

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.

Edward Erikson, 202-420-9947, press@freespeechforpeople.org
Latino civic engagement organization Mi Familia Vota Education Fund and several voters today filed a lawsuit against President Trump and members of the administration in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, which names President Trump, Attorney General Bill Barr, and Acting Secretary of Homeland Security Chad Wolf, is based on the defendants' violent suppression of public protests opposing police brutality, the encouragement of white supremacist "vigilantes," threats to send "sheriffs" and other law enforcement to the polls, the undermining of mail-in voting, and the rejection of the peaceful transfer of power, which, the complaint alleges, constitute illegal voter intimidation under the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and unconstitutional suppression of speech and votes under the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the US Constitution. The complaint and a motion simultaneously filed with the court seek a preliminary injunction restraining Trump and the other defendants from continuing to engage in this unconstitutional and illegal intimidation.
" Donald Trump is a clear threat to our democracy. He has terrorized the Latino community, and has brought our country to the brink of ruin. Now in an outrageous turn of events, he and his senior officials are intimidating voters," says Hector Sanchez Barba, the Executive Director of Mi Familia Vota Education Fund. "Court intervention is now critical to stop this illegal voter intimidation and to protect the fundamental right to vote."
According to the complaint:
"This pattern of violently suppressing opposition, sabotaging a free and fair election, and rejecting a peaceful transfer of power has the purpose and effect of intimidating Americans from voting, trying to vote, helping others to vote, supporting or advocating for the election of Defendant Trump's opponent, or exercising the right to speak, peaceably assemble, or petition the government for redress of grievances, in violation of Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 52 U.S.C. SS 10307(b); Section 2 of the Ku Klux Klan Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. SS 1985(3); and the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution."
Nationwide protests against police brutality began in late May after the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer. While these demonstrations have remained overwhelmingly peaceful, President Trump has repeatedly referred to participants as "looters" and "anarchists," and, along with plaintiffs Barr and Wolf, has falsely referred to the decentralized "Antifa" (anti-fascist) movement as a domestic terrorist organization. The complaint argues that the administration's response, which has included the deployment of unidentified DHS agents illegally detaining protesters and passersby in Portland, Oregon and questioning organizers of other assemblies about their political beliefs, has intimidated activists from attempting to organize additional peaceful demonstrations. Armed vigilantes, many of whom have shown public support for President Trump, have regularly appeared at protests around the country. In some instances, including that of Kyle Rittenhouse in August, their presence has resulted in violent clashes and deaths.
"President Trump and his administration have intimidated voters by violently suppressing peaceful protests, encouraging vigilante violence, discrediting voting by mail, sabotaging mail delivery to undermine voting, threatening to send law enforcement to polling places, and refusing to recognize the legitimacy of election results if Trump is not declared the winner," says Ron Fein, Legal Director at Free Speech For People, which serves as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs. "The court should protect the fundamental right to vote by blocking President Trump's attempts to prevent a free and fair election."
The complaint alleges:
"Trump's deployment of federal law enforcement against assemblies of individuals perceived to be in opposition to him, coupled with his decision not to deploy federal law enforcement officials against assemblies of individuals perceived to support him, intimidates individuals who plan to express political opposition to Trump or vote against him, by communicating that Trump endorses physical violence against his political detractors."
Meanwhile, as many states have expanded access to voting-by-mail in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump has repeatedly attacked and attempted to delegitimize the practice. He has publicly confirmed that his efforts to intimidate and coerce people not to vote by mail are subjectively motivated by the intent to harm his political opponents in the 2020 presidential election. And he directed or ratified Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, confirmed in June, who initiated or oversaw drastic reductions to USPS staffing and service, limited the use of mail trucks, and removed hundreds of public mailboxes and postal facility sorting machines to undermine the United States Postal Service.
Those seeking to vote in person also face intimidation from President Trump and his allies. Trump has called for armed military and law enforcement presence at polling stations in the name of preventing fraud, and encouraged supporters to serve as poll watchers for the campaign. These supporters have included the Proud Boys, a white supremacist organization whom Trump publicly ordered to "stand by" when asked about them at the September 29 presidential debate. On several occasions, Trump has also refused to commit to a peaceful transfer of power if he loses the election.
The complaint further alleges:
"The pattern of conduct described above has had, as a foreseeable impact, an objective intimidating effect on eligible voters. Many Americans have been intimidated by this conduct...to the extent that it has discouraged their plans to register to vote, to vote, or to conduct voter registration, persuasion, or mobilization activities at public assemblies."
