SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
This weekend, former Marine, combat veteran, FBI Director and Special Counsel Robert Mueller, who tragically failed to take down a treacherous sociopath, died of Parkinson’s disease at 81. In response, said sociopath took a moment out from his botched, illegal, calamitous war to giddily declare of a man widely deemed "a cut above" who for five decades served his country not himself, "Good, I’m glad he’s dead," thus proving for the 7,648th time what a twisted, vile, piece-of-shit human being he is.
In what one observer calls "an epic tale of diverging American elites," both men, born just two years apart, were raised in privilege in Northeastern cities. Before famously heading the sprawling, two-year investigation into collusion between Russia and Trump’s 2016 campaign, Mueller lived a long life of patrician public service, much of it defending the rule of law as a registered Republican, which stood in sharp contrast to Private Bonespur's grimy, relentless pursuit of private profit. Mueller grew up in a wealthy Philadelphia suburb; he once said that within the "strict moral code" of his father, a DuPont executive, "A lie was the worst sin." He went to prep school, Princeton, NYU, and then, with the Vietnam War unfurling, Quantico and Army Ranger School.
A former athlete and newly forged Marine, he didn't just volunteer for Vietnam; he spent a year waiting for an injured knee to heal so he could serve. In 1968, he arrived in Vietnam a green Second Lieutenant, serving as a rifle platoon leader in Hotel Company, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Marine Division. With his Ivy League background - his senior thesis was on African territorial disputes before the International Court of Justice - he was met with skepticism but quickly earned respect as a thorough, quiet, "no-bullshit guy" who maintained his composure even in the intense combat of some of the war's bloodiest battles. After being wounded, rescuing one of his men and being airlifted out, he earned a Bronze Star with Valor, a Purple Heart and multiple other medals.
Though he rarely talked about Vietnam, he credited the Marines with instilling in him a lifelong drive and discipline. In a speech years later, he said he felt "exceptionally lucky" to have survived the war and so felt "compelled to contribute.” He went to law school, served as a prosecutor in California, was a US attorney for Massachusetts and California, and oversaw several high-level DOJ investigations before Bush nominated him as director of the FBI; he was sworn in a week before 9/11. He served for 12 years, the longest tenure since J. Edgar Hoover, under both GOP and Democratic presidents. Even at the upper reaches of power, he was respected for remaining determinedly non-partisan in his unwavering belief that nobody was above the law.
Appointed Special Counsel in May 2017 amidst political turmoil, he kept a stoic silence; he said nothing publicly about the Russia investigation, and his careful team of prosecutors leaked nothing. The probe issued 34 indictments - Manafort, Flynn, Gates, Stone etc - and named ten instances of Trump's obstruction of justice, but failed to indict him. Ultimately, in the view of many desperate Americans breathlessly awaiting rescue, Mueller waffled. To a House Judiciary Committee's query about his decision not to prosecute, he clarified, "We made a decision not to decide whether to prosecute." It was way too nuanced for a wee MAGA brain. It was also fatally lame. He added if they "had confidence" Trump didn't commit obstruction of justice, "We would so state. We are unable to reach that judgment.” But by then nobody was listening.
Some argue Mueller was "set up to fail," if not by temperament then by an already broken system n the hands of corrupt players.. A too-narrow mandate focused on Russia, "one slice of a much larger conspiracy," ignored "a multiplex of enemies of democracy," from oligarchs to Saudis. And slimy Bill Barr, aka “Coverup-General Barr” for stonewalling scandals from Iran-Contra to Epstein, deliberately undermined the entire process by releasing a four-page summary of a complex, 448-page report so wildly distorted Mueller himself protested it "did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance” of his work. Barr's conclusion - “No collusion, no obstruction" - was "a lie, but an effective one." No one was held accountable. Perfidious mission accomplished.
Mueller's death, nearly five years after his Parkinson's diagnosis, prompted a wide range of responses indicative of a ruptured nation. Some found him directly responsible for Trump being, not in prison where he belongs but free to practice "the cascading criminality that has defined his public life." "I will NOT lionize someone who (failed) at the earliest opportunity to STOP this madness," one critic wrote. "Two things can be true at one time. Mueller was a patriot. And Mueller's lasting legacy is allowing Barr to bully him into silence." Friends and colleagues praised "a person of the greatest integrity" who remained "committed to the rule of law" and whose "courage could never be questioned.” Wrote former Obama A.G. Eric Holder, "Bob made the nation better."
