

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.
"The state was set to execute Sonny for a crime he didn't commit, but tens of thousands of people nationwide demanded justice—and our voices were heard," said the ACLU.
Amid nationwide public outcry, Republican Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey—a staunch supporter of capital punishment—on Tuesday spared a death row inmate who did not kill the man for whom he was sentenced to die and scheduled for execution on Thursday.
“I firmly believe that the death penalty is just punishment for society’s most heinous offenders, as shown by the 25 executions I have presided over as governor," Ivey said in a statement. "In order to ensure the continued viability of the death penalty, however, I also believe that a government’s most consequential action must be administered fairly and proportionately."
"Doug Battle was brutally murdered by Derrick DeBruce while shopping in an auto parts store. But DeBruce was ultimately sentenced to life without parole," the governor continued. "Charles Burton did not shoot the victim, did not direct the triggerman to shoot the victim, and had already left the store by the time the shooting occurred. Yet Mr. Burton was set to be executed while DeBruce was allowed to live out his life in prison."
"I cannot proceed in good conscience with the execution of Mr. Burton under such disparate circumstances," Ivey added. "I believe it would be unjust for one participant in this crime to be executed while the participant who pulled the trigger was not. To be clear, Mr. Burton will not be eligible for parole and will rightfully spend the remainder of his life behind bars for his role in the robbery that led to the murder of Doug Battle. He will now receive the same punishment as the triggerman."
Burton—who is 75 years old and goes by the name Sonny—has been on Alabama’s death row since 1992, a year after Battle's murder.
"I didn’t kill no one, true enough, but I made a mistake by being part of the crime,” Burton told CNN in an interview last week, anticipating his execution. “I made a mistake, and it seems like all my friends have forgave me. I hope that my friends will remember me and remember that I was a real friend, a good friend.”
While Republican Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall condemned Ivey for sparing a "murderer," both death penalty supporters and opponents welcomed the commutation.
BREAKING: Alabama Governor Kay Ivey commuted the death sentence of Sonny Burton.The state was set to execute Sonny for a crime he didn't commit, but tens of thousands of people nationwide demanded justice — and our voices were heard.
— ACLU (@aclu.org) March 10, 2026 at 9:18 AM
“It’s absolutely not fair. You don’t execute someone who did not pull the trigger,” Priscilla Townsend, one of three jurors in Burton's trial who asked Ivey for clemency, told the Associated Press, adding that she supports executing "the worst of the worst."
Tori Battle, Doug Battle's daughter, had also pleaded for clemency for Burton.
"No one from the state has ever sat with me to explain why Alabama believes it must execute a man who did not kill my father," Battle wrote in an article published last December in the Montgomery Advertiser. "My love for my father does not require another death, especially one that defies reason."
Laura Burton, executive director of the US Campaign to End the Death Penalty, said in a statement Tuesday: "We are grateful that Gov. Ivey recognized that Charles 'Sonny' Burton should not be executed. The death penalty process is deeply flawed when someone who was not present for the killing faces execution, while the person who committed the murder does not. It is uplifting to see that more and more governors across the ideological spectrum are recognizing problems with death penalty cases."
Last November, Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Still—also a staunch death penalty advocate—granted clemency to Tremane Wood with just minutes to spare before his scheduled execution for a murder his late brother confessed to committing.
Last year, Ivey also commuted the death sentence of Robin “Rocky” Myers to life in prison without parole, citing serious doubts about his guilt.
There are still 155 people on Alabama's death row, according to the state Department of Corrections. The state has executed five people since the beginning of 2025—one by lethal injection and four by nitrogen gas, a method rejected by veterinarians for euthanizing animals and condemned by United Nations human rights experts as possible torture.
Demetrius Minor, executive director of the death penalty abolition group Conservatives Concerned, said Tuesday that “we want to thank Gov. Ivey for granting clemency for Charles 'Sonny' Burton."
"This brings tremendous relief to his family and so many across the country," Minor added. "Conservatives know that government power can be abused and should not be used to execute someone who was not in the building when the murder was committed. Gov. Ivey acted on these conservative principles."
