

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.

Rachel Myers, (212) 549-2689 or 2666; media@aclu.org
In
a decision issued late Thursday, a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court (FISC) judge denied a motion from the American Civil Liberties
Union seeking to bring a measure of transparency to the court's legal
review of the Bush administration's new spying law.
On July 10, less than two hours
after the president signed the FISA Amendments Act (FAA) into law, the
ACLU filed legal papers asking the FISC to ensure that any proceedings
it might conduct relating to the scope, meaning or constitutionality of
the FAA be open to the public to the extent possible. The ACLU also
asked the secret court to allow it to file a brief and participate in
oral arguments, to order the government to file a public version of its
briefs addressing the law's constitutionality and to publish any
judicial decision that is ultimately issued. The FISC oversees
intelligence surveillance, typically operates in secret and hears
arguments only from the government.
The following can be attributed to Jameel Jaffer, Director of the ACLU National Security Project:
"It's disappointing that the
intelligence court intends to adjudicate these important legal issues
in complete secrecy. The new surveillance law affects all of us because
it allows the executive branch virtually unfettered access to the
international telephone and email communications of U.S. citizens and
residents. The Bush administration says that the new law is necessary
to protect the country against terrorism, but there's nothing in the
law that prevents the government from monitoring the communications of
innocent Americans. Especially given the serious questions about the
new law's constitutionality, the court's consideration of these issues
should be adversarial and as transparent and informed as possible. The
intelligence court should not be deciding important constitutional
issues in secret judicial opinions issued after secret hearings at
which only the government is permitted to appear."
Thursday's FISC decision, which is signed by Judge Mary A. McLaughlin, is available here: www.aclu.org/safefree/nsaspying/36590lgl20080828.html
When the ACLU filed its motion with
the FISC, it also filed a separate legal challenge to the new law in
the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
More information about that legal challenge is available online at: www.aclu.org/faa
The American Civil Liberties Union was founded in 1920 and is our nation's guardian of liberty. The ACLU works in the courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
(212) 549-2666"It is especially pathetic that, once again, his administration's actions are inflicting harm on the most vulnerable among us," said California Attorney General Rob Bonta.
The Democratic attorneys general of California, Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York on Thursday sued President Donald Trump's administration over its "extraordinary and cruel action to immediately freeze $10 billion in federal funds that plaintiff states use to help provide services and cash assistance that allow families to access food, safe housing, and childcare."
Amid a childcare funding fraud scandal in Minnesota, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) on Tuesday announced the halt on a total of around $7.35 billion for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, $2.4 billion for the Child Care and Development Fund, and $870 million for social services grants for those five Democrat-led states.
The states' complaint, filed in the Southern District of New York, says that the department and HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., along with the Administration for Children and Families and its leader, Alex Adams, "have no statutory or constitutional authority to do this. Nor do they have any justification for this action beyond a desire to punish plaintiff states for their political leadership. The action is thus clearly unlawful many times over."
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison argued that "withholding all funding for these vital programs will not help fight fraud as purported, and will instead shred the finances of Minnesotans already struggling to get by. Without childcare assistance, poor families will be forced to choose between parents going to work and paying their bills or staying home to provide childcare during their working hours. And it's not just families who benefit from these programs that will suffer."
"Minnesota's entire childcare system will be put under immense strain if childcare centers lose the funding provided by these programs, which could force centers to lay off staff or close their doors entirely," Ellison warned. "This extreme outcome is not just cruel, it's also another example of the Trump administration going off the rails and deciding not to follow the processes and mechanisms Congress put in place to manage federal grants in a responsible way."
"Federal laws and regulations give a roadmap for reasonable, legal ways to audit funding programs and address areas of potential noncompliance, but this 'funding freeze' takes a chainsaw to the entire system without regard to who it hurts," the former congressman stressed. "I will not allow that to happen, so today I am filing a lawsuit to halt these cuts and protect families across Minnesota from Trump's heartless attack on low-income families."
BREAKING--We have filed our 50th lawsuit against the Trump Administration, challenging its illegal and harmful actions. It addresses the withholding of funds for the neediest among us, including access to child care. I will always fight for Colorado. www.axios.com/local/denver...
[image or embed]
— Phil Weiser (@philweiser.bsky.social) January 9, 2026 at 11:18 AM
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt confirmed Wednesday that at least one other targeted state is being investigated. She said that "the president has directed all agencies across the board to look at federal spending programs in not just Minnesota, but also in the state of California to identify fraud and to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law all those who have committed it."
After the federal suit was filed, HHS General Counsel Mike Stuart said that the department "stands by its decision to take this action to defend American taxpayers" and "it's unfortunate that these attorney generals from these Democrat-led states are less focused on reducing fraud and more focused on partisan political stunts."