Then there's the irredeemable, "petty, shameful, despicable," "vile and disgusting" cretin who insulted John McCain, called America's war dead “losers” and “suckers,” was disgusted by wounded troops - "No one wants to see that" - savagely mocks the weak, poor or disabled and ceaselessly "shows his basic indecency and unfitness for office," or life. “Robert Mueller just died. Good, I’m glad he’s dead," he crowed. "He can no longer hurt innocent people!” Then, malevolently driving home the tragic consequences of his moral and political Pyrrhic victory for all to lament, he signed his revolting post, “President DONALD J. TRUMP." Hamlet, what a falling off was there. Our vast, inexplicable catastrophe: "Sadly, this is the president we have."
And his "priorities." On Sunday, he put on the White House grounds a (fenced-off) statue of Christopher Columbus built from one tossed into Baltimore’s harbor in 2020 by "rioters," aka peaceful protesters for racial justice. America was overjoyed: No more war, health care for all, affordable food and gas, justice for Epstein survivors! Let them eat statues! And let the GOP's core values - spite and stupidity - reign. Around (a deranged) midnight, he wrote, “PEACE THROUGH STRENGTH, TO PUT IT MILDLY!" After his post on Mueller's death, the folks at Zeteo wrote the White House asking - think Charlie Kirk - if it's ok others react like Trump at his passing. Shockingly, no response as yet. In their foul miasma, they likely don't know: It'll be the Second Coming, but with a despised shitstain going. Oh, how the herald angels will sing, and a ravaged, weary world, rejoice.

An environmental organization is suing to stop the Trump administration from illegally convening a meeting that could allow oil and gas companies to drive an extremely endangered whale species to extinction.
On Wednesday, the Center for Biological Diversity filed an emergency lawsuit against Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum in a federal district court in Washington, DC, seeking to block him from convening the Endangered Species Committee, more commonly known as the “Extinction Committee,” on March 31.
This committee is sometimes referred to as the "God Squad" because its members have the power to grant exemptions to the Endangered Species Act that can result in the extinction of imperiled species.
Led by the interior secretary, it has seven total members who can vote to override regulations. Five of them are senior executive officials: the secretaries of agriculture and the Army, the head of the Council of Economic Advisers, and the administrators of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). Each affected state also receives a delegate to the committee, but they collectively receive just one vote. Five votes of seven are needed to grant an exemption.
In the federal register, Burgum announced earlier this week that the committee would meet at the end of the month “regarding an Endangered Species Act exemption for Gulf of America oil and gas activities," referring to the Gulf of Mexico by the name preferred by President Donald Trump.
The Center for Biological Diversity said Burgum was seeking to override a requirement for oil and gas companies in the Gulf of Mexico to drive boats at safe speeds in order to protect the nearly extinct Rice’s whale from strikes.
These whales, named after the cetologist Dale Rice, who first recognized them as distinct from other whales in 1965, were not formally recognized as a new species until 2021.
According to the Center for Biological Diversity, only about 51 Rice's whales remain after BP's catastrophic Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010, which devastated their population.
Last May, NOAA's National Marine Fisheries Service issued a biological opinion concluding that their continued existence—as well as that of other whale and sea turtle species—was under threat from boat strikes, since Rice's whales spend most of their time in the top 15 meters of water, which often puts them on a collision course with oil vessels.
The agency issued guidance requiring oil industry ships to travel at slower speeds in the eastern Gulf, saying that if they were followed, lethal collisions would be “extremely unlikely to occur” and that the species would be protected.
The Extinction Committee could override this rule, but it has only been convened three times in its history, and not since 1991, when then-President George H.W. Bush used it to open up timber harvests in the Pacific Northwest that endangered the habitats of spotted owls, which were considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act.
The Extinction Committee is invoked so rarely because the circumstances for its use, as outlined in law, are extremely narrow: It can only be convened within 90 days of a biological opinion by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service concluding that a federal action is likely to jeopardize a species. They must also determine that there is no “reasonable and prudent alternative” to the action the government plans to take.
In its lawsuit, the Center for Biological Diversity says that neither of these criteria has been reached, since the Fisheries Service issued its opinion 10 months ago and already established a reasonable alternative: slowing down the boats.
