

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.

Today, Congress approved 56-43 President Trump's nominee, recently retired ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, to serve as secretary of state. The vote against Tillerson's confirmation was the highest for a secretary of state since World War II. Condoleeza Rice, by contrast, was approved by an 85-13 vote, Henry Kissinger by 78-7 and Dean Acheson by 83-6.
Today, Congress approved 56-43 President Trump's nominee, recently retired ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, to serve as secretary of state. The vote against Tillerson's confirmation was the highest for a secretary of state since World War II. Condoleeza Rice, by contrast, was approved by an 85-13 vote, Henry Kissinger by 78-7 and Dean Acheson by 83-6.
During his confirmation hearing, Tillerson offered to recuse himself from diplomatic decisions that could have an impact on ExxonMobil for only one year, not his entire term. He repeatedly failed to acknowledge that burning fossil fuels is driving major changes to Earth's climate to, downplaying the need to address global warming.
Below is a statement by Kathy Mulvey, climate accountability campaign manager at the Union of Concerned Scientists.
"Today's vote shows that a significant number of legislators have grave concerns about Rex Tillerson's ability to put the interests of the American people first. Tillerson failed to explain how he would resolve potential conflicts of interest over the next four years and--for all his talk about 'accountability'--he evaded questions about ExxonMobil's positions and actions under his leadership.
"If Tillerson is serious about living up to his professed values of leadership and accountability, he should:
"The scientific community and the 194 other countries that signed the Paris climate agreement will not sit idly by. We will be watching Mr. Tillerson's actions closely."
The Union of Concerned Scientists is the leading science-based nonprofit working for a healthy environment and a safer world. UCS combines independent scientific research and citizen action to develop innovative, practical solutions and to secure responsible changes in government policy, corporate practices, and consumer choices.
A majority of voters agree "Democrats in Congress should only vote for a government funding bill that reverses Republican healthcare cuts, even if that means the government shutdown continues."
Twenty days into the federal government shutdown, polling released Monday by Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative shows that US voters are concerned about rising healthcare premiums and want Democrats in Congress to keep fighting for a fix.
The GOP has majorities in both chambers of Congress, but some Democratic support is required to get most bills through the Senate. The government shut down at the beginning of the month after Republicans tried to continue with their spending plans, but Democrats pushed for undoing some of the healthcare cuts in President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA).
The OBBBA is expected to cause at least 10 million Americans to lose Medicaid coverage, and over 20 million more to soon face soaring health insurance premiums because Republicans refused to extend expiring Affordable Care Act (ACA) tax credits. Data for Progress, which polled 1,264 likely voters nationally from October 14-15, found that 72% of respondents were somewhat or very concerned about premiums rising.
A majority—52%—agreed that "Republicans' healthcare cuts will kick millions off their plans and double healthcare premiums on average for millions more. Democrats in Congress should only vote for a government funding bill that reverses Republican healthcare cuts, even if that means the government shutdown continues."
The think tank also found that 43% of respondents blame Trump and congressional Republicans "the most" for the shutdown, while 33% mostly blame Democrats, 21% blame both parties equally, and 2% were not sure.
While voters were split (48% each) on whether congressional Democrats "are fighting on behalf of people like me," a majority (54%) said they do not believe that "President Trump and Republicans in Congress are fighting on behalf of people like me."
The polling comes as Politico reports that "the confidence and cohesion from Republicans on both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue—and a similar confidence among Democrats—augurs no quick end to what is approaching one of the longest shutdowns in history."
Appearing on The Checkup podcast with Dr. Mikhail "Mike" Varshavski on Sunday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) highlighted that with the OBBBA, the GOP "slashed Medicaid by a trillion dollars. What does that mean? First, it means rural hospitals all across the country, mainly in Republican states and districts, are gonna close. Some have closed already because so many of these hospitals depend on Medicaid. For many counties, like including in some of my counties in upstate New York, they're the only hospital. And they're the largest employer."
"Second, this applies to lots of your audience who I know tend to be young folks," he said. "The parents who were in nursing homes are gonna get kicked out. I was at Silver Lake nursing home on Staten Island where I know your dad lives. The owner told me if these cuts go through, all 300 patients, many of whom are Staten Islanders, are gonna have to leave because I have to close."
"Even more devastating is how the premiums will rise. In other words, we wanna just renew the tax credits that have existed for a while on your ACA," Schumer continued. "If they are not renewed, we asked the Republicans three times, we put votes on the floor, and three times they voted no, unfortunately. Here's what will happen. The average American who's on ACA will pay $500-1,000 more a month, not a year, a month. That's, you know, $6,000-10,000 a year."
The top Democrat stressed that "we hate the shutdown. That's why we want the Republicans to simply sit down and meet with us."
