

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.

Anushka Sarkar, press@standupamerica.
Today, more than 150 groups published an open letter urging Congress to pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act, a crucial bill aimed at preventing future presidential abuses of power, restoring checks and balances, and protecting elections from foreign interference.
The bill, introduced by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and more than 100 cosponsors, is part of a slate of important legislation before Congress aimed at strengthening and protecting our democracy.
"None of us know if future abuses of power will come from a Democrat or a Republican president, but we do know that Trump's tenure exposed enormous gaps in existing safeguards. Trump himself could return to office, or a future president could build on his efforts to corrupt the highest office in our land. If we don't act, the abuses we've already seen could look like child's play," said Sean Eldridge, President & Founder of Stand Up America. "If Republicans refuse to support the bill, Senate Democrats should reform the filibuster to pass it. President Biden and a Democratic Congress cannot squander the window they have right now to safeguard our democracy."
"The Protecting Our Democracy Act isn't about one president, one party, or even one moment in time. It's about preserving the values, norms and institutions which form the foundation of our republic, and ensure our continued liberty," said Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA). "That's a mission that draws broad support from the American people, and I am thankful for the broad, nonpartisan backing of more than 150 organizations and their millions of members devoted to protecting our democracy."
"Congress has been ceding authority to presidents of both parties for generations," said Soren Dayton, Policy Advocate for Protect Democracy. "It is time for Congress to ensure that future presidents don't have the tools to undermine our democratic institutions. We applaud Rep. Schiff and House co-sponsors for this landmark legislation to do just that."
Quotes from other key partners of the effort:
"We desperately need better checks on the executive branch, and the Protecting Our Democracy Act will do just that, ensuring we have a government the public can trust," said Liz Hempowicz, the Director of Public Policy at Project On Government Oversight. "Congress should prioritize this legislation and bring greater accountability to the federal government."
"Now more than ever, it is critical that Congress take the necessary steps toward safeguarding our democracy against politicians who weaponize their positions to increase their power or enrich themselves at the expense of our democracy," said Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. "The Protecting Our Democracy Act would curb abuses of power by presidents of both parties, strengthen Congress's ability to fulfill its constitutional role as a check on executive branch overreach, and secure our elections from foreign influence. In order to save our democracy from the critical weaknesses that threaten our institutions, Congress must pass the Protecting Our Democracy Act."
"The Protecting Our Democracy Act is a critical suite of reforms to restore checks and balances and rein in abuses of executive power," said Martha Kinsella, senior counsel at the Brennan Center for Justice. "The guardrails reinforced by the Protecting Our Democracy Act help ensure that the government is working in the American people's best interest, from strengthening the emoluments clauses to regulating contacts between the White House and the Department of Justice to bolstering Congress' ability to check emergency powers of the president. Several of these fixes align with the recommendations of the Brennan Center's bipartisan National Task Force on Rule of Law & Democracy. Many provisions in the bill have had bipartisan support in Congress, and would codify executive branch practices to which presidential administrations of both parties had long adhered. We urge Congress to act swiftly to pass this important legislation."
"The re-introduction of the Protect Our Democracy Act is an important step toward strengthening our democratic institutions," said Kodiak Hill-Davis, Vice President of Government Affairs at the Niskanen Center. "By limiting executive power, enhancing our system of checks and balances, and protecting our elections, PODA offers a suite of necessary government reforms at a critical time."
"No American is above the law, not even the President. But the abuses we witnessed during Donald Trump's presidency made it very clear that Congress must strengthen the guardrails on the vast powers of our nation's highest office," said Karen Hobert Flynn, President of Common Cause. "The former administration's actions exposed and exploited a gulf between well-established norms of presidential power and the laws that govern. The Protecting Our Democracy Act will provide greater checks and balances to the powers of the presidency while creating new mechanisms for transparency and accountability. The American people expect and deserve accountability from their president. The Protecting Our Democracy Act has now been introduced during the administrations of both major parties and will ensure that every president is accountable for their actions."
"The Protecting Our Democracy Act is the blueprint to restore a genuine basis for public trust in our government. Having received support from both parties in the past, the whistleblower protection provisions specifically provide a desperately needed upgrade for federal employees, the only major group in the labor force where whistleblowers do not have the right for a day in court to seek justice from a jury," said Tom Devine, Government Accountability Project's Legal Director. "Patching these critical weaknesses will ensure that ethical employees can report fraud, waste, and abuses they discover no matter which party or administration holds power. Democracy, like whistleblowing, is a nonpartisan issue, and we urge Congress to pass this legislation quickly and unanimously."