"Slowing boat speeds is not just reasonable, it’s easy, and it’s the absolute minimum the oil and gas industry can do to save Rice’s whales from extinction,” said Kierán Suckling, executive director of the Center for Biological Diversity.
The group said Burgum is also flouting other requirements of the law, including that the meeting be presided over by an administrative judge and have a formal hearing with public comment. No judge has been appointed by Burgum, and the meeting is only scheduled to be livestreamed on YouTube, with no forum for public input.
“Burgum’s Extinction Committee is immoral, illegal, and unnecessary,” Suckling said. “There’s no emergency, no legal basis to convene the committee, and no legal way to approve the extinction of Rice’s whales. This sham is nothing more than Burgum posturing for Trump and saving the fossil fuel industry a few dollars by allowing its boats to drive faster and more recklessly.”
If Rice's whales were to go extinct, they could be the first ever large whale species to be driven out of existence by human activity in recorded history. Earthjustice says that the rollback of boat speed restrictions and other activities by the Trump administration—including the approval of the first BP oil field in the Gulf since the 2010 spill—are putting other species at risk too.
The scheduled March 31 meeting, said the group, "could kick off a months-long process to decide whether to give special treatment to the oil industry by allowing offshore drilling to go forward even if it would lead to the extinction of Gulf species."
“The marine species in the Gulf are our natural heritage. There’s no imaginable justification to sacrifice them,” said Steve Mashuda, Earthjustice's managing attorney for oceans. "It’s beyond reckless even to consider greenlighting the extinction of sea turtles, fish, whales, rays, and corals to further pad the oil industry’s pockets at the public’s expense. Giving carte blanche to industry also takes us further away from renewable energy that is cleaner, cheaper, more reliable, and more efficient than ever before.”
As President Donald Trump's unconstitutional Iran war drags on into its fourth week, fresh polling analysis shows the president and his Republican Party are politically at their weakest point ever in the eyes of the American public.
Writing in The Argument on Monday, polling analyst Lakshya Jain made the case that Trump has created an "apocalyptic wasteland" for the GOP by combining "a cost-of-living crisis with an unpopular war and tariff policies from the 1930s."
Jain noted that Trump's approval rating in The Argument's latest monthly survey had fallen to 40%, while his disapproval rating has soared to 58%, resulting in the lowest net approval for the president so far in his second term.
What should be particularly disturbing to the president, Jain said, is that disapproval of Trump is being driven by dissatisfaction with the state of the economy, the only area in which he was rated positively by voters throughout most of his first term.
"Trump’s numbers on the economy are radioactive," Jain explained. "Every major demographic group of voters disapproves of his economic stewardship, including supermajorities of young and nonwhite voters. He's even underwater on this issue with white, non-college voters, a group he won in 2024 by more than 20 percentage points."
Voters are increasingly pessimistic about the future as well, as 50% of voters believe the economy will get worse over the next year, while just 37% say it will get better.
To top it all off, Jain said, Trump's wounds on the economy are self-inflicted, including his tariff policies that have raised prices for consumer goods and his war on Iran that has sent energy prices skyrocketing.
"Trump is doing the exact opposite of what people asked for," Jain said. "Tariffs have resulted in global economic upheaval. The war in Iran—which began before the fielding of this survey—resulted in an oil shock that has sent gas prices soaring. And Trump’s actions on immigration have shrunk the labor pool, leading voters to partially blame the administration’s immigration policies for exacerbating the cost of living crisis."
Jain wasn't the only polling analyst to find Trump's public standing at a record low, as Real Clear Politics revealed on Monday that the president's job approval in its average of polls had hit a second-term low of 41.6%.
Trump's net approval also reached its lowest level ever in polling analyst Nate Silver's polling average, and Silver said that it could go even lower in the coming days as gas prices continue to rise.
"Still going to be some lagging effects as polls catch up, but gas has increased from $2.93 per gallon to $3.94 over the past month," Silver commented on Sunday, "and Americans aren't liking that."
Democrats on the US mHouse Judiciary Committee on Wednesday demanded that President Donald Trump's Department of Justice "stop the cover-up" of former special counsel Jack Smith's full investigation into Trump's retention of classified documents following his first term, after new material sent to the panel revealed that some documents were stolen to advance the president's business interests.
Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) wrote to Attorney General Pam Bondi about "cherry-picked documents" related to Smith's investigations into Trump's taking of classified documents, which he stored at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida and his golf course in Bedminster, New Jersey.
The DOJ has regularly produced documents for the Judiciary Committee as Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) has sought to portray Smith as having a partisan vendetta against the president, said Raskin. Smith led investigations into Trump's hoarding of classified documents and his efforts to overturn the 2020 election results during the Biden administration. Last month US District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump appointee, permanently blocked the release of Smith's final report on the documents case.
Raskin wrote Wednesday that even as Jordan has embarked on a "vindictive campaign" against Smith and has sought a narrow selection of material from the DOJ, Bondi had "quite amazingly missed the fact that some of the documents you provided include damning evidence about your boss’s conduct and may well violate the gag order your DOJ and Donald Trump demanded from Judge Aileen Cannon."
Those documents include a January 13, 2023 memorandum from prosecutors who said the FBI had determined Trump retained documents that "would be pertinent to certain business interests.” The documents "established a motive for retaining them" that related to Trump's businesses.
Trump and his family have garnered condemnation for profiting off the presidency, with the family raking in more than $5 billion in cryptocurrency profits since he took office for a second time, and Trump's two eldest sons investing in a drone company that is vying for Pentagon contracts as the president wages war on Iran.
The prosecutors' memo also says the retention of some of the documents represented "an aggravated potential harm to national security," with one "particularly sensitive document" accessible only by an estimated six people in the US government, including the president, before he took it to his private property.
Additionally, the memo says prosecutors had "identified a classified map that we believe Trump may have shown to individuals on board” his private airplane in June 2022. Susie Wiles, the CEO of Trump's super political action committee and now the White House chief of staff, "was aboard and witnessed this event. Raskin's letter includes a flight manifest listing 14 people who were aboard Trump's private plane when he allegedly showed the classified map, but all of the names were redacted.
Raskin emphasized that without access to the second volume of Smith's final report, the Judiciary Committee cannot confirm what the classified map shows, the relationship between his business interest and the classified documents, or what the especially sensitive material is.
The congressman noted that some facts are known about Trump's activities around the time that he allegedly showed the classified map:
We do know that around the time of this flight to Bedminster, President Trump was entering into partnerships with Saudi-backed LIV Golf and state-linked real estate firm Dar al Arkan. A month after this flight, in July 2022, President Trump played golf at Bedminster with Yasir al-Rumayyan, head of the sovereign wealth fund of Saudi Arabia—the same official who plied the Trump family with tens of millions of dollars as the family began to run out of money between terms... We also know that there are reports that Donald Trump, at one point while on the phone with his ghostwriter, “made a reference to having classified records relating to the bombing of Iran.” He also reportedly boasted that it was only the hawks who wanted to attack Iran, not him, and that he had Pentagon war plans “done by the military and given to me” about such a potential attack.
"If this map is related to our military posture in the Middle East, and it was in fact shown to any foreign official, Saudi or otherwise, that would amount to an unforgivable betrayal of our men and women in uniform who are currently valiantly fighting in President Trump’s disastrous war against Iran," wrote Raskin.
"It is now clear that DOJ is in possession of evidence that President Trump has already endangered national security to further the interests of Trump family businesses," he wrote. "It is time for you to stop the cover-up and allow the American people to know what secrets he betrayed and how he may have cashed in on them."
Raskin demanded information from the DOJ regarding who accessed the classified materials, whether any foreign actors were given access, and what the documents contain.
“Every new detail that comes to light about the report Judge Cannon has gone to great lengths to keep hidden underscores the same basic truth: The public is being denied access to critical information about one of the most serious national security scandals in American history,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of the government watchdog American Oversight. “While fragments of the factual record have seen the light of day, the full report remains under seal because Judge Cannon has prioritized the president’s personal interests over transparency. The public has a right to see special counsel Smith’s findings in full. Blocking the report’s release only serves to protect those in power and prevent accountability.”
After Raskin's letter was released, the DOJ took the social media to accuse him and Smith of being "blinded by hatred of President Trump" and pronounce the department "the most transparent in history."
"This letter is nothing more than a cheap political stunt, almost as if taking cues from members of the corrupt Jack Smith prosecution team," said the DOJ.
The House Judiciary Committee Democrats retorted that the administration "is doing legal gymnastics to prevent the American people from ever seeing special counsel Jack Smith's full report on how Trump stole classified documents to advance his corrupt business interests."