The plaintiffs are represented by Free Speech For People, a nonpartisan nonprofit legal advocacy organization, Emery Celli Brinckerhoff Abady Ward & Maazel LLP, and Mehri and Skalet PLLC. They are seeking court orders to cease the defendants' unlawful conduct and to prevent further attempts at voter intimidation leading into the November 3, 2020 election, and the ballot-counting process following the election.
Read the full complaint here.
Free Speech For People is a national non-partisan non-profit organization founded on the day of the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Citizens United v. FEC that works to defend our democracy and our Constitution.
“This settlement confirms what we already knew: What happened to us was wrong,” said an award-winning photographer detained at the US-Mexico border as part of a secret program to target journalists in 2019.
In what the ACLU called a "win for freedom of the press," a pair of federal immigration agencies announced on Wednesday that they settled a lawsuit with five photojournalists who claimed to have been unconstitutionally detained and questioned while reporting at the US-Mexico border.
The five journalists—Bing Guan, Go Nakamura, Mark Abramson, Kitra Cahana, and Ariana Drehsler—are all citizens of the United States who traveled to the border in 2018 and 2019 to report on the journeys of people traveling from Central America as part of migrant caravans.
The journalists said that after reporting on conditions at the border, they were detained by US border officers and questioned about their sources and observations while reporting, which they said was a violation of their First Amendment right in a lawsuit.
"It’s clear the government’s actions were meant to instill fear in journalists like me, to cow us into standing down from reporting what is happening on the ground," said Guan, a freelance photographer who has contributed to Reuters, Bloomberg, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal, among other publications.
Shortly after these five journalists were detained, NBC News reported that they were targeted as part of a broader operation by US Customs and Border Protection's (CBP) San Diego sector to detain and interrogate a list of dozens of journalists, lawyers, and activists labeled as "instigators."
Others on this list who were detained, including US citizens, reported being aggressively interrogated about their political views and opinions about the Trump administration.
Tactics have only grown more aggressive during President Donald Trump's second term: Federal immigration agents have hauled off journalists in unmarked vans for recording them, and the administration has repeatedly asserted, incorrectly, that it is illegal to film ICE agents on duty or reveal their identities.
Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has claimed that recording ICE agents in public constitutes “violence” or a “threat” to agents' safety, and a DHS bulletin issued last year has classified recording at protests as “unlawful civil unrest."
However, several federal courts have overwhelmingly held that the First Amendment protects the right to film law enforcement, including ICE and Customs and Border Protection.
Esha Bhandari, director of the ACLU Speech, Privacy, and Technology project, said the settlement, reached in January, affirms that "the First Amendment applies at the border to protect freedom of the press."
As part of the settlement, CBP will be required to issue guidance to certain border units on First Amendment and Privacy Act protections that apply when questioning journalists at the border.
While the scope of the settlement is limited and does little to protect journalists under threat nationwide, Kitra Cahana, an award-winning photographer and another plaintiff, said it still serves as an important affirmation of press freedom.
“This settlement confirms what we already knew: what happened to us was wrong,” Cahana said. “Government officials should never put journalists on secret lists, interfere with our ability to work and travel, or pressure us for information at border crossings."
"My biggest fear is that other journalists may have avoided important stories out of fear of being targeted themselves," she added. "Press freedom is not a partisan issue. Everyone should be alarmed when journalists are targeted.”
"Sharing this private taxpayer data creates chaos, and as we’ve seen this past year, if federal agents use this private information to track down individuals, it can endanger lives.”
Privacy officials at the Internal Revenue Service were sidelined in discussions last year about the Department of Homeland Security's demand for taxpayer data about people the Trump administration believed were not authorized to be in the US, and a court filing by the IRS Wednesday may have illustrated some of the officials' worst fears about the plan.
According to a sworn declaration by Dottie Romo, the chief risk and control officer at the IRS, the agency improperly shared private taxpayer data on thousands of people with immigration enforcement officers.
The data was shared, the Washington Post reported, even in cases in which DHS officials could not provide data needed to positively identify a specific individual.
Two federal courts have preliminarily found that the IRS and DHS acted unlawfully when they moved forward with the plan to share taxpayer addresses and have blocked the agencies from continuing the arrangement. A third case filed by Public Citizen Litigation Group, Alan Morrison, and Raise the Floor Alliance is on appeal in the DC Circuit.
