senators who voted against the map, adding that "any Republican that votes against this important redistricting, potentially having an impact on America itself, should be PRIMARIED," before calling to "get them out of office ASAP" if they failed.
Trump identified two specific lawmakers—Senate Pro Tem Rod Bray (R-37) and Sen. Greg Goode (R-38)—as the "RINO Senators" most responsible for the vote failing.
Within hours of the post, Goode was targeted by a "swatting" attack, in which an anonymous person placed a fraudulent emergency report in hopes of provoking a SWAT team or other large law enforcement response at the target's residence.
Four other Republicans, all of whom had voiced opposition to the map, were also swatted. Another received a bomb threat at his business. And on Monday, another opponent of the map, Sen. Jean Leising (R-42), said she'd received a pipe bomb threat over the weekend, which she blamed on "DC political pundits” in favor of redistricting.
As NBC News reported Monday, at least 10 Indiana Republican lawmakers have received violent threats since Trump's rant—most of whom have been opponents of redistricting.
Indiana Gov. Mike Braun (R) also received threats after catching heat in Trump's rant. But he joined Trump's attacks on the Republican caucus, specifically Bray, who he said "was forced to partner with DEMOCRATS to block an effort by the growing number of America First Senators who wanted to have a vote on passing fair maps.”
Fearful of the wrath of Trump and Braun, Indiana's House reconvened last week. And after saying that the Senate would not reconvene in December, Bray said it would do so on December 8 to "make a final decision… on any redistricting proposal sent from the House.”
Within an hour of Monday's announcement of the GOP map, Democrats, led by state Sen. Fady Qaddoura (D-30), said they planned to introduce legislation to ban mid-decade gerrymandering.
"Voters should choose their leaders, not the other way around," said Qaddoura, who added that the map was "racially gerrymandered."
If the map does pass the Senate, this may present an obstacle. Texas' map is under review by the US Supreme Court after a GOP-majority lower court ruled that the legislature had redrawn districts "based on their racial makeup,” which is illegal under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
But its passage in the state Senate is far from certain. Despite continued pressure from the White House, Politico reports that Bray remains opposed. Meanwhile, Walker has accused the White House of violating the Hatch Act when it invited him to meet with Trump to discuss redistricting.
Trump also lost another ally this weekend in Sen. Mike Bohacek (R-8), who announced that he'd be voting no on redistricting after Trump referred to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz (D) as "retarded" in an unhinged Thanksgiving Day social media rant.
"I have been an unapologetic advocate for people with intellectual disabilities since the birth of my second daughter," Bohacek said, noting that his daughter has Down syndrome. "This is not the first time our president has used these insulting and derogatory references, and his choices of words have consequences. I will be voting NO on redistricting, perhaps he can use the next 10 months to convince voters that his policies and behavior deserve a congressional majority."
The GOP map remains largely unpopular among Hoosiers. The most recent survey, conducted by the Virginia-based firm Bellwether Research, found that among its sample of 800 voters, "51% didn’t want redistricting now—with 45% 'strongly' opposed. About 39% supported the prospect, but just 23% 'strongly' backed it," as Indiana Public Media reported.
As the map was introduced on Monday, hundreds of Hoosiers gathered inside the State Capitol to voice their disapproval.
"At a time when Hoosiers are facing high costs for childcare, groceries, utilities, housing, and health care, the last thing needed is politicians manipulating maps instead of solving real issues," Qaddoura said. "Hoosiers deserve fair elections, stable districts, and a government that reflects them."
'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."