"If the DOJ is so confident in Trump's conduct, why are they desperate to keep Smith's report under lock and key?" they asked. "Stop the cover-up, release the evidence, and let the American people decide for ourselves."
Minnesota officials on Tuesday sued the Trump administration over its refusal to cooperate with state investigators probing the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti by federal agents earlier this year, as well as the shooting of Julio Cesar Sosa-Celis, who was wounded but survived.
Agents with the US Department of Homeland Security and its immigration agencies descended on Minnesota's Twin Cities and surrounding communities in January. Protests and national outrage over President Donald Trump's "Operation Metro Surge" mounted after a series of related shootings in Minneapolis, leading to the current funding fight in Congress that has partially shut down DHS.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Good, a 37-year-old US citizen, on January 7; an unidentified agent shot Sosa-Celis, a Venezuelan national, on January 14; and Border Patrol agent Jesus Ochoa and Customs and Border Protection officer Raymundo Gutierrez fatally shot Pretti, a 37-year-old US citizen and nurse, on January 24.
"These shootings are just three examples of the violent actions committed by federal agents in Minnesota during the surge," stresses the new lawsuit, filed in a Washington, DC federal court by Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty, and Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension Superintendent Drew Evans.
"Federal agents also carried out illegal stops, sweeps, arrests, and dangerous raids in sensitive public spaces," the complaint notes. "The surge created widespread fear among Minnesota residents, both citizens and noncitizens. It caused hundreds of millions of dollars in economic harm. And it flooded Minnesota's federal courts with lawsuits challenging the unlawful detentions that resulted from the operation."
With the three shootings, "Minnesota authorities responded to the scene of each shooting to investigate" and "expected federal cooperation," the filing explains. "At the scene of the first two incidents—the killing of Renee Good and the shooting of Julio Sosa-Celis—federal agents initially indicated that they would work with Minnesota authorities and share relevant information. State investigators thus began their work in reliance on that understanding."
"But in both cases, federal agents quickly reneged on their pledges to cooperate. Instead of sharing information, federal authorities took exclusive possession of evidence that had been collected, and they denied Minnesota investigators access to key information," the document details. "At the scene of the third shooting—the killing of Alex Pretti—federal immigration officers physically blocked investigators of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) from accessing the scene. That physical obstruction persisted even after state officials obtained a judicial warrant authorizing access to the scene."
The filing points out that when "faced with unprecedented noncooperation," the plaintiffs submitted formal requests to DHS and the US Department of Justice—which are named as defendants, as are their leaders, outgoing Secretary Kristi Noem and Attorney General Pam Bondi. Noem's replacement, Markwayne Mullin, was sworn in Tuesday afternoon.
"Defendants' responses to those requests—indeed, by and large, their refusal to respond at all—confirm that the federal government has adopted a policy and practice of refusing Minnesota authorities access to investigative materials relating to uses of force by federal immigration officers deployed to Minnesota as part of Operation Metro Surge," the complaint says.
Emphasizing Minnesota's "authority and responsibility to protect against and address violence within its borders," as well as the history of cooperation between federal and state authorities in significant criminal investigations, the plaintiffs are asking the court to rule the administration's policy of noncooperation and their resulting refusal to comply with these shooting probes unlawful.
According to The Associated Press, while the two departments haven't responded to requests for comment, Moriarty of Hennepin County told reporters that "we are prepared to fight for transparency and accountability that the federal government is desperate to avoid."
Nearly six in ten Americans say President Donald Trump's war in Iran has gone too far, according to a poll out Wednesday from the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research.
The war launched late last month by the US and Israel has led to the deaths of more than 1,400 Iranian civilians, according to the Human Rights Activist News Agency (HRANA), and the displacement of more than 3 million. It has spiraled out across the region while creating a global economic crisis that has caused gas prices to spike to nearly $4 per gallon in the US.
Now, 59% of American adults say it's "gone too far," compared to just 26% who say it's "been about right" and 13% who say it's "not gone far enough," according to the survey of 1,150 people.
Those opposed to continuing the president's war of choice include 90% of Democrats and 63% of independents. Most Republicans, 52%, say the amount of force used by Trump has been “about right.” Just 20% want him to go further, while 26% say he’s gone too far.