Meanwhile, California Attorney General Rob Bonta—who has now taken the Trump administration to court over 50 times—declared that "the American people are sick and tired of President Trump's lawlessness, lies, and misinformation campaigns."
"It is especially pathetic that, once again, his administration's actions are inflicting harm on the most vulnerable among us," he said. "As a society, we are rightly judged by how we treat our neighbors in need, and this is a shameful way to treat them."
Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul similarly ripped the funding freeze as not only "unlawful" but "particularly callous," while New York's Letitia James also highlighted that "once again, the most vulnerable families in our communities are bearing the brunt of this administration’s campaign of chaos and retribution."
"After jeopardizing food assistance and healthcare, this administration is now threatening to cut off childcare and other critical programs that parents depend on to provide for their children," James continued. "As New Yorkers struggle with the rising cost of living, I will not allow this administration to play political games with the resources families need to help make ends meet.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser emphasized that "the US Constitution does not permit the president to single out states for punishment based on their exercise of core sovereign powers," and vowed that "the administration cannot punish Colorado into submission."
In addition to being blasted by leaders from the five targeted states, the funding freeze has been condemned by a growing number of elected officials across the country. US Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) noted Friday that the move could impact nearly 340,000 children.
"At a time when our childcare system is already struggling, this will be a disaster for working parents and their kids," Sanders said. "This illegal order must be rescinded."
“This is the mind of a fascist,” said a former official of the first Trump administration.
As he uses the military to extort Venezuela and threatens to wage war against half a dozen other nations, President Donald Trump stated plainly this week that there are no restraints on his power to use force to dominate and subjugate any country on the planet besides his own will.
Asked by the New York Times whether there were any limits on his ability to use military force in his ambitions toward "American supremacy," and a return to 19th-century imperial conquest, he told the paper, which published excerpts from the interview Thursday: "Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me.”
Trump’s attack on Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro last weekend, his floating of military force to annex Greenland this week, and his repeated threats to bomb Iran in recent days have all been described as blatant affronts to international law and what remains of the “rules-based” global order.
The president told the Times, “I don’t need international law. I’m not looking to hurt people.” He seemed to backpedal momentarily when pressed about whether his administration needed to follow international law, saying, "I do." But the Times reports that the president "made clear he would be the arbiter when such constraints applied to the United States."
“It depends what your definition of international law is,” Trump said.
If statements by other top officials are any guide, the administration's "definition" of international law is more akin to the law of the jungle than anything to do with treaties or UN Security Council resolutions.
In an interview earlier this week, senior adviser Stephen Miller, reportedly one of the architects of Trump's campaign of extrajudicial boat bombings in the Caribbean, laid out a view of the president's power that amounts to little more than "might makes right."
Speaking of Trump's supposed unquestioned right to use military force against Greenland and Venezuela, Miller told CNN anchor Jake Tapper: “The United States is using its military to secure our interests unapologetically in our hemisphere. We’re a superpower, and under President Trump, we are going to conduct ourselves as a superpower. It is absurd that we would allow a nation in our backyard to become the supplier of resources to our adversaries but not to us.”
Miller added that “the future of the free world depends on America to be able to assert ourselves and our interests without an apology.”
The United Nations Charter expressly forbids "the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state."
Yet in recent days, Trump has also threatened to carry out strikes against Colombia and Mexico, while his secretary of state, Marco Rubio, suggested a similar operation to the one that deposed Maduro could soon be carried out against Cuba's socialist government, which US presidents have sought to topple for nearly seven decades.
In a Fox News interview on Thursday, Trump stated that the US would "start now hitting land" in Mexico as part of operations against drug cartels. The nation's president, Claudia Sheinbaum—who has overseen a dramatic fall in cartel violence since she took office in 2024—has said that such strikes would violate Mexico's status as an "independent and sovereign country."
To Kenneth Roth, the former executive director of Human Rights Watch, Trump’s assertion of limitless authority sounded like “the dangerous words of a would-be dictator.”
"Trump says he is constrained not by the law but only by his 'own morality,'" Roth said. "Since he values self-aggrandizement above all else, he is describing an unbridled presidency guided only by his ego and whims."
In recent days, the White House has sought to punish those who suggest that members of the US military should not follow illegal orders given by the president.
Earlier this week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced that he would seek to strip retirement pay from Sen. Mark Kelly (Ariz.), a retired Navy captain who last year spoke in a video reminding active duty soldiers that their foremost duty is to the law rather than the president. Trump has referred to these comments as "seditious behavior" and called for Kelly and other members of Congress who took part in the video to be executed.
The White House has repeatedly asserted that because Trump is the commander-in-chief of the military, any orders he gives are legal by definition.
For Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security during Trump's first term, the president's latest claim to hold unquestioned authority called to mind a warning from Gen. John Kelly, who also served in the first Trump White House as its chief of staff.
In the lead-up to the 2024 election, Kelly told The Atlantic that Trump fits the definition of "a fascist" and that the president would frequently complain that his generals were not more like “German generals,” who he said were “totally loyal” to Hitler.
"John Kelly was right," Turner said on Thursday. "This is the mind of a fascist."
While Trump's comments left her worried about a return to an "age of imperialism," Margaret Satterthwaite, the UN special rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, said that the president's sense of impunity is unsurprising given the recent toothlessness of international law in dealing with the actions of rogue states, specifically Israel's genocide in Gaza.
“International law cannot stop states from doing terrible things if they’re committed to doing them,” Satterthwaite told Al Jazeera. “And I think that the world is aware of all of the atrocities that have happened in Gaza recently, and despite efforts by many states and certainly by the UN to stop those atrocities, they continued. But I think we’re worse off if we don’t insist on the international law that does exist. We’ll simply be going down a much worse kind of slippery slope.”
"Today’s meeting is meant to ensure the future of Venezuela is being shaped in a way that maximizes Big Oil profits and Trump’s power."
US President Donald Trump is set to meet at the White House on Friday afternoon with executives from some of the world's largest fossil fuel companies to discuss the future of Venezuela's oil infrastructure, a gathering that critics said throws into stark relief the true aims of the administration's military assault on a sovereign nation and abduction of its president.
The meeting, scheduled for 2 pm ET, will come after Trump declared on social media early Friday that "at least 100 Billion Dollars will be invested by BIG OIL," an industry that donated heavily to the president's 2024 campaign and inaugural fund. Attendees of Friday's White House meeting will reportedly include the CEOs of Chevron, ExxonMobil, ConocoPhillips, Halliburton, and Shell.
Harold Hamm, the founder of Continental Resources and major Trump donor, is also expected to attend. Hamm organized the now-infamous 2024 event where Trump asked oil executives for $1 billion in campaign donations in exchange for industry-friendly policies.
“American fossil fuel companies who’ve bought access to the Trump administration stand to benefit most from Trump’s illegal acts of aggression in Venezuela," Allie Rosenbluth, US program manager at Oil Change International, said in a statement ahead of Friday's gathering.
"Today’s meeting is meant to ensure the future of Venezuela is being shaped in a way that maximizes Big Oil profits and Trump’s power," said Rosenbluth. "Trump’s aggression in Venezuela is leading us to a hotter, more polluted, and more dangerous world—all to enrich himself and his fossil fuel donors. Today’s meeting is proof of that. To protect our communities from climate disasters and more wars for oil, we need to reject extractive energy models and build democratic systems that prioritize community health and safety."
Despite Trump's lofty promises and suggestion of taxpayer reimbursement, major US oil companies have yet to make any concrete investment pledges related to Venezuela's oil infrastructure.
Earlier this week, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright said the Trump administration intends to manage Venezuela oil sales and revenue indefinitely. On Tuesday, Trump proclaimed that he himself would control the proceeds from the sale of Venezuelan oil.
While Venezuela's known oil reserves are the largest in the world, some leading oil executives have "privately expressed reservations about committing the kind of money it would take to meaningfully boost Venezuelan oil production," the New York Times reported Friday.
"Some oil companies have discussed the possibility of seeking some form of financial guarantee from the federal government before agreeing to establish or expand production in Venezuela," the Times added.
"Along with blocking further military action against Venezuela, Congress must act to ensure US taxpayers don’t subsidize Big Oil’s exploitation of Venezuela’s oil resources.”
The watchdog group Public Citizen noted in a report released Thursday that "Big Oil companies have a long history of demanding that taxpayers shoulder their risks, even when they choose to operate in politically volatile jurisdictions."
"They rake in billions in profit exploiting the natural resources from impoverished nations, then demand taxpayer compensation if those nations require them to clean up their pollution or if affected communities convince their governments to halt harmful projects," the group observed. "And so it seems likely that these companies are going to require their investments in Venezuela to have some sort of 'guarantees and conditions'—that’s the exact phrase [US Secretary of State] Marco Rubio used on 'Face the Nation' on Monday."
Robert Weissman, Public Citizen's co-president, said in a statement that "the Trump administration’s shocking actions to use force to exploit Venezuela’s oil resources echo the imperial arrogance of the United States after the invasion of Iraq and a century of military intervention in Central and South America."
"Along with blocking further military action against Venezuela," said Weissman, "Congress must act to ensure US taxpayers don’t subsidize Big Oil’s exploitation of Venezuela’s oil resources.”