

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.

Alexandra Ringe, ACLU, 212-549-2582, aringe@aclu.org
Isobel White, ACLU of Northern California, 510-828-3554
Rebecca Farmer, ACLU of Northern California, 415-621-2493, ext. 374, rfarmer@aclunc.org
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project, and the law firm Paul Hastings LLP filed a lawsuit against Fresno County and the state of California, seeking an overhaul of the county's deficient public defense system. Because public defenders do not receive the resources necessary to represent their clients, thousands of Fresno County residents are forced to navigate the criminal justice system without the adequate legal representation that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
The American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California, the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project, and the law firm Paul Hastings LLP filed a lawsuit against Fresno County and the state of California, seeking an overhaul of the county's deficient public defense system. Because public defenders do not receive the resources necessary to represent their clients, thousands of Fresno County residents are forced to navigate the criminal justice system without the adequate legal representation that is guaranteed by the Constitution.
"Getting a fair trial should not depend on how much money you have in the bank," said Novella Coleman, Staff Attorney with the ACLU of Northern California. "But in Fresno County, if you can't pay for a private attorney, you must rely on a public defense system unequipped to meet even basic legal needs."
Due to the deep flaws in Fresno County's public defense system, Peter Yepez, a plaintiff in the lawsuit, was not interviewed by a public defender about the facts of his case until he had spent almost a year in jail, missing the memorial service for his son. He had nine different public defenders during this time, who told him they did not have time to work on his case and advised him to plead guilty despite strong evidence that he was innocent.
"The presumption of innocence is the keystone of our criminal justice system, and it is profoundly compromised for the most vulnerable defendants when the public defense system is failing," said Emma Andersson, Staff Attorney at the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project. "Crushing caseloads and paltry resources have made it impossible for Fresno County public defenders to do their job. The state and the county must step up to their Sixth Amendment responsibility. They must fix the county's public defender system, so that it can properly serve its critical purpose: providing each client with a rigorous legal defense."
Public defenders represent more than 25,000 people each year in Fresno County, with each attorney shouldering up to four times the recommended number of clients. The lawyers have so little time with their clients that they often cannot discuss the circumstances surrounding the person's arrest or whether evidence exists that could be used in their defense. Many immigrants - who make up 22% of the county's population - are encouraged to plead guilty without being told how that can affect their immigration status, even though the U.S. Supreme Court held in 2010 that this violates the Constitution
The public defense system's failure also perpetuates racial inequalities in the criminal justice system. "Because of racial profiling, people of color are more likely to be targeted for arrest and prosecution," said Coleman. "The severe underfunding of the public defender's office, which serves many people of color, is just another manifestation of the racial bias inherent at every stage of our criminal justice system - from the moment of arrest, to charging decisions, to bail determinations, to selection of jury members, and to verdicts and sentencing." While people of color make up roughly 57% Fresno County's population, they represent over 69% of all arrests in the county.
As detailed in the complaint, six years have passed since the head of the Public Defender's Office alerted the Fresno County Board of Supervisors that the office was severely limited in its ability to provide "competent and effective representation," and two years have passed since the union from the Public Defender's Office warned that public defenders are jeopardizing their clients' constitutional rights "on a daily basis." Even the Fresno County District Attorney has decried the public defense system's lack of funding, saying it bogs down the entire justice system.
Public defense is a state duty, but California has handed over all responsibility to the counties, providing no oversight and little funding. "We are asking the County of Fresno to create and maintain a strong, well-resourced public defense system that assures every defendant his or her constitutional right to a fair trial," said Coleman. "Equally important, we are asking the State of California to fulfill its responsibility to ensure that public defense systems in the state measure up to what the Constitution requires."
For the complaint and more information about the case:
https://www.aclu.org/cases/phillips-v-state-california
For more information about the ACLU's Criminal Law Reform Project:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform
For more information about the ACLU of Northern California:
https://www.aclunc.org/issue/criminal-justice-and-drug-policy
For more information about Paul Hastings LLP:
https://www.paulhastings.com/
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) 549-2666One GOP senator said the plan "looks like a betrayal of America first principles."
President Donald Trump has upset some of his own supporters in the American heartland with his proposal to reduce the cost of beef for US consumers by importing more of it from Argentina—and now members of his own party are calling him out.
One day after US ranchers, industry associations, and farmer advocacy groups panned Trump's proposal to buy more Argentine beef, GOP lawmakers who represent farm states are warning the president that his plan will cause a backlash among the very people who helped elect him last year.
Sen. Deb Fischer (R-Neb.) on Tuesday morning took to social media to give Trump a blunt message about the impact his policies are having on her state.