In recent days, as Iran's closure of the Strait of Hormuz has wreaked havoc on global oil prices, Trump has sent thousands more servicemembers to the region and reportedly mulled deploying American ground troops in hopes of reopening the crucial waterway.
Experts have warned that a ground deployment could turn the war into an even greater quagmire. Already, 13 US soldiers have been killed since February 28.
An even larger share of Americans, 62%, said they oppose the idea of deploying US troops on the ground in Iran, while just 12% say they support it and 26% say they have no opinion.
While a minority says it is very important for the US to stop Iran from threatening Israel or to replace its government with one more favorable to the US, Americans are prioritizing issues at home.
Ninety-three percent said it was very or somewhat important for the US to keep oil and gas prices low, which has so far not happened—in less than a month, they have spiked by about a dollar and have not shown signs of coming down, even as Trump has deployed emergency fuel reserves and lifted sanctions on some Iranian oil to juice supply.
A majority of Americans, 65%, also said they felt that preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon—one of Trump's stated objectives for the war—was a very important foreign policy goal.
However, as journalist and commentator Adam Johnson pointed out in a piece for The Real News on Tuesday, the US public is "grossly misinformed" about the subject—25% wrongly believe Iran already possesses a nuke while 45% believe they are working towards developing one, which has been refuted by US intelligence assessments and reporting based on the testimony of US officials.
The unpopularity of the war with Iran is in line with previous polls showing that the majority of Americans believe the war benefits Israel more than the US and want the war to end quickly.
With Trump having returned to office on the explicit pledge to avoid war with Iran and the cost of living already at the center of the president's near-historic unpopularity, Republicans' outlook for this year's midterm elections looks as grim as ever.
Polling aggregators predict Democrats will easily flip the House, and the Senate is now a toss-up, though Republicans still hold a slight edge.
According to polls, Republicans’ midterm chances truly began to tank in January amid outrage over federal immigration agents' killings of two US citizens in Minneapolis. Though surveys haven't shown GOP numbers getting markedly worse since the war began, recent opinion polling suggests it is not a non-factor.
A poll last week from the Institute of Middle East Understanding found that 43% of voters said they're less likely to support Republicans in the midterms as a result of the war, compared to 31% who said they're more likely.
"Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "We must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
Amid calls for Congress to "do something—before it is too late," a pair of US House Democrats on Thursday introduced the Prevent an Unconstitutional War in Cuba Act to block President Donald Trump from using any federal funds to take military action against the island nation without congressional authorization.
The proposal from Reps. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) and Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, comes after Trump ramped up the United States' decades-long economic blockade, cutting off Cuba from Venezuelan oil. The fuel shortage has led to island-wide blackouts, and disrupted everything from healthcare to transportation. As Jayapal put it earlier this month, the "cruel and failing policy... has caused incredible harm to the Cuban people."
Trump has also repeatedly threatened a US takeover of Cuba. His other misadventures abroad—such as joining Israel in waging war on Iran without authorization from Congress, bombing boats allegedly being used to smuggle drugs in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean, and abducting President Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela in an operation that killed dozens of Venezuelans and Cubans—have fueled fears that he may act on those threats, as Jayapal signaled in a Thursday statement.
“Trump has started illegal regime change conflicts in Venezuela and Iran and is now threatening Cuba. These military attacks put our troops in danger, endanger innocent civilians, waste billions of taxpayer dollars, and are not what the American people want," she said. "Trump promised to end forever wars—he lied. Congress alone has the power to declare war, something Trump clearly does not respect. He has no plan to improve conditions for the Cuban people or promote democracy, and we must pass this legislation to block him from acting on a whim."
The bill's prohibition on funding military action against Cuba does not apply to any use of force that is consistent with the section of the War Powers Act that empowers the president to respond to a "national emergency" created by an attack on the United States or its armed forces. In January, Trump notably signed an executive order declaring a national emergency with respect to Cuba and authorized new tariffs on imports from countries that supply oil to the island.
As with Iran pre-war, the Trump administration is currently engaged in negotiations with the Cuban government. Those talks are being led by US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, a son of Cuban immigrants and longtime supporter of regime change in the country, who said earlier this month that "the embargo is tied to political change on the island... They're in a lot of trouble, and the people in charge, they don't know how to fix it, so they have to get new people in charge."
