

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.

In case you missed it, yesterday evening The Washington Post released a deep-dive into the explicit dangers of the possibility that the Biden administration may not have a single confirmed Cabinet official on the first day of its tenure. This would be the first time that a president enters the office without at least part of his national security team in place since the Cold War.
Americans across the country overwhelmingly voted in support of President-elect Biden and his agenda to put American workers and families ahead of special interests. The historically diverse team of men and women comprising Biden's Cabinet appointees must be ready to hit the ground running on day one to begin the daunting task of cleaning up after Trump's messes, getting the pandemic under control, and rebuilding the economy so that it works for everyone, not just the wealthy and well-connected.
Wednesday's sobering, Trump-motivated attack on the U.S. Capitol is just the latest crisis highlighting the need for a trial-tested, qualified, and quickly-confirmed Cabinet in the interest of national security, public health, and the democratic principles that have been stripped and shaken over the past four years.
Washington Post: Biden in danger of having no confirmed Cabinet secretaries on first day of presidency
By Paul Kane, Karoun Demirjian and Anne Gearan
Jan. 7, 2021 at 8:18 p.m. EST
President-elect Joe Biden's incoming administration is in danger of not having a single Cabinet official confirmed on Inauguration Day, upsetting a tradition going back to the Cold War of ensuring the president enters office with at least part of his national security team in place.
Delays in Congress, caused primarily by runoff elections in Georgia for Senate seats that Democrats flipped this week and the arcane procedures needed to get the new chamber up and running, have sparked deep concern among Biden's top advisers. They are now mapping out contingency plans to install acting secretaries in most, if not all, Cabinet posts, in case Biden's nominees are unable to secure Senate backing by Jan. 20, according to those familiar with discussions.
"The American people rightfully expect the Senate to confirm his crisis-tested, qualified, history-making cabinet nominees as quickly as possible," Ned Price, the national security spokesman for the Biden transition team, said in a statement. "With so much at stake, we can't afford to waste any time when it comes to leading the response to the deadly coronavirus crisis, putting Americans back to work, and protecting our national security."
For decades, Senate Republicans and Democrats have shelved their political differences to ensure a seamless transition between administrations, especially in the departments responsible for safeguarding the country against foreign and domestic threats. At a time when the United States is reeling from a massive cyberespionage campaign of presumed Russian origin, Iran's resumed uranium enrichment, the deadly pandemic and volatile domestic unrest, the need for continuous leadership is considered especially paramount.
To date, the Senate Republican committee chairs -- who will remain in control until Jan. 20 -- have scheduled only one confirmation hearing for a Biden nominee: that of Lloyd J. Austin III, the president-elect's choice for defense secretary. That lags well behind the pace of previous transfers of power between administrations, and many Republicans increasingly believe it will be impossible to expedite things.
The scenario would set up an unprecedented moment in which every Cabinet post would have an acting secretary, with either the top career official in a given federal agency taking the helm or some temporary official appointed by Biden.
The Senate Armed Services Committee said Thursday that it would hold a confirmation hearing for Austin, a retired Army general, on Jan. 19. The panel also announced that it would hold a hearing next week -- while the House and Senate are out of Washington -- to prepare a waiver allowing Austin to serve as the civilian leader of the Defense Department, despite having been retired from active military service for less than the required seven years.
That schedule could allow the Senate to squeeze in Austin's confirmation just in time for Biden's inauguration. But the House must also approve Austin's waiver for him to take office -- and as of yet, that chamber has issued no similar plans for its consideration. The House Armed Services Committee, which has requested to meet with Austin, has not scheduled its hearing either.
Should lawmakers fail to remedy the impasse, Biden will become only the second newly inaugurated president in the past 45 years to not have his choice for secretary of defense in place on the first day, according to Senate records. George H.W. Bush, in 1989, is the only other president not to immediately get his Pentagon chief confirmed, as his initial nominee, John Tower, fell into a bitter confirmation fight that ended in defeat.
The problem is not limited to the Pentagon. In years past, the Senate has scrambled to furnish incoming presidents with some combination of their picks to lead the State Department, the Department of Homeland Security and the intelligence community -- all of whom this year are in danger of being stuck in limbo when Biden takes office.
In the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, secretary of state nominee Antony Blinken's confirmation stalled amid a partisan dispute over whether the candidate has furnished the panel with satisfactory answers to prehearing questionnaires. Blinken submitted his paperwork to the panel on Dec. 31, according to aides familiar with the process, and has yet to meet with the vast majority of the panel's members -- a situation that has given rise to partisan finger-pointing about who is to blame, and insinuations from Democrats that the GOP chairman, Sen. James E. Risch of Idaho, is intentionally drawing out the process.