"Since hearing the president’s comments suggesting the US would buy beef from Argentina, I’ve been in touch with his administration and my colleagues to seek clarity and express my deep concerns," she wrote on X. "I’ve also been sounding the alarm on the bleak state of our agricultural economy and the negative impacts facing Nebraska’s agricultural industry—the economic driver of our state."
Fischer emphasized that the US produces "safe, reliable" beef that "is the one bright spot in our struggling agricultural economy" at the moment.
Fischer is far from the only Republican to raise major objections to Trump's plan, as Politico reported on Tuesday that "farm-state Republicans on Capitol Hill are privately and publicly livid" about it and have been making "a flurry of calls to Trump officials to get more clarity and warn about the fallout for farmers already reeling from the president’s broad tariffs."
One anonymous GOP senator told Politico that the Trump plan "looks like a betrayal of America first principles." Sen. Jodi Ernst (R-Iowa) had a more accommodating response, telling Politico that "we should always put America first, and I’m sure the president will be willing to work on this."
US Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins on Tuesday appeared to downplay the amount of beef Trump wanted to import from Argentina during an interview on CNBC.
"The president has said he's in discussions with Argentina, I think we'll be hearing more about that in the next day or two," she said. "But... it will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue, which we at [the US Department of Agriculture] have to ensure that our livestock industry is secure... Foot and mouth is a challenge."
CNBC: Is importing beef from Argentina a possibility?
BROOKE ROLLINS: Yes, the president has said he's in discussions with Argentina. It will not be very much. Argentina is also facing a foot and mouth disease issue. pic.twitter.com/UZiUpjpMAS
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) October 21, 2025
Trump's comments on buying more beef from Argentina came as his administration has initiated a $20 billion bailout for Argentina intended to stabilize the country's currency, which has seen its value plummet to dangerous lows over the last several months. In addition, Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have orchestrated another $20 billion in private bailout funds to backstop the nation's beleaguered economy.
Argentina President Javier Milei, a right-wing libertarian and political ally of Trump, has been lobbying the administration for economic assistance ahead of crucial midterm elections that are scheduled for October 26.
As Reuters asked agencies about the Interagency Weaponization Working Group targeting "the Deep State," Fox News amplified key government leaders' claims about the initiative.
As President Donald Trump's increasingly authoritarian behavior draws millions of Americans to the streets in protest, his administration is pushing a narrative about a newly revealed interagency group formed in response to one of his executive orders.
Trump issued his Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government order on the first day of his second administration, and US Attorney General Pam Bondi and Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard swiftly announced related groups at their agencies. Reuters published a report late Monday after speaking with an unnamed source and obtaining federal records about an umbrella organization, the Interagency Weaponization Working Group (IWWG).
"Trump and his allies use the term 'weaponization' to refer to their unproven claims that officials from previous administrations abused federal power to target him during his two impeachments, his criminal prosecutions, and the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election," Reuters reported. The source said IWWG's mission is "basically to go after 'the Deep State,'" which, the outlet noted, is a term "used by Trump and his supporters to refer to the president's perceived foes from the Obama and Biden administrations and his own first term."
IWWG involves at least 39 officials from across the government, including the White House, Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Communications Commission, Internal Revenue Service, and departments of Defense, Homeland Security, and Justice (DOJ), according to Reuters.
A group of dozens of officials from across the federal government, including U.S. intelligence officers, has been helping to steer Trump's drive for retribution against his perceived “Deep State” enemies, according to government records and a source familiar with the effort.
[image or embed]
— Jon Cooper (@joncooper-us.bsky.social) October 20, 2025 at 9:56 PM
"Shortly after Reuters asked the agencies for comment on Monday," the news outlet highlighted, "Fox News reported the existence of the group, citing Gabbard as saying she 'stood up this working group.'"
Specifically, Gabbard told Fox that IWWG has been meeting biweekly since April to "share information, coordinate, and execute."
"The American people made a clear choice when they elected President Trump—to stop the Biden administration's prolific and dangerous weaponization of government agencies against the American people and the Constitution," she said. "I stood up this working group to start the important work of interagency coordination under President Trump's leadership to deliver accountability."
"True accountability is the first step toward lasting change," added the former congresswoman.
The Fox article, published just a few hours before Reuters' reporting, also features comments from Bondi and Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director Kash Patel, who have been accused of abusing their positions and politicizing their agencies for the president. The pair pointed to DOJ action against Trump, "pro-life" advocates, and parents at school board meetings during the Biden administration.