Predictions over whether Trump will actually bomb or invade Cuba, which is located just 90 miles south of Florida, remain mixed.
"I think once Donald Trump gets an economic agreement that opens the island to US business, he will have fulfilled his transactional aims in Cuba. I don't think he cares about political transition. He doesn't seem to care about it in Venezuela," American University professor and Back Channel to Cuba coauthor William LeoGrande told USA Today this week. "And so, I think once there's an economic agreement that's to the advantage of the United States and US businesses, the president will move on to the next thing."
Current Affairs editor-in-chief Nathan Robinson, who's reported on the Nuestra América Convoy from Havana this week, declared on Wednesday that "they WILL run the Venezuela playbook on Cuba."
"They want a Republican donor imperial viceroy who will privatize the Cuban healthcare and school systems, and hand all the waterfront property to developers, with the Cuban people serving as cheap labor building a playground for Miami's rich," said Robinson.
Meeks—who is facing pressure to force a vote on his Iran war powers resolution—said Thursday that "Cuba is not for Donald Trump to take, and today we stand firm against the illegal use of the US military to pursue turning Cuba into another playground for Trump's chaotic adventurism."
"Such a reckless course would risk American lives, cost taxpayers billions, and, in all likelihood, leave the underlying political and economic conditions unchanged," he said. "The United States cannot bomb Cuba out of economic collapse or political repression—lasting change must come through empowering the Cuban people, not doubling down on a failed approach that disproportionately harms them."
The new bill is backed by Democratic Reps. Gabe Amo (RI), Joaquin Castro (Texas), Sara Jacobs (Calif.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), Sydney Kamlager-Dove (Calif.), Jim McGovern (Mass.), Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC), Mark Pocan (Wis.), Jan Schakowsky (Ill.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Dina Titus (Nev.), Rashida Tlaib (Mich.), and Nydia Velázquez (NY). However, like legislation aimed at stopping Trump's boat strikes, aggression toward Venezuela, and war on Iran, it is unlikely to be passed by the GOP-controlled Congress.
Still, earlier this week, Velázquez also introduced a war powers resolution to prevent US involvement in military hostilities against the island. She said in a statement that "Donald Trump's belligerent foreign policy is creating new wars and conflicts across the world."
"This administration's foreign policy is totally out of control and is putting countless American and foreign lives at risk," Velázquez warned. "Trump's military blockade, his threats, and his track record this term show that Congress must reassert its constitutional authority and stop another disastrous war before it's too late."
"If there is nothing to hide, then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital?"
A Democratic member of the US House is calling out her Republican colleagues after they thwarted her attempt to subpoena Donald Trump Jr. to answer questions related to his financial stake in a company that scored a suspiciously timed $620 million loan from the US Department of Defense last year.
Rep. Maxine Dexter (D-Ore.) on Wednesday tried to force the House Natural Resources Oversight and Investigations Subcommittee to vote on subpoenaing Trump Jr. to testify about his venture capital firm's investment in Vulcan Elements, a startup that specializes in producing rare-earth magnets used in drones, radars, and other pieces of military equipment.
According to CNBC, Rep. Paul Gosar (R-Ariz.), the subcommittee chairman, moved the committee into an hour-long recess immediately after Dexter motioned to subpoena the president's eldest son. After returning from the recess, Republicans on the subcommittee voted to table the resolution.
Dexter, however, vowed that this wasn't the end of the story.
"If there is nothing to hide," she said, "then why won’t Donald Trump Jr. explain to this committee why, just months after becoming a partner, his firm’s financial stake grew substantially following the single largest loan ever issued by the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Capital? This is the oligarchy on full display, and I’m committed to ending corruption."
Rep. Jared Huffman (D-Calif.), ranking member on the House Resources Committee, told CNBC that investigations into Trump Jr. potentially using his father's presidency to enrich himself are "not going away."
"You can do these moves, but you cannot hide, you cannot dodge accountability," Huffman emphasized.
The Financial Times reported in December that 1789 Capital, a venture capital firm founded by pro-Trump donors in 2023 that brought Trump Jr. in as a partner in 2024, bought an equity stake in Vulcan Elements, months before it was awarded the $620 million loan by the Pentagon.
Revelations about the Vulcan Elements contract came just weeks after the Florida-based drone startup Unusual Machines, in which Trump Jr. has held a $4 million stake, received a contract from the US Army to manufacture 3,500 drone motors.