"Nearly a half century after the Watergate scandal, and just a few years after the scandals of the Trump administration, Congress is finally grappling with reining in the abuses of excessive presidential power with the Protecting Our Democracy Act," said Lisa Gilbert, executive vice president of Public Citizen. "This measure would strengthen Congress' power of the purse, check the ability of the president to issue pardons, enrich themselves with emoluments, institute whistleblower and inspector general protections, and much more. This is sorely needed legislation to rebalance power and fix our democracy."
Stand Up America is a progressive advocacy organization with over two million community members across the country. Focused on grassroots advocacy to strengthen our democracy and oppose Trump's corrupt agenda, Stand Up America has driven over 600,000 phone calls to Congress and mobilized tens of thousands of protestors across the country.
In an interview with the New York Times, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey described "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up."
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is warning that the Trump administration has crossed a "terrifying line" with its use of federal immigration enforcement agents to brutalize and abduct people in his city.
In an interview with the New York Times published Saturday, Frey described operations that have taken place in his city as "marauding gangs of guys just walking down the street indiscriminately picking people up," likening it to a military "invasion."
During the interview, Frey was asked what he made of Attorney General Pam Bondi's recent offer to withdraw immigration enforcement forces from his city if Minnesota handed over its voter registration records to the federal government.
"That is wildly unconstitutional," Frey replied. "We should all be standing up and saying that’s not OK. Literally, listen to what they’re saying. Active threats like, Turn over the voter rolls or else, or we will continue to do what we’re doing. That’s something you can do in America now."
Frey was also asked about Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz's comments from earlier in the week where he likened the administration's invasion of Minneapolis to the first battle that took place during the US Civil War in Fort Sumter.
"I don’t think he’s saying that the Civil War is going to happen," said Frey. "I think what he’s saying is that a significant and terrifying line is being crossed. And I would agree with that."
As Frey issued warnings about the federal government's actions in Minneapolis, more horror stories have emerged involving US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents in Minnesota.
The Associated Press reported on Saturday that staff at the Hennepin County Medical Center in Minneapolis have been raising red flags over ICE agents' claims about Alberto Castañeda Mondragón, a Mexican immigrant whom they treated after he suffered a shattered skull earlier this month.
ICE agents who brought Castañeda Mondragón to the hospital told staffers that he had injured himself after he "purposefully ran headfirst into a brick wall" while trying to escape their custody.
Nurses who treated Castañeda Mondragón, however, said that there is no way that running headfirst into a wall could produce the sheer number of skull fractures he suffered, let alone the internal bleeding found throughout his brain.
“It was laughable, if there was something to laugh about," one nurse at the hospital told the Associated Press. “There was no way this person ran headfirst into a wall."
According to a Saturday report in the New York Times, concern over ICE's brutality has grown to such an extent that many Minnesota residents, including both documented immigrants and US citizens, have started wearing passports around their necks to avoid being potentially targeted.
Joua Tsu Thao, a 75-year-old US citizen who came to the country after aiding the American military during the Vietnam War, said the aggressive actions of immigration officers have left him with little choice but to display his passport whenever he walks outside his house.
"We need to be ready before they point a gun to us," Thao explained to the Times.
CNN on Friday reported that ICE has been rounding up refugees living in Minnesota who were allowed to enter the US after undergoing "a rigorous, years-long vetting process," and sending them to a facility in Texas where they are being prepared for deportation.
Lawyers representing the abducted refugees told CNN that their clients have been "forced to recount painful asylum claims with limited or no contact with family members or attorneys."
Some of the refugees taken to Texas have been released from custody. But instead of being flown back home, they were released in Texas "without money, identification, or phones," CNN reported.
Laurie Ball Cooper, vice president for US legal programs at the International Refugee Assistance Project, told CNN that government agents abducting refugees who had previously been allowed into the US is part of "a campaign of terror" that "is designed to scare people."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," said one critic.
Critics have weighed in on Amazon MGM Studios' documentary about first lady Melania Trump, and their verdicts are overwhelmingly negative.