On the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, there has been similarly little action on Alejandro Mayorkas, the nominee for secretary of homeland security. The process has been complicated to a transfer of power on the GOP side between outgoing Chairman Ron Johnson (Wis.) and ranking Republican Sen. Rob Portman (Ohio).
Despite the confusion, Senate Democrats have argued that the Republican leaders of those panels could make a gesture of good faith by scheduling committee hearings with the nominees. Now that the results of Georgia are known, it is possible that the incoming Democratic chairs could try to take matters into their own hands and call meetings to discuss the pending nominations, with or without the consent of the outgoing GOP chairs.
But until the panels are officially formed and blessed by the full Senate -- which cannot happen until Georgia certifies that Raphael Warnock and Jon Ossoff won their elections and they are formally seated in Washington -- no committee can report out any nomination to the floor for confirmation.
The Biden transition team has taken pains to ensure that if there are delays, they aren't coming from its end. A senior Biden transition official said that all outstanding financial disclosures for key nominees will be transmitted to the relevant Senate committees by the end of the week.
Yet even in committees that have not hit political or organizational snags, the task of delivering Biden a full national security team has been selectively hampered by the transition team's decision-making process.
Democratic and Republican aides on the Senate Intelligence Committee have expressed total confidence that they will find a way to confirm Avril D. Haines as director of national Intelligence by Inauguration Day. But Biden has yet to name a director for the Central Intelligence Agency, also traditionally considered a priority post.
On President Trump's Inauguration Day in 2017, the Senate convened and confirmed Jim Mattis and John F. Kelly as secretaries of defense and homeland security, and took an initial procedural vote on Mike Pompeo's nomination to be CIA director, easily confirming him three days later. Even that slight delay on Pompeo outraged Republicans who said it endangered national security, led by the late Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.).
"Why the hell don't we just go ahead and give the president his national security team when we need it more than any time in recent history?" McCain said Jan. 20 in a speech.
On Jan. 20, 2009, Democrats had cried foul when Republicans declined to confirm Hillary Clinton as secretary of state until the second day of President Barack Obama's administration, despite confirming six other Cabinet nominees on Day One.
The 50-50 split in today's Senate adds an extra layer of complication, as the Republican committee chairs will remain in control of the chamber's panels until Jan. 20, when Vice President-elect Kamala D. Harris is formally sworn in and can break the tie to make Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) the majority leader. The last time a 50-50 Senate hampered the confirmation of a new Cabinet -- for George W. Bush in 2001 -- the two Senate leaders, Republican Trent Lott and Democrat Thomas A. Daschle, hammered out a power-sharing agreement, allowing for early confirmation hearings and a smooth transition.
Aides in both parties acknowledged that the partisan discord of 2021 makes similar comity unlikely. But after Wednesday's riot at the U.S. Capitol, there is increased pressure on Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to ensure as smooth a transition as possible -- and that includes giving Biden his national security team.
Watchdog group Accountable.US recently launched the Accountable Senate War Room to fight back against those lawmakers who seek to overturn the will of the people by standing in the way of the smooth transition of power and the swift approval of nominees to ensure that the government can function and deliver results for the American people.
Accountable.US is a nonpartisan watchdog that exposes corruption in public life and holds government officials and corporate special interests accountable by bringing their influence and misconduct to light. In doing so, we make way for policies that advance the interests of all Americans, not just the rich and powerful.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” said the CEO of one North Carolina-based steel product company.
US President Donald Trump pledged that the manufacturing industry would come "roaring back into our country" after what he called "Liberation Day" last April, which was marked by the announcement of sweeping tariffs on imported goods—a policy that has shifted constantly in the past 10 months as Trump has changed rates, canceled tariffs, and threatened new ones.
But after promising to turn around economic trends that have developed over decades—the shipping of jobs overseas, automation, and the obliteration of towns and cities that had once been manufacturing centers—Trump's trade policy appears to have put any progress achieved in the sector in recent years "in reverse," as the Wall Street Journal reported on Monday.
Federal data shows that in each of the eight months that followed Trump's Liberation Day tariffs, manufacturing companies reduced their workforce, with a total of 72,000 jobs in the industry lost since April 2025.
The Census Bureau also estimates that construction spending in the manufacturing industry contracted in the first nine months of Trump's second term, after surging during the Biden administration due to investments in renewable energy and semiconductor chips.
"But the tariffs haven’t helped," said Hanson.
Trump has insisted that his tariff policy would force companies to manufacture goods domestically to avoid paying more for foreign materials—just as he has claimed consumers would see lower prices.