This month, a GOP senator accused an immigration researcher of “hyperbole” for saying the Department of Homeland Security was advocating “ethnic cleansing” with its calls to expel 100 million people.
When the official social media account for the US Department of Homeland Security made a post glorifying the idea of “100 million deportations," it was dismissed by many as a joke, while those who said it amounted to a call for ”ethnic cleansing“ were accused of ”hyperbole.“
But the man who once led President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign says he was always dead serious about purging nearly a third of the country’s population.
On Tuesday, The New York Times published an interview with Gregory Bovino, the former “commander-at-large” of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, who was unceremoniously demoted back to his old post in El Centro, California this January, after immigration agents’ rampage across Minnesota—which included the public executions of two American citizens—ignited nationwide backlash.
Bovino, who is retiring this week at the age of 55, told the Times he had few regrets about his tenure leading the efforts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which were marked by rampant racial profiling, large indiscriminate roundups, violations of civil liberties, and violent attacks on peaceful protesters.
But he wishes he had gone much further. According to the Times:
Mr. Bovino said he had a master plan that was in motion before his exile back to El Centro. It would have neutralized protesters, he said, and made it possible to deport 100 million people.
That is a goal that the Department of Homeland Security has widely promoted. If it sounds extreme, that’s because it’s nearly 10 times the estimated number of undocumented people in the country. It is also more than a quarter of the entire US population.
As Common Dreams reported back in late December, when DHS posted a meme about "100 million deportations," that number bears striking significance, since it was close to the number of people living in the US who identified as non-white on the 2020 census—about 96 million.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, it's also approximately the number of foreign-born people and their children, which was about 97.2 million as of 2024.
There are about 47 million foreign-born people living in the US, meaning that such a policy would also entail the deportation of around 53 million US-born citizens.
While Bovino and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have lost their jobs, it's unclear whether the new head of DHS, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, will join the push to expel 100 million people from the US.
The Times provided little exposition about how precisely Bovino planned to carry out what would be by far the largest campaign of forced displacement in American, if not world, history.
However, the article demonstrates that the idea was not simply a troll post by a social media intern, but a sincere objective for a man who answered directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security and was elevated to the position of America’s most powerful immigration enforcer.
Bovino's admission of this goal was of particular note to David J. Bier, an immigration researcher at the Cato Institute and a prominent critic of Trump's immigration policy. He discussed the "100 million deportations" goal earlier this month during a Senate Budget Committee hearing.
DHS's post came up after Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) attempted to discredit Bier by reading off supposedly "hyperbolic" posts he'd made on social media, including one accusing Republicans of thinking "they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing."
Bier responded that his post was "in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about 100 million deportations. That is what DHS has tweeted from their account."
As Kennedy attempted to shout over Bier, the researcher said: "100 million deportations would be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one-third of the country."
"And you don't think this is hyperbolic?" Kennedy interrupted, smirking. The senator brought up another of Bier's posts in which he claimed Trump was carrying out a "population purge agenda," adding sarcastically, "No hyperbole there!"
“When I talk about ‘population purge,’ I’m talking about the fact that they’re trying to deport US-born citizens, people born here,” Bier responded. “They are trying to deport them as well. So it’s not a ‘mass deportation' agenda. It’s also an agenda intended to reduce the population of the United States, including US-born citizens. So these are not ‘hyperbolic’ statements.”
Kennedy ignored Bier's argument, instead derisively asking "what planet" he was from and saying he triggered his "gag reflex." It is not clear if Kennedy was aware of Trump's frequent calls to "denaturalize" American citizens or his administration's efforts to eliminate the constitutional provision of birthright citizenship.
The Houston-based immigration attorney Steven Brown said that Bovino’s apparent “master plan” was “exactly what Bier testified about, since 100 million deportations would expel ”one-third of the US population and would necessitate citizens being deported to accomplish.“
Jessica Riedl, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the idea "just dangerously insane," and something out of "white supremacist fan fiction."
"These are the armed fanatics who were given police power in our cities," she added.
Noting that many of the commenters who replied to his posts expressed support for the idea, Bier warned that "DHS's 100 million deportations ethnic cleansing agenda is spreading throughout the right-wing echo chamber as it is intended. It is only a matter of time before this extremism becomes standard rhetoric for GOP candidates."