"Essential services, the military, law enforcement, air traffic control, they continue to work without pay. Some other people are furloughed, and they come back when the shutdown is over," Schumer noted. Trump is also pursuing a policy "no president has tried during the shutdown," he added, pointing to the administration's attempt to illegally fire some federal workers.
Data for Progress and Groundwork Collaborative found that 58% of people polled disagreed with Trump's shutdown firings.
"ICE was always going to be Trump’s private military to deploy domestically against Americans," said one critic.
The $170 billion in new funding for immigration enforcement operations that the Republican Party included in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act earlier this year led some to warn that the Trump administration was ramping up spending at anti-immigration agencies not just to fund its attacks on migrants, but to deploy federal forces against anyone it wanted to across US communities.
New reporting on Monday detailed just how much US Immigration and Customs Enforcement has spent on weaponry since President Donald Trump took office—weapons that have been purchased as the administration has turned federal agents on US cities such as Chicago and Portland, illustrating how the president is treating increasingly armed ICE officers as his "private military," as one progressive critic said.
As images spread online of immigration agents deploying pepper spray and tear gas at nonviolent protesters, Judd Legum at Popular Information recently delved into government contracting records from the Federal Procurement Data System and found that ICE has increased its spending on "small arms, ordnance, and ordnance accessories manufacturing" by 700% this year compared to 2024 numbers.
The agency spent $71,515,762 on small arms from January 20—the day Trump began his second term—through October 18.
The number dwarfs ICE's spending during the first Trump term, during which the agency spent about $8.4 billion annually on small arms, and during President Joe Biden's administration.
The type of weaponry purchased by ICE also raised alarm Monday, with Legum reporting that while most of the agency's spending was on guns and armor, "there have also been significant purchases of chemical weapons and 'guided missile warheads and explosive components.'"
"If the immigration enforcement apparatus of the United States were its own national military, it would be the 13th most heavily funded in the world. This puts it higher than the national militaries of Poland, Italy, Australia, Canada, Turkey, and Spain—and just below Israel."
The reporting comes as ICE and other immigration agencies continue to deploy armed, masked agents in major Democratic-leaning US cities, where officers have been filmed and photographed pointing a weapon at a protester; firing a pepper ball at a pastor, and pointing a firearm at bystanders who saw one agent arresting a man.
A CBS reporter in Chicago also accused an ICE officer of firing a pepper ball at her vehicle, causing the chemical to "engulf the inside of her truck."
Sally Duval, a Texas state House candidate in last year's election, said she was "curious to know why ICE needs 'guided missile warheads.'"
The report came days after the Trump administration used the US military for what Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom called "a profoundly absurd show of force that could put Californians directly in harm’s way," when the Marines fired 155-millimeter artillery shells over a section of the busy Interstate 5 freeway to celebrate the military branch's 250th anniversary.
Newsom accused Trump of "using our military to intimidate people [he disagrees] with" and called the exercise "reckless."
Melanie D'Arrigo, executive director of the Campaign for New York Health, said Legum's reporting on Monday showed that "ICE was always going to be Trump’s private military to deploy domestically against Americans."
Legum's analysis—which likely understated total spending on weapons by Trump's deportation forces, as it did not include spending by other anti-immigration agencies—followed a report on ICE's recent funding increase by In These Times.
With the $170 billion included in the OBBBA, reported the outlet, "if the immigration enforcement apparatus of the United States were its own national military, it would be the 13th most heavily funded in the world. This puts it higher than the national militaries of Poland, Italy, Australia, Canada, Turkey, and Spain—and just below Israel."
The budget, Brandon Lee of the Illinois Coalition for Immigrant and Refugee Rights told In These Times, "shows the misplaced priorities of this administration, where they are cutting healthcare and cutting vital programs for people across the country, and putting all of this money into a domestic terrible force."
"And it shows the cruelty," said Lee, "that the Trump administration intends to enact on all people in the United States.”
Trump claimed that if he invokes the Insurrection Act, "there are no more court cases, there is no more anything."
While the nation was fixated on President Donald Trump’s deranged social media antics in response to this weekend’s "No Kings" protests, he managed to slip under the radar with some ominous threats to substantially expand his power.
The president generated bewilderment and outrage when, in response to the mass mobilization of more than 7 million Americans against his abuses of power, he posted an artificially-generated video of himself wearing a crown and flying a fighter jet emblazoned with “King Trump” that dumped what appeared to be a pile of excrement upon demonstrators in the middle of Times Square.
The public was understandably preoccupied with the president of the United States posting a video of himself “literally dumping shit on America,” which Ron Filipkowski of MeidasTouch called “metaphorically the most accurate piece of propaganda he’s put out this year.”
