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."
Just 50 billionaire families in the United States have already dumped more than $430 million into the 2026 midterms, with the vast majority of the money flowing to Republican candidates and right-wing organizations such as MAGA Inc.—a super PAC aligned with President Donald Trump.
The progressive advocacy group Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) released an analysis on Wednesday examining the most recent Federal Election Commission data, which underscores increasingly aggressive billionaire efforts to use their immense wealth to secure their favored political outcomes. In the 2024 federal elections, billionaires accounted for nearly 20% of all donations.
Elon Musk, the richest man in the world, tops the list of 2026 campaign spenders so far, donating roughly $71 million—including $10 million in support of a pro-Trump candidate running to succeed Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).
Behind Musk is businessman Jeff Yass, a relatively low-profile billionaire who has spent millions in recent years promoting school privatization. Yass has so far spent $55 million in the 2026 midterm cycle, $16 million of which went to MAGA Inc.—the largest recipient of the billionaire's donations.
Combined, the 50 top-spending billionaire families—which ATF describes as "modern-day royalty"—have poured $433 million into the 2026 midterms to date.
"Billionaires are on track to break their $1 billion midterm spending record," ATF noted on social media, referring to the 2022 midterms. "The spending is projected to grow exponentially as November approaches."

ATF published its analysis days ahead of the latest round of nationwide "No Kings" protests against the Trump administration this coming Saturday, March 28.
“The American people reject kings, political or financial,” David Kass, executive director of ATF, said in a statement on Wednesday. “Whether it’s an out-of-control chief executive in the White House or a billionaire wielding his huge fortune to influence elections, anti-democratic behavior is anathema to the American public."
"As we approach the 250th anniversary of our independence from the British monarchy," Kass added, "it’s more important than ever that we reform our campaign-finance and tax laws so that no billionaire can purchase a crown.”
ATF found that nearly 80% of top billionaire families' 2026 midterm spending—$344.3 million of the $433 million total—has gone to Republicans and GOP organizations, with the pro-Trump MAGA Inc. super PAC receiving $89 million, far more than any other group.
Four of the top five recipients of midterm cash from the nation's richest billionaire are pro-Republican PACs.
"Republicans and conservatives receive the lion’s share of billionaire financial support because it is the nation’s right-wing that works to ensure the wealthiest families get to keep and expand their fortunes, such as through the GOP tax-and-spending law enacted last year," ATF noted.
Democratic New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez and other child advocates on Tuesday celebrated a state jury's landmark verdict against Meta, despite the social media giant's plans to fight the decision requiring it to pay $375 million in civil penalties.
"The jury's verdict is a historic victory for every child and family who has paid the price for Meta's choice to put profits over kids' safety," said Torrez, who had accused the company behind Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp of violating the state's Unfair Practices Act. "Meta executives knew their products harmed children, disregarded warnings from their own employees, and lied to the public about what they knew. Today, the jury joined families, educators, and child safety experts in saying enough is enough."
The Associated Press highlighted that "the landmark decision comes after a nearly seven-week trial, and as jurors in a federal court in California have been sequestered in deliberations for more than a week about whether Meta and YouTube should be liable in a similar case."
Torrez said that "New Mexico is proud to be the first state to hold Meta accountable in court for misleading parents, enabling child exploitation, and harming kids. In the next phase of this legal proceeding, we will seek additional financial penalties and court-mandated changes to Meta's platforms that offer stronger protections for children."
"The substantial damages the jury ordered Meta to pay should send a clear message to Big Tech executives that no company is beyond the reach of the law," he added. "Policymakers and law enforcement officials across the country can help make this verdict a turning point in the fight for children's safety. This is a watershed moment for every parent concerned about what could happen to their kids when they go online—and this victory belongs to them."
Josh Golin, executive director of the nonprofit Fairplay, welcomed the verdict. He said in a statement that "we've known for years that Meta enables the sexual exploitation of children. Now, that has been proven by a jury."
"As an organization that fights to protect children from Big Tech's deadly business model, Fairplay thanks Attorney General Torrez for his leadership in taking Meta to court," Golin continued. "Between this case and the ongoing trial in Los Angeles, parents, survivors, and state officials are doing their part to hold Big Tech accountable. Now, it's time for our leaders in the US Congress to get off the sidelines and pass the Senate's version of the Kids Online Safety Act to force these companies to change their addictive and dangerous product designs."
As Common Dreams has reported, while a diverse coalition supports the Kids Online Safety Act, civil rights groups have also expressed concerns about the legislation. Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel at the ACLU, warned last year that "the overbroad language in KOSA and similar legislation risks censoring everything from jokes and hyperbole to useful information about sex ed and suicide prevention."
Amid celebrations over the New Mexico jury's decision on Tuesday, Meta said in a statement that "we respectfully disagree with the verdict and will appeal. We work hard to keep people safe on our platforms and are clear about the challenges of identifying and removing bad actors or harmful content. We will continue to defend ourselves vigorously, and we remain confident in our record of protecting teens online."
NBC News noted that "separately, Meta is facing thousands of lawsuits accusing it and other social media companies of intentionally designing their products to be addictive to young people, leading to a nationwide mental health crisis. Some of the lawsuits, which have been filed in both state and federal courts, seek damages in the tens of billions of dollars, according to Meta’s filings with financial regulators."
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.
"It's gutter racism with real consequences," one critic said of Trump's rhetoric.