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation."
Democratic US senators left a classified Tuesday briefing with senior defense and intelligence officials with serious concerns that President Donald Trump will order a ground invasion of Iran in what would be a perilous escalation of his illegal and unprovoked war of choice.
White House officials—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—and Pentagon brass have held a series of closed-door meetings with congressional lawmakers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran late last month.
While Democratic lawmakers have said that the classified status of these briefings prevents them from disclosing key information about the administration's war plans, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) emerged from Tuesday's meeting with a warning to reporters that “we seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives" outlined during the briefing.
Blumenthal after getting briefed on Iran: "We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here. There's also the specter of active Russian aid to Iran putting in danger American lives ... China also may be assisting Iran"
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) March 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
“I am left with more questions than answers, especially about the cost of the war,” Blumenthal said. “My questions have been unanswered, and I will demand answers because the American people deserve to know."
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation," he added.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said after attending the briefing, "Here we are well into the second week, and it is still the case that the Trump administration cannot explain the reasons that we entered this war, the goals we're trying to accomplish, and the methods for doing that."
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that what she heard during the briefing "is not just concerning, it is disturbing."
"I'm not sure what the endgame is or what their plans are," Rosen said of the administration, adding that Trump has "not shown us any plans for what he wants to do for the day after, let's put it that way. That's as much as I can say."
Democratic lawmakers voiced similar concerns over a possible ground war following a March 3 classified briefing.
Trump and senior administration officials have not ruled out a ground invasion of Iran.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground,” Trump told the New York Post last week. “Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a Sunday interview on Fox News that Trump has not ruled out either a ground invasion or a draft, although many experts say the latter option is highly unlikely.
Here's the Karoline Leavitt interview people are talking about. Maria Bartiromo asks if Trump might send ground troops into Iran, because "mothers are worried" about a draft. Leavitt replies that ground troops aren't in the current plan, but Trump won't rule them out. No mention of the draft.
[image or embed]
— Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com) March 8, 2026 at 4:09 PM
Trump has also given mixed signals about the planned duration of the war, declaring Monday that the campaign is "very complete, pretty much" before stating that US forces “will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”
The president and his senior Cabinet officials have also waffled when attempting to explain the war's objectives, alternately suggesting that the goal of the campaign is and is not regime change, and shifting the narrative from eliminating Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal.
Tuesday's briefing came on a day that Hegseth said would be the "most intense day of strikes inside Iran" during the 10-day war.
This, after a wave of US and Israeli airstrikes across Iran left at least scores dead on Monday, including 40 people massacred while sheltering in apartment blocks in eastern Tehran.
Hundreds of civilians have been killed by US and Israeli bombing in Iran and Israeli strikes on Lebanon, where more than 700,000 people have been forcibly displaced amid relentless airstrikes.
In what's being called "one of the deadliest school massacres in modern history," around 175 people, mostly schoolchildren, were killed on February 28 by what US intelligence said is a likely Tomahawk missile strike in Minab. Fragments from the missile marked with Pentagon contract information, the names of US weapons companies, and a "Made in USA" stamp provided the latest evidence that the attack was carried out by the US—although Trump has blamed the strike on Iran.
The Pentagon said that seven US troops have been killed and 140 others wounded by Iranian counterstrikes, which have also targeted Gulf monarchies allied with the United States, killing at least 15 people.
Noting that Trump—"who campaigned as the 'peace president'—led the United States into war with Iran with no clear objectives and no authorization from Congress," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday demanding that administration leaders "appear before Congress and under oath in public hearings to provide answers" about the war.
The senators wrote that Trump's "ever-shifting goals and explanations suggest there is no clear plan."
"Further, this raises the risk of mission creep which, based on history, would likely lead to more US casualties and escalating costs for taxpayers," the lawmakers added. "The American people—including our men and women in uniform—deserve clear answers about the war and accountability from your administration."
The Senate and House of Representatives—both controlled by Republicans—have voted down proposed resolutions meant to prevent Trump from waging war without congressional authorization, as required by the War Powers Act.