But numerous analyses have shown American families are paying more, not less, for essentials like groceries as companies have passed on their higher operating costs to consumers, and federal data has made clear that companies are also avoiding investing in labor since Trump introduced the tariffs—while the trade war the president has kicked off hasn't changed the realities faced by many manufacturing sectors.
"While tariffs do reduce import competition, they can also increase the cost of key components for domestic manufacturers," wrote Emma Ockerman at Yahoo Finance. "Take US electric vehicle plants that rely on batteries made with rare earth elements imported from overseas, for instance. Some parts simply aren’t made in the United States."
At the National Interest, Ryan Mulholland of the Center for American Progress wrote that Trump's tariffs have created "three overlapping challenges" for US businesses.
"The imported components and materials needed to produce goods domestically now cost more—in some cases, a lot more," wrote Mulholland. "Foreign buyers are now looking elsewhere, often to protest Trump’s global belligerence, costing US firms market share abroad that will be difficult to win back. And if bad policy wasn’t enough, US manufacturers must also contend with the Trump administration’s unpredictability, which has made long-term investment decisions nearly impossible. Perhaps it’s no surprise, then, that small business bankruptcies have surged to their highest level in years."
Trump's unpredictable threats of new tariffs and his retreats on the policy, as with European countries in recent weeks when he said he would impose new levies on countries that didn't support his push to take control of Greenland, have also led to "a lost year for investment" for many firms, along with the possibility that the US Supreme Court could soon rule against the president's tariffs.
“If Trump just picked a number—whatever it was, 10% or 15% to 20%—we might all say it’s bad, I’d say it’s bad, I think most economists would say it’s bad,” Dean Baker, senior economist at the Center for Economic and Policy Research, told Yahoo Finance. “But the worst thing is there’s no certainty about it.”
Constantly changing tariff rates make it "very difficult for businesses... to plan," said Baker. “I think you’ve had a lot of businesses curtail investment plans because they just don’t know whether the plans will make sense.”
While US manufacturers have struggled to compete globally, China and other countries have continued exporting their goods.
“There’s very little in our product portfolio that has benefited from tariffs,” H.O. Woltz III, chief executive of North Carolina-based Insteel Industries, told the Wall Street Journal.
US Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) noted Monday that the data on manufacturing job losses comes a week after Vice President JD Vance visited his home state to tout "record job growth."
"Here’s the reality: Families face higher costs, tariffs are costing manufacturing jobs, and over $200 million in approved federal infrastructure and manufacturing investments here were cut by this administration," said Kaptur. "Ohio deserves better."
"These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said a lawyer for the ACLU.
The Department of Homeland Security is using a little-known legal power to surveil and intimidate critics of the Trump administration, according to a harrowing report published Tuesday by the Washington Post.
Experts told the Post that DHS annually issues thousands of "administrative subpoenas," which allow federal agencies to request massive amounts of personal information from third parties—like technology companies and banks—without an order from a judge or a grand jury, and completely unbeknownst to the people whose privacy is being invaded.
As the Post found, even sending a politely critical email to a government official can be enough to have someone's entire life brought under the microscope.
That is what Jon, a 67-year-old retiree living in Philadelphia, who has been a US citizen for nearly three decades, found out after he sent a short email urging a DHS prosecutor, Joseph Dernbach, to reconsider an attempt to deport an Afghan asylum seeker who faced the threat of being killed by the Taliban if he was forced to return to his home country.
In the email, Jon warned Dernbach not to "play Russian roulette" with the man's life and implored him to “apply principles of common sense and decency.”
Just five hours after he sent the email, Jon received a message from Google stating that DHS had used a "subpoena" to request information about his account. Google gave him seven days to respond to the subpoena, but did not provide him with a copy of the document; instead, it told him to request one from DHS.
From there, he was sent on “a maddening, hourslong circuit of answering machines, dead numbers, and uninterested attendants,” which yielded no answers.
Within weeks of sending the email, a pair of DHS agents visited Jon's home and asked him to explain it. They told Jon that his email had not clearly broken any law, but that the DHS prosecutor may have felt threatened by his use of the phrase "Russian Roulette" and his mention of the Taliban.
Days later, after weeks of hitting a wall, Google finally sent Jon a copy of the subpoena only after the company was contacted by a Post reporter. It was then that Jon learned the breadth of what DHS had requested:
Among their demands, which they wanted dating back to Sept. 1: the day, time, and duration of all his online sessions; every associated IP and physical address; a list of each service he used; any alternate usernames and email addresses; the date he opened his account; his credit card, driver’s license, and Social Security numbers.
Google also informed him that it had not yet responded to the subpoena, though the company did not explain why.
But this is unusual. Google and other companies, including Meta, Microsoft, and Amazon, told the Post that they nearly always comply with administrative subpoenas unless they are barred from doing so.