President Donald Trump went on a racist tirade on Thursday where he targeted both the Somali-American community and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison.
During a Cabinet meeting, the president once against lashed out at Minnesota residents of Somali descent, whom he said "come from a crooked country, disgusting country, one of the worst countries in the world."
"They come to our country, low IQs, and they rob us blind," Trump said of the Somali-American community. "They rob us blind because we have crooked politicians and dirty cops."
The president then turned his attention specifically to Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general who in 2006 became the first Muslim elected to a statewide office in the US when he won the race to represent Minnesota's 5th District in the US House of Representatives.
Trump: "In Minnesota, it's very Somalia-oriented. These people come from a crooked country, disgusting country, one of the worst countries in the world. They come to our country -- low IQs -- and they rob us blind. Stupid people, and they rob us blind." pic.twitter.com/2TRhf2gAMn
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 26, 2026
"The attorney general's a dirty cop, that's my opinion," said Trump, who in 2024 was convicted on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records. "And something should be done about him."
Ellison hit back at Trump in a social media post.
"If Donald Trump thinks Minnesotans will turn on our neighbors, he doesn’t understand this state," wrote Ellison. "When he surged ICE here and killed two Minnesotans, we stood up for each other, not against each other. Trump’s racist tirades can’t distract from the fact that his reckless and deeply unpopular war is driving up inflation, raising gas prices, and making life unaffordable for Minnesotans."
The Minnesota attorney general added that "while Trump desperately protects the Epstein class and pardons outrageous fraudsters, I’ve been prosecuting and convicting them."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, slammed Trump for his "outright bigotry against an entire ethnic minority," which he said "continues to stain this country."
Reichlin-Melnick also referenced a recent New York Times report about a lawsuit alleging that the US Department of Justice has been expediting Somalis' immigration cases and denying them fair hearings.
"It’s gutter racism with real consequences," said Reichlin-Melnick of Trump's rhetoric. "The government itself has been ordered to target this minority group for special disfavor."
Trump drew criticism in December when he described Somali immigrants as "garbage."
“I don’t want them in our country, I’ll be honest with you,” Trump said. “Their country’s no good for a reason. Their country stinks, and we don’t want them in our country. I can say that about other countries too... We’re going to go the wrong way if we keep taking in garbage into our country."
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."
As the latest poll results were released, the Maine governor launched her second ad against her Senate primary opponent, again attacking him for comments he made online 13 years ago.
Days after Maine Gov. Janet Mills released her first attack ad against her rival in the Democratic Senate primary, Graham Platner, focusing on comments he made about sexual assault victims online 13 years ago, Emerson College Polling conducted the latest survey of likely primary voters regarding their support for the two candidates.
Between March 21-23, the polling group surveyed 1,075 Maine Democrats and found that 55% expressed support for Platner, while just 28% supported Mills—giving the first-time political candidate, oyster farmer, and combat veteran nearly a 2-to-1 advantage.
When asked about a hypothetical general election matchup with Republican Sen. Susan Collins, respondents gave both Democratic candidates an edge over her, but Platner had a more comfortable lead.
Forty-eight percent supported him over Collins, while 41% backed Collins and 12% said they were undecided or supported another candidate. Mills had the backing of 46% of voters compared to Collins' 43%, and 11% were undecided.
The poll was consistent with numerous other surveys that have been taken since Mills entered the race last October, at which point it came to light that Platner had written offensive messages on Reddit in the past and had gotten a tattoo while in the Marines that resembled a skull-and-crossbones that appeared on the uniforms of Nazi guards during World War II.
Platner said his views had evolved since he wrote the posts and said he had not been aware that the symbol was associated with Nazis; he then got the tattoo covered up and continued holding rallies in cities and towns across the state—often addressing overflow crowds—where he has been speaking out against oligarchy, pushing for Medicare for All, demanding a billionaire's minimum tax, and condemning the Trump administration's "authoritarian overreach" with its mass deportations agenda.
Polls taken in the weeks after the controversies broke suggested the negative stories about Platner's past weren't sticking. The University of New Hampshire (UNH) found in late October that 58% of voters backed Platner compared to 24% who supported the governor.
He was 20 points ahead of Mills in a poll by the Progressive Change Campaign Committee weeks later, and in February UNH found Platner had widened his already significant lead, with 64% of Maine Democrats supporting him and 26% backing Mills. He also had an 11-point lead over Collins compared to Mills 1-point lead.
Despite the evidence that the attacks on Platner's Reddit history were doing little to damage his chances of winning, Mills made his comments the focus of her first attack ad earlier this month—a move that was panned at a local Democrats meeting days later in Hancock County, with attendees telling the governor directly that the ad was "odious" and "underhanded" and demanding to know: “Do you believe in a Maine and a country where a person can be redeemed? Where they can change and become a better version of themself?”
At the meeting, several voters also expressed disapproval of Mills' record of vetoing drug pricing and labor rights legislation and her opposition to a red flag gun control law.
On Thursday, as the latest Emerson College poll results were released, Mills released a second ad that, like the first one, focused on Platner's 2013 comments about sexual assault.
"Since her last attack ad, he has only climbed in the polls against both Mills and Collins," said journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News. "All these ads do is tell voters that the Democratic establishment is still a closed-off world where you are not welcome if you previously held different views or said something offensive on the internet. Nobody wants that world."