A Quinnipiac University poll published Monday revealed that 74% of respondents—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans—oppose a US ground invasion of Iran. A slim majority of respondents are against the overall war in Iran, which 55% of those surveyed said did not pose any "imminent threat" to the United States prior to the US-Israeli attack.
The survey also found that 62% of respondents "think the Trump administration has not provided a clear explanation of the reasons behind the United States' military action against Iran."
"Americans deserve timely, honest answers about what happened, whose information may have been exposed, what will be done to protect them going forward," said one campaigner.
Critics of the Department of Government Efficiency are sounding the alarm after the Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Social Security Administration's inspector general is investigating a whistleblower complaint accusing a former DOGE staffer of trying to share information from SSA databases with his private employer.
The Post didn't name the former DOGE software engineer, the company, or the whistleblower. However, the reporters spoke with the whistleblower and other unnamed sources, and also reviewed the related complaint as well as a letter from the acting inspector general to top members of four congressional committees.
The ex-DOGE staffer allegedly told multiple colleagues that he possessed two key databases of sensitive information on over 500 million living and dead US citizens, "Numident" and the "Master Death File," and once he removed personal details, he wanted to plug the remaining data into his company's system.
The newspaper noted that "the complaint does not allege that the engineer was successful in uploading the data to the company's system," and "a lawyer who represents the former DOGE member told the Post he denied all alleged wrongdoing."
The reporting adds to a long list of concerns and criticism provoked by DOGE, which President Donald Trump launched shortly after taking office. Billionaire Elon Musk was the de facto leader of the government-gutting initiative until he departed the administration last May.
Responding to the report on Musk's social media platform X, Congressman John Larson (D-Conn.), a longtime defender of Social Security, declared that "we need a full congressional investigation and answers!"
DOGE was never about efficiency or saving $—it was about handing Social Security over to Wall Street, dismantling public services & making it impossible to hold corporations accountable. That's why federal workers have been sounding the alarm—and we won't stop fighting back. #wetookanoath
[image or embed]
— Federal Workers United (@fedworkersunited.bsky.social) March 10, 2026 at 4:54 PM
House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Member Robert Garcia (D-Calif.) announced that he is expanding his investigation of DOGE-related data leaks at the SSA over the allegations. He said in a statement that "the deeply disturbing whistleblower information obtained by the committee shows the Trump administration's callous disregard for the safety and security of Americans' most sensitive information."
"Not only has an ex-DOGE bro been accused of running around with the social security information of every American on a flash drive, he also may have the ability to edit and manipulate data at the Social Security Administration at will," Garcia continued. "This is dangerous and outrageous, and Oversight Committee Democrats will fight for transparency and accountability."
Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly said: "Allegations that a 'DOGE bro' may have removed highly sensitive Social Security data onto a thumb drive should set off alarm bells across the country. Social Security holds some of the most personal information Americans have, including Social Security numbers, birth and health records, and lifetime earnings histories. If these reports are accurate, it is a stunning, illegal data security breach."
"Americans deserve timely, honest answers about what happened, whose information may have been exposed, what will be done to protect them going forward," he argued. "Anyone involved must be held accountable to the fullest extent of the law. Congress and the Social Security inspector general must move quickly to get the facts and ensure that all involved in this reported data breach are punished."
Criminal theft of the American people's private Social Security data.
[image or embed]
— Social Security Works (@socialsecurityworks.org) March 10, 2026 at 2:51 PM
Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert also demanded accountability. She said that "this massive, illegal, and horrific breach of Americans' most sensitive data has confirmed the very fears we've been warning about for over a year—that the Trump administration allowing DOGE to infiltrate our government without oversight created fertile ground for abuse, and in this case of an exceptionally egregious kind."
"These are the kinds of breaches that Public Citizen had previously sued the government to prevent," she added. "Federal and state officials must ensure the misuse of this data ends immediately and that all private copies of Social Security data are destroyed. Prosecutors should open a criminal investigation immediately and, if the evidence supports it, prosecute this case aggressively."