With the ACLU's help, Jon filed a motion in court on Monday to challenge the subpoena issued to Google.
"In a democracy, contacting your government about things you feel strongly about is a fundamental right," Jon said. "I exercised that right to urge my government to take this man's life seriously. For that, I am being investigated, intimidated, and targeted. I hope that by standing up for my rights and sharing my story, others will know what to do when these abusive subpoenas and investigations come knocking on their door."
As the Trump administration uses DHS and other agencies to compile secret watchlists and databases of protesters for surveillance, targets people for deportation based solely on political speech, and asserts its authority to raid residences without a judicial warrant, administrative subpoenas appear to be another weapon in its arsenal against free speech and civil rights.
According to “transparency reports” reviewed by the Post, Google and Meta both received a record number of administrative subpoenas during the first six months of the second Trump administration. In several instances, they have been used to target protesters or other dissidents for First Amendment-protected activity:
In March, Homeland Security issued two administrative subpoenas to Columbia University for information on a student it sought to deport after she took part in pro-Palestinian protests. In July, the agency demanded broad employment records from Harvard University with what the school’s attorneys described as “unprecedented administrative subpoenas.” In September, Homeland Security used one to try to identify Instagram users who posted about [US Immigration and Customs Enforcement] raids in Los Angeles. Last month, the agency used another to demand detailed personal information about some 7,000 workers in a Minnesota health system whose staff had protested Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s intrusion into one of its hospitals.
“These types of abusive subpoenas are designed to intimidate and sow fear of government retaliation," said Stephen A. Loney, a senior supervising attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. "If you can’t criticize a government official without the worry of having your private records gathered and agents knocking on your door, then your First Amendment rights start to feel less guaranteed. They want to bully companies into handing over our data and to chill users’ speech. This is unacceptable in a democratic society.”
"You don’t see evidence of gang association," said one legal expert. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
After a US Border Patrol Agent shot two Venezuelan immigrants in Portland, Oregon in January, the Department of Homeland Security claimed that the two victims were "vicious Tren de Aragua gang members" who "weaponized their vehicle" against federal agents, who had no choice but to open fire in self-defense.
However, court records obtained by the Guardian reveal that a Department of Justice prosecutor subsequently told a judge the government was "not suggesting" that one of the victims, Luis Niño-Moncada, was a gang member.
The Guardian also obtained an FBI affidavit contradicting DHS claims about the second victim, Yorlenys Zambrano-Contreras, being "involved" in a shooting in Portland last year, when in reality she was a "reported victim of sexual assault and robbery."
Attorneys representing Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras, who both survived the shooting and were subsequently hospitalized, told the Guardian that neither of them have any prior criminal convictions.
Legal experts who spoke with the Guardian about the shooting said it appeared that DHS was waging a "smear campaign" against the victims.
Sergio Perez, a civil rights lawyer and former US prosecutor, noted in an interview that prosecutors filed criminal charges against Niño-Moncada and Zambrano-Contreras just two days after they were shot, even before it had obtained crucial video evidence of the incident.
"This government needs to go back to the practice of slow and thorough investigations," he told the Guardian, "rather than what we consistently see in immigration enforcement activities—which is a rush to smear individuals."
Carley Palmer, a former federal prosecutor, told the Guardian that the court records obtained by the paper don't show DOJ presenting any of the usual evidence that prosecutors use to establish defendants' alleged gang membership.
"What’s interesting about the filings is that you don’t see evidence of gang association," said Palmer. "It just feels like a dirtying up of the defendant."
DHS in recent months has made a number of claims about people who have been shot or killed by federal immigration officers that have not held up to scrutiny.
Most recently, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem claimed that slain Minneapolis intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was a "domestic terrorist" intent on inflicting "maximum damage" on federal agents, when video clearly showed that Pretti was swarmed by multiple federal agents and was disarmed before two agents opened fire and killed him.
Noem also openly lied about the circumstances and actions that resulted in the shooting death of Renee Nicole Good by a federal agent weeks earlier.
In November, federal prosecutors abruptly dropped charges against Marimar Martinez, a woman who was shot multiple times by a US Border Patrol agent in October in Chicago’s Brighton Park neighborhood.
In the indictment filed against Martinez, prosecutors said that the Border Patrol agent who shot her had been acting in self-defense, and that he had only opened fire after Martinez’s car collided with his vehicle.
However, uncovered text messages showed the Border Patrol agent apparently bragging about shooting Martinez, as he boasted that he “fired five rounds and she had seven holes” in a message sent to fellow agents.
An attorney representing Martinez also claimed that he had seen body camera footage that directly undermined DHS claims about how the shooting unfolded.
No explanation was provided for why charges against Martinez were dropped.