But before the agreement was enjoined by the courts, DHS requested the addresses of 1.2 million people from the IRS, and the tax agency sent data on 47,000 people in response.
Thousands of people's confidential data was erroneously included in the release, sources who were familiar with the matter told the Post.
Despite Romo's sworm statement saying an error had been made by the agencies, a DHS spokesperson continued to defend the data sharing agreement, telling the Post that “the government is finally doing what it should have all along.”
“Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist so we can neutralize them, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, and identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense,” the spokesperson told the newspaper. “With the IRS information specifically, DHS plans to focus on enforcing long-neglected criminal laws that apply to illegal aliens."
Records have shown that a large majority of people who have been arrested by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal agents since President Donald Trump began his mass deportation and detention campaign have not had criminal records, despite the administration's persistent claims that officers are arresting "the worst of the worst" violent criminals.
Undocumented immigrants are also statistically less likely than citizens to commit crimes, and have not been found to attempt to participate in US elections illegally.
When DHS initially asked for taxpayer data last year, IRS employees denounced the request as "Nixonian" and warned that a data sharing arrangement would be illegal. Providing taxpayer information to third parties is punishable by civil and criminal penalties, and an IRS contractor, Charles Littlejohn, was sentenced to five years in prison after pleading guilty in 2023 to leaking the tax returns of Trump and other wealthy people.
Trump has sued the IRS for $10 billion in damages due to the leak.
Romo on Wednesday did not state whether the IRS would inform individuals whose confidential data was sent to immigration officials; they could be entitled to financial compensation.
Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, noted that judging from Trump's lawsuit against the IRS, "thousands of trillions of dollars" should be paid to those affected by the data breach.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said the "breach of confidential information was part of the reason we filed our lawsuit in the first place."
"Sharing this private taxpayer data creates chaos," she said, "and as we’ve seen this past year, if federal agents use this private information to track down individuals, it can endanger lives.”
The goal of the PAC is to elect a Congress that will prohibit individual states from passing their own AI regulations.
Silicon Valley elites are planning to spend big money in 2026 to ensure that the next US Congress will be even more friendly to the artificial intelligence industry than the current Republican-led version.
CNN reported on Wednesday that Leading the Future, a super political action committee (PAC) focused on electing AI-friendly members of Congress, is pledging to spend at least $100 million to influence the 2026 midterm election.
The PAC, which is backed by venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale, and other AI heavyweights, is working to elect lawmakers who will pass legislation that will set a single set of AI regulations that will take effect throughout the US, overriding any restrictions placed on the technology by state governments.
The massive sum the PAC is dedicating to the 2026 midterms prompted Matthew Stoller, researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, to remark that this is "what oligarchy looks like."
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) tried to get a provision preempting state AI regulations slipped into the GOP's major budget package last year, but it was ultimately taken out amid bipartisan resistance to giving the AI industry a blank regulatory check.
President Donald Trump subsequently signed an executive order instructing the US Department of Justice to create a task force that would sue any state governments that enact supposedly "onerous and excessive" regulations on the technology.
However, as an executive order, this directive can be overturned by any future president who supports stronger AI regulation.
CNN noted that Leading the Future's planned flood of cash is coming at a time when AI has been drawing skepticism from factions within both the Republican and Democratic parties.
Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, for instance, has thrown his support behind a "Citizen Bill of Rights for AI," which would provide privacy protections for end users and place restrictions on the construction of AI data centers.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), meanwhile, has called for a full moratorium on the construction of new AI data centers.
Leading the Future also appears to understand that the AI industry's reputation is becoming toxic for voters.
As Fast Company reported on Wednesday, the super PAC has launched negative ads against Democratic New York US congressional candidate Alex Bores by highlighting his past work at Palantir, which has become controversial for providing technology used by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to carry out mass deportations.
Current and former Palantir employees told Fast Company that they believe the ad against Bores to be highly deceptive, as Palantir wasn't nearly as integrated with ICE operations during his tenure as it is today.
"If Bores’ campaign is one that would restrict the tech industry’s growth," one former Palantir employee told Fast Company, "and his base is one that is already primed to be critical of Palantir, people (like me!) who watch this ad wouldn’t suspect that it’s people with significant interests in Palantir and the broader industry that are funding the ads, too."