

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.

Millions of citizens will lose their right to vote if bill passes Senate
Today, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the SAVE Act (HR 22), legislation that will make it significantly harder and more expensive for tens of millions of American to vote in elections. Under the proposed legislation, every American would have to provide in-person proof of citizenship to register to vote and update their voter registration. Additionally, the SAVE Act would make it impossible for Americans to register to vote by mail, end voter registration drives, and end online voter registration for 42 states.
Statement of Common Cause President & CEO Virginia Kase Solomón
Let’s call the SAVE Act what it is: a modern-day poll tax. This legislation is a direct attack on every American citizen, preventing tens of millions of people from exercising our constitutional right to vote.
If this bill becomes law, millions of hardworking Americans will have to either shell out money getting the right papers to prove their citizenship or have no say in the next election for congress and president.
Proof of citizenship potentially disenfranchises 69 million married women whose new last names do not match their birth certificate, Republican voters who are less likely than Democrats to have passports to prove citizenship and would erect significant voter registration hurdles for the service men and women protecting our country overseas.
But that is the point of this bill: to make it so difficult to vote that many people will give up on voting all together. Every U.S. Senator who cares about protecting our right to the ballot must vote down this poll tax in any form. Common Cause and our 1.5 million members will make sure every Senator hears from the people that this bill is dead on arrival.
To read the “Myth v. Fact” Common Cause one-pager distributed to House offices, click here.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200“The administration’s reckless courthouse arrest policy is an affront to justice, designed to sabotage the immigration court system and force people to abandon their lawful claims," said one plaintiffs' attorney.
Civil rights groups on Thursday filed a pair of legal motions seeking a nationwide block of the Trump administration's mass arrest policy targeting people attending scheduled immigration court appearances and their extended detention in ill-equipped facilities.
The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights of the San Francisco Bay Area (LCCRSF), Central American Resource Center (CARECEN) San Francisco, ACLU of Northern California, and the law firm Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP filed the motions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
One motion contests US Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Nationwide Hold Room Waiver, a policy enacted last June that extended the maximum amount of time people can be held by ICE in temporary detention cells from 12 to 72 hours. The other motion seeks to vacate ICE's and the Executive Office for Immigration Review’s courthouse arrest policy, arguing it violates the Administrative Procedure Act, which requires federal agencies to follow specific, standardized procedures during their rulemaking process.
“From arrest to detention, the Trump administration’s policies are a symptom of a lawless approach to governance," ACLU of Northern California director of appellate advocacy and plaintiffs' attorney Neil Sawhney said in a statement Friday. "One policy creates fear of the system, and the other inflicts suffering within it, creating a cycle of trauma. We are fighting to break this cycle by ending both the courthouse arrests and the prolonged, brutal detentions they feed."
The new motions stem from the ongoing class action lawsuit Sequen v. Albarran, a case challenging the Trump administration’s courthouse arrests and prolonged detention of immigrants in unsafe conditions in temporary lockups.
“The administration’s reckless courthouse arrest policy is an affront to justice, designed to sabotage the immigration court system and force people to abandon their lawful claims,” said LCCRSF program director Jordan Wells, a lawyer representing plaintiffs in the case. "This is a critical step in ensuring that immigrants can safely pursue their immigration cases without fear of arrest.”
Last month, US District Judge Casey Pitts granted a stay in Sequen v. Albarran, temporarily blocking ICE from making courthouse arrests within the agency's San Francisco Area of Responsibility, pending the outcome of the broader legal challenge.
Pitts had previously granted a preliminary injunction ordering ICE to immediately improve "inhumane" and "punitive" conditions at the agency's Sansome Street holding facility in San Francisco.
A separate lawsuit filed last July by the National Immigrant Justice Center, Democracy Forward, LCCRSF, and the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Legal Education and Services in the US District Court for the District of Columbia is also challenging the Trump administration's courthouse arrest policy.
“The Trump administration’s arbitrary policies are an assault on due process. Transforming immigration courthouses into sites of arrest eviscerates the right to access justice while prolonging detention in barren cells violates the Fifth Amendment’s core promise against punishment without trial," Nisha Kashyap, another LCCRSF lawyer for the plaintiffs, said Friday.
"Our fight is to restore the foundational principle that the government cannot detain people in inhumane conditions or terrorize them out of court,” she added.
While the Trump administration claims the ICE crackdown is primarily targeting dangerous criminals, critics have noted that people legally seeking asylum, families, relatives of American citizens, and even citizens themselves have been swept up in the mass deportation dragnet. According to a recent analysis by the libertarian Cato Institute, 73% of people taken by ICE had no criminal convictions.
CARECEN legal director Laura Sanchez said Friday that the Trump administration's arrest and detention policies "are a direct attack on the safety and dignity of our families" and "force parents to choose between appearing in court to fight for their right to stay with their children, or missing that hearing to avoid being snatched away by masked agents."
"We hear the trauma in our community’s voices every day," Sanchez added. "This legal action is our collective cry for justice. We ask the court to uphold the rule of law and restore human dignity."
Mark Hejinian, a partner at Coblentz Patch Duffy & Bass LLP, asserted that “the Administrative Procedure Act is a cornerstone of accountable government, requiring agencies to act with reason and transparency."
"The Trump administration has trampled on these requirements," he added. "The government failed to consider alternatives and disregarded profound constitutional and human costs. We hope the court will see these failures and vacate both policies.”
"This isn’t about the nukes or the missile program. This is about regime change," a former senior intelligence official told Drop Site News.