There are also complaints from unnamed officials that the media has attempted to "negatively spin lawful oversight and accountability" by claiming that IWWG is a way for the Trump administration to weaponize the government against political opponents. One official told Fox, "The irony is, accusing the Interagency Weaponization Working Group of targeting the president’s political opponents is classic projection and could not be further from the truth."
Such comments appear to be a direct response to Reuters, which reported: "Among those discussed by the interagency group, the source said, were former FBI Director James Comey; Anthony Fauci, Trump's chief medical adviser on the Covid-19 pandemic; and former top US military commanders who implemented orders to make Covid-19 vaccinations compulsory for servicemembers. Discussions of potential targets have ranged beyond current and former government employees to include former President Joe Biden's son, Hunter."
A senior ODNI official claimed that there was "no targeting of any individual person for retribution," and "IWWG is simply looking at available facts and evidence that may point to actions, reports, agencies, individuals, etc. who illegally weaponized the government in order to carry out political attacks."
Fauci and lawyers for Hunter Biden and Comey did not respond to requests for comment. Comey is fighting criminal charges that his legal team argues are an example of officials using "courts to punish and imprison their perceived personal and political enemies."
After Comey was indicted last month, Trump pledged that "there'll be others." Since then, Trump adviser-turned-critic John Bolton and New York Attorney General Letitia James—who successfully prosecuted the president for financial crimes—also have been indicted.
According to Reuters:
Another focus for the interagency group was retribution for the prosecution of the January 6 rioters, said the source.
Bondi tasked the DOJ Weaponization Working Group with reviewing the J6 prosecutions. Some of the documents seen by Reuters show that a smaller subset of employees from across the government have been convening on the topic. The Justice Department denied in its statement to Reuters that a separate January 6 group exists.
Among other issues the source recalled being discussed were the Jeffrey Epstein files, the prosecutions of Trump advisers Steve Bannon and Peter Navarro, and the possibility of stripping security clearances from transgender US officials. Reuters could not independently confirm these were the subject of discussions.
Officials from the White House and ODNI denied that the Epstein files were discussed. The ODNI officials said the same about revoking security clearance for transgender officials and the Bannon and Navarro cases.
Despite officials' claims, readers of the reporting suggested that IWWG appears to be a way for the administration to target Trump's "enemies list."
Larry Pfeiffer, who was previously a senior director of the White House Situation Room and chief of staff to former Central Intelligence Agency Director Michael V. Hayden, sarcastically said on social media: "Great! An interagency enemies list committee. And with participants from CIA and the ODNI. Nothing unusual about that!"
Meanwhile, Mother Jones editor-in-chief Clara Jeffery dubbed IWWG the president's "revenge committee."
Some observers speculated that US Attorney Lindsey Halligan may have violated federal law by sending "disappearing messages" about an ongoing case.
Lindsey Halligan, the US attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia, who was hand-picked by President Donald Trump to bring criminal charges against his political rivals, left a legal journalist befuddled earlier this month when she sent unsolicited text messages containing sensitive details about one of her highest-profile cases.
On Monday night, Anna Bower, a senior editor at Lawfare, published the full text message exchange, which pertained to the prosecution of New York Attorney General Letitia James, against whom Halligan brought charges for mortgage fraud earlier this month.
The case against James has been widely criticized as politically motivated, as James had previously brought a case against Trump for financial crimes, which resulted in a finding against him in a civil fraud trial in 2022.
The president appointed Halligan, a former insurance lawyer who has never prosecuted a criminal case but previously worked as a personal attorney for Trump, to take over for her predecessor, Erik Siebert, who was forced out for declining to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey on what he believed to be flimsy charges.
Halligan first messaged Bower on October 11, just two days after the indictment against James had been handed up by the Department of Justice (DOJ), accusing her of misrepresenting how she intended to use a rental property in Norfolk, Virginia, to secure a better mortgage rate in 2020, allegedly by claiming that it was for personal use as a "second home" when she was actually renting it to a family of three.
Even before Halligan's texts, Bower said she was "among the skeptics" of the case's merits, noting that the type of mortgage agreement signed by James not only allowed her to rent the property after a year, but that the indictment "provides scant details about the circumstances of the supposed rental arrangement" James supposedly made with clients in violation of her mortgage contract.
Her perception was bolstered by reporting from the New York Times, which revealed that since 2020, the home has been occupied by James' grand-niece, who does not pay rent on the property, and that James stays there several times per year.
In response to the report, Bower—an analyst who often provides commentary on legal stories that she did not herself report—posted on X that “this is important exculpatory evidence because the indictment accuses James of seeking a ‘second home’ mortgage when in reality she intended to use it as an ’investment’ home by renting it.”
This post apparently caught the attention of Halligan, who messaged Bower on Signal later that afternoon.