But it served as a useful distraction as Trump implied that he may use these protests as a pretext to invoke the Insurrection Act, which he incorrectly suggested gives him “unquestioned power.”
“Don’t forget, I can use the Insurrection Act,” Trump said in a Fox News interview Sunday morning. “Fifty percent of the presidents almost have used that. And that’s unquestioned power. I choose not to.”
“I’d rather do this,” he said, referring to his deployment of the National Guard to American cities, including Chicago, Portland, and now San Francisco, which he announced as his next target last week. “But I’m met constantly by fake politicians, politicians that think that they—you know, it’s not a part of the radical left movement to have safety. These cities have to be safe.”
The Insurrection Act of 1807 allows presidents to direct federal troops to enforce US law in cases of extreme emergency, including rebellions against the federal government, beyond the reach of traditional law enforcement. Contrary to Trump’s claim, it has only been invoked by about a quarter of US presidents.
The last president to invoke the act was George H.W. Bush, in response to the riots in Los Angeles following the acquittal of the police officers who brutalized Rodney King in 1992. Other presidents invoked it during times of extreme upheaval or war, including President Abraham Lincoln, who used it during the Civil War, and Ulysses S. Grant, who used it to suppress terrorism against newly freed Black Americans by the Ku Klux Klan across the South.
It has not historically been used to put down peaceful protests, like this past weekend’s No Kings marches, which frequently emphasize their commitment to nonviolence.
It is unclear what precisely Trump referred to when he said “that’s unquestioned power.” He may have meant that he has unquestioned power to invoke the Insurrection Act, which is also not true.
The law gives the president the power to invoke it in response to “insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy,” which has made it “impracticable to enforce the laws... by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
Though the Supreme Court has largely granted the president the authority to determine what forms of unrest may meet these criteria, Joseph Nunn, a lawyer at the Brennan Center for Justice, explained earlier this year that "there are exceptions to the general rule that courts can’t review a president’s decision to deploy" forces:
The Supreme Court has suggested that courts may step in if the president acts in bad faith, exceeds "a permitted range of honest judgment," makes an obvious mistake, or acts in a way manifestly unauthorized by law.
Even in cases where the courts will not second-guess the decision to deploy troops, the Supreme Court clarified in Sterling v. Constantin (1932) that courts may still review the lawfulness of the military’s actions once deployed. In other words, federal troops are not free to violate other laws or trample onconstitutional rights just because the president has invoked the Insurrection Act.
Comments made by Trump aboard Air Force One later on Sunday suggest a different meaning to his claim of “unquestioned power,” that he was not referring to his ability to invoke the act, but rather saying it gives him authority to act unilaterally without any intervention from the courts.
“Everybody agrees you’re allowed to use [the Insurrection Act], and there are no more court cases, there is no more anything. We’re trying to do it in a nicer manner, but we can always use the Insurrection Act,” he continued. “We wanted to go this route, but we get sued every time you look at somebody, you look at somebody the wrong way, and you end up getting sued. We just want no crime.”
Trump has indeed been sued over his deployment of federal troops to American cities, including in Portland, where a judge ruled earlier this month that his claim that the city was “war-ravaged” was “untethered to facts,” as the protests there against US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have been overwhelmingly peaceful.
It was also unclear what Trump meant when he said that if he invokes the Insurrection Act, “there are no more court cases, there is no more anything.” The comment seemed to imply that he believes that the Insurrection Act is tantamount to martial law, where the normal forms of due process do not apply, and the courts have no recourse to intervene against abuses of power.
Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy White House chief of staff, implied a similar unchallenged power earlier this month when he asserted that Trump has “plenary,” meaning practically limitless, “authority” to use the military on US soil, however he sees fit. Miller earlier this year also suggested suspending the writ of habeas corpus, the right to challenge unlawful detention, for immigrants.
Trump previously discussed invoking martial law with his advisers in 2020 in an effort to hold onto power following his election loss and later suggested that the supposed “fraud” in his election loss “allows for the termination of all rules, regulations, and articles, even those found in the Constitution.”
But as Andy Craig, a fellow at the Institute for Humane Studies, explains, even if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act, which he predicted, “is likelier than not,” it doesn’t give him the power to suspend the Constitution, at least not legally.
“None of this is true,” Craig said. “The Insurrection Act is not a declaration of martial law. It doesn’t close the courts. It doesn’t suspend habeas corpus. It means you can use the military to enforce federal laws, but the laws themselves remain the same.”
“There are lots of disasters waiting to happen in how much we have wired up to pure presidential power,” he continued. “But one thing we don’t have is some state-of-exception button the president can push and instantly become an absolute dictator. That’s not a thing in American law. No emergency power encompasses it.”