According to review aggregation website Metacritic, Melania—which Amazon paid $40 million to acquire and $35 million to market—so far has received a collective score of just 6 out of 100 from critics, which indicates "overwhelming dislike."
Similarly, Melania scores a mere 6% on Rotten Tomatoes' "Tomameter," indicating that 94% of reviews for the movie so far have been negative.
One particularly brutal review came from Nick Hilton, film critic for the Independent, who said that the first lady came off in the film as "a preening, scowling void of pure nothingness" who leads a "vulgar, gilded lifestyle."
Hilton added that the film is so terrible that it fails even at being effective propaganda and is likely to be remembered as "a striking artifact... of a time when Americans willingly subordinated themselves to a political and economic oligopoly."
The Guardian's Xan Brooks delivered a similarly scathing assessment, declaring the film "dispiriting, deadly and unrevealing."
"It’s one of those rare, unicorn films that doesn’t have a single redeeming quality," Brooks elaborated. "I’m not even sure it qualifies as a documentary, exactly, so much as an elaborate piece of designer taxidermy, horribly overpriced and ice-cold to the touch and proffered like a medieval tribute to placate the greedy king on his throne."
Donald Clarke of the Irish Times also discussed the film's failure as a piece of propaganda, and he compared it unfavorably to the work of Nazi propagandist Leni Riefenstahl.
"Melania... appears keener on inducing narcolepsy in its viewers than energizing them into massed marching," he wrote. "Triumph of the Dull, perhaps."
Variety's Owen Gleiberman argued that the Melania documentary is utterly devoid of anything approaching dramatic stakes, which results in the film suffering from "staggering inertia."
"Mostly it’s inert," Gleiberman wrote of the film. "It feels like it’s been stitched together out of the most innocuous outtakes from a reality show. There’s no drama to it. It should have been called 'Day of the Living Tradwife.'"
Frank Scheck of the Hollywood Reporter found that the movie mostly exposes Melania Trump is an empty vessel without a single original thought or insight, instead deploying "an endless number of inspirational phrases seemingly cribbed from self-help books."
Kevin Fallon of the Daily Beast described Melania as "an unbelievable abomination of filmmaking" that reaches "a level of insipid propaganda that almost resists review."
"It's so expected," Fallon added, "and utterly pointless."
"This memo bends over backwards to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval," said one former ICE official.
An internal legal memo obtained by the New York Times reveals that federal immigration enforcement agents are claiming broad new powers to carry out warrantless arrests.
The Times reported on Friday that the memo, which was signed by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) Acting Director Todd Lyons, "expands the ability of lower-level ICE agents to carry out sweeps rounding up people they encounter and suspect are undocumented immigrants, rather than targeted enforcement operations in which they set out, warrant in hand, to arrest a specific person."
In the past, agents have been granted the power to carry out warrantless arrests only in situations where they believe a suspected undocumented immigrant is a "flight risk" who is unlikely to comply with obligations such as appearing at court hearings.
However, the memo declares this standard to be “unreasoned” and “incorrect,” saying that agents should feel free to carry out arrests so long as the suspect is "unlikely to be located at the scene of the encounter or another clearly identifiable location once an administrative warrant is obtained."
Scott Shuchart, former head of policy at ICE under President Joe Biden, told the Times that the memo appears to open the door to give the agency incredibly broad arrest powers.
"This memo bends over backwards," Shuchart said, "to say that ICE agents have nothing but green lights to make an arrest without even a supervisor’s approval."
Claire Trickler-McNulty, former senior adviser at ICE during the Biden administration, said the memo's language was so broad that "it would cover essentially anyone they want to arrest without a warrant, making the general premise of ever getting a warrant pointless."
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, noted in a social media post that the memo appears to be a way for ICE to "get around an increasing number of court orders requiring [US Department of Homeland Security] to follow the plain words of the law which says administrative warrantless arrests are only for people 'likely to escape.'"
The memo broadens the terms, Reichlin-Melnick added, so that "anyone who refuses to wait for a warrant to be issued" is deemed "likely to escape."
Stanford University political scientist Tom Clark questioned the validity of the memo, which appears to directly conflict with the Fourth Amendment of the US Constitution, which requires search warrants as a protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures."
"So, here’s how the law works," he wrote. "People on whom it imposes constraints don’t get to just write themselves a memo saying they don’t have to follow the law. Maybe I’ll write myself a memo saying that I don’t have to pay my taxes this year."