Senior officials in the US military have told a key Middle East ally that President Donald Trump may strike Iran as soon as this weekend, as part of an operation that may seek to decapitate the Islamic Republic's government, according to a report published Friday by Drop Site News.
While the Trump administration reportedly envisions attacks against nuclear, ballistic, and other military sites around Iran, a former senior US intelligence official who is acting as an informal advisor to Trump told the outlet: "This isn’t about the nukes or the missile program. This is about regime change."
As Iran has been roiled by the largest wave of protests since the Islamic Revolution in 1979, Trump has repeatedly threatened to launch strikes, which he has claimed would be in retaliation for the nation's security forces killing demonstrators.
While counts vary widely, the US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency reported Friday that Iranian security forces have killed more than 6,000 protesters in a brutal crackdown that has largely quelled the unrest seen earlier this month.
According to the senior official, who has worked as a consultant for Arab governments, Trump's war planners hope that a strike on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would galvanize Iranians to return to the streets and eventually deliver a knockout blow to their government.
He said that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who has long sought to push the US to engage in direct conflict with Iran, “is hoping for an attack,” and is “assuring Trump that Israel can help put in place a new government that is friendly with the West.”
In the Oval Office on Friday, Trump told reporters that the US has a “large armada, flotilla, call it whatever you want, heading towards Iran right now." He said that the armada was "larger than Venezuela," referring to the buildup of ships leading up to the US invasion of the Latin American country earlier this month to overthrow its president, Nicolás Maduro.
According to Drop Site, two senior intelligence officials from an unnamed Arab country said they received word that a US attack could come “imminently," potentially as soon as Sunday.
Brigadier General Mohammad Akraminia, Iran’s military spokesperson, in an interview on Iranian TV on Thursday, said that a strike against Iran would likely play out very differently from the one launched in June against three Iranian nuclear sites. Iran's response was limited: an attack on a single US military base in Qatar, which it telegraphed beforehand.
“If such a miscalculation is made by the Americans, it will certainly not unfold the way Trump imagines—carrying out a quick operation and then, two hours later, tweeting that the operation is over,” Akraminia said.
“The scope of war will certainly extend across the entire region, he added. "From the Zionist regime to countries that host American military bases, all will be within range of our missiles and drones.”
Trump has said "time is running out" for Iran to come to the table to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with the United States, one with much more stringent restrictions than the one the president ripped up in 2018.
According to the New York Times:
US and European officials say that in talks, they have put three demands in front of the Iranians: a permanent end to all enrichment of uranium and disposal of its current stockpiles, limits on the range and number of their ballistic missiles, and an end to all support for proxy groups in the Middle East, including Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis operating in Yemen.
As the Times pointed out, "Notably absent from those demands... was any reference to protecting the protesters."
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi stated on Friday that Tehran would “welcome negotiations that ensure Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear activity” and that it would not “negotiate anything related to our conventional arms, including missiles. This is something we cannot risk.”
He said Iran would not agree to any deal that halts uranium enrichment on its soil, which it has said it has the right to pursue under the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT). "We do not want to enter into any kind of negotiation that is doomed to failure and can then be used as another pretext for another war," he told Al-Monitor.
Speaking to reporters at the White House on Friday, Trump said Iran “wants to make a deal” but did not elaborate on what that meant. “We’ll see what happens. I can say this: They do want to make a deal."
Mohamed ElBaradei, former director general of the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, has condemned Trump's threats.
"The continued unilateral threats of a military strike against Iran in the absence of any clear and present danger and in violation of international law, bring to mind the same grim scene before the illegal and immoral Iraq war with its lies and horrifying consequences," he wrote on social media. "Human life and regional destruction don’t seem to matter."
Another House Democrat ripped President Donald Trump and his Justice Department for making clear that "they intend to withhold roughly 50% of the Epstein files, while claiming to have fully complied with the law."
US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Friday that Attorney General Pam Bondi should be facing impeachment, pointing to the top Justice Department official's handling of the Epstein files, efforts to force Minnesota to hand over its voter data, and arrest of journalists including former CNN anchor Don Lemon.
Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) made the call in response to Bondi's Friday morning announcement that Lemon, independent journalist Georgia Fort, and two others were arrested in connection with a protest at a Minnesota church earlier this month.
"Between this, Epstein, and her attempted extortion of MN voter files, Bondi should be up for impeachment too," Ocasio-Cortez wrote on social media, alluding to the ongoing effort to oust Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem.
Following the arrests of Lemon and others, the Justice Department announced the release of more than 3 million pages of documents related to the late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—more than a month after the passage of a deadline established by the Epstein Files Transparency Act, which President Donald Trump signed in November.
But the latest disclosure did not satisfy the lawmakers leading the push for full transparency. The Justice Department indicated Friday that it only released around half of the Epstein documents subject to review.
“Donald Trump and his Department of Justice have now made it clear that they intend to withhold roughly 50% of the Epstein files, while claiming to have fully complied with the law. This is outrageous and incredibly concerning," said Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee. "The Oversight Committee subpoena directs Pam Bondi to release all the files to the committee, while protecting survivors. They are in violation of the law."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.), who floated impeachment proceedings against Bondi last month, said in a statement that he will be "reviewing closely to see if they release what I’ve been pushing for: the FBI 302 victim interview statements, a draft indictment and prosecution memorandum prepared during the 2007 Florida investigation, and hundreds of thousands of emails and files from Epstein’s computers."
"Failing to release these files only shields the powerful individuals who were involved and hurts the public’s trust in our institutions," said Khanna, the author of the Epstein Files Transparency Act.