"Anna, Lindsey Halligan here," the first message read. "You are reporting things that are simply not true. Thought you should have a heads up."
Bower explained: "I assumed the exchange was a hoax because, while it is not unusual for lawyers to reach out to me about my reporting or commentary, it is highly unusual for a US attorney to do so regarding an ongoing prosecution—particularly in a high-profile case in which her conduct is already the subject of immense public scrutiny."
But she later confirmed it was Halligan, and asked what precisely her post had gotten wrong.
Halligan responded: "You're assuming exculpatory evidence without knowing what you're talking about. It's just bizarre to me. If you have any questions, before you report, feel free to reach out to me. But jumping to conclusions does your credibility no good."
Noting that she was not the person who reported the story, Bower asked if the Times report had gotten something wrong. Halligan brought the conversation back to Bower.
"Yes they did but you went with it!" she said. "Without even fact checking anything!!!!"
Halligan referred Bower to the DOJ's indictment of James, but Bower noted that the indictment's "odd and ambiguous" wording did not actually contradict the Times' reporting. When she asked for more clarification about what specific details were inaccurate, Halligan said "I can't tell you grand jury stuff," even though her discussion with Bower had already discussed grand jury materials.
When Bower explained that it was still "unclear" what the Times report had gotten wrong, Halligan began to launch into a personal attack against her.
"You're biased," Halligan wrote. "Your reporting isn't accurate. I'm the one handling the case and I'm telling you that. If you want to twist and torture the facts to fit your narrative, there's nothing I can do. Waste to even give you a heads up."
Bower again insisted that she'd be "happy to correct" any mistakes, but that she "can't do so without a sense of what I supposedly got wrong."
Halligan replied: "Continue to do what you have been and you'll be completely discredited when the evidence comes out."
Over the subsequent days, when Bower would continue to reach out to Halligan to ask about other aspects of the case, she was met with more insults and eventually silence.
When Bower reached out to the DOJ for comment, a spokesperson responded that Halligan was "attempting to point you to facts, not gossip, but when clarifying that she would adhere to the rule of the law and not disclose grand jury information, you threaten to leak an entire conversation."
"Good luck ever getting anyone to talk to you when you publish their texts," theDOJ added.
After sending the DOJ another set of follow-up questions on Monday in anticipation of the story's publication, Bower received another text from Halligan minutes before the story was to be posted. Bower described the exchange as follows:
"By the way—everything I ever sent you is off record. You're not a journalist so it's weird saying that but just letting you know."
I responded: "I'm sorry, but that's not how this works. You don't get to say that in retrospect."
Halligan was unpersuaded: "Yes I do. Off record."
"I am really sorry. I would have been happy to speak with you on an off the record basis had you asked," I said. "But you didn't ask, and I still haven't agreed to speak on that basis. Do you have any further comment for the story?
To my surprise, she kept going: "It's obvious the whole convo is off record. There's disappearing messages and it's on signal. What is your story? You never told me about a story."
Halligan has a bachelor's degree in politics and broadcast journalism from Regis University. And as Bower notes, she has frequently dealt with the press as a member of Trump's legal team.
"As anyone who professionally engages with the media as routinely as Halligan would know, the default assumption when a reporter speaks with a public official is that everything is 'on the record,' meaning that anything the source says can be printed with attribution," Bower wrote.
The saga is the latest in a series of gaffes that have called Halligan's credibility as a prosecutor into question.
Her indictment against Comey has been ridiculed by legal scholars for being "almost devoid of factual material," as Benjamin Wittes, the co-director of the Harvard Law School-Brookings Project on Law and Security, put it. While attempting to present charging documents to a magistrate judge, she mistakenly presented two inconsistent documents, which the judge said "has never happened before."
While attempting to have the case against Comey for allegedly making false statements thrown out of court, his attorneys argued that Halligan altered some of his testimony, including by claiming that he was speaking about “Hillary Clinton” when he was actually answering a question about “the Clinton administration.”
Following the reveal of her exchanges with Bower, Andrew Fleischman, a trial and appellate lawyer in Georgia, joked on social media that "Halligan has all the poise and butt-dialing capacity of a sober [Rudy] Giuliani."
Others, like Matthew Gertz, a senior fellow at Media Matters for America, raised the possibility that Halligan’s use of “disappearing messages” on Signal could have violated federal law, which requires federal prosecutors to preserve evidence that may be favorable to the accused.
In a CNN interview with Kaitlan Collins on Monday night, following the release of the texts, Bower explained that she has spoken to other legal reporters and prosecutors in the days since her conversation with Halligan.
Her sources in the legal profession, she said, "have never quite seen an exchange like this.”