

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.

The Senate Judiciary Committee released its reconciliation bill, tacking $1 billion for Donald Trump’s White House ballroom project and $70 billion for Immigration Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP).
Public Citizen Co-President Lisa Gilbert issued the following statement:
“The idea of using a simple majority process to fund billions more in ICE cruelty is abhorrent, but now the Senate has piled corrupt absurdity on top of that inhumane move, by adding in 1 billion dollars to fund the grandiose, bombastic, vanity project—the golden White House ballroom. Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic.”
Public Citizen is a nonprofit consumer advocacy organization that champions the public interest in the halls of power. We defend democracy, resist corporate power and work to ensure that government works for the people - not for big corporations. Founded in 1971, we now have 500,000 members and supporters throughout the country.
(202) 588-1000A legal expert explores how the administration is "weaponizing the law... to effectuate a widespread harassment and mass deportation campaign that is more akin to ethnic cleansing than routine immigration enforcement."
President Donald Trump's taxpayer-funded mass deportation campaign has tormented communities across the country with militarized federal agents, killed immigrants and US citizens alike, abused demonstrators and detainees of all ages, and sparked fears of an expansive effort to strip citizenship from Americans.
The "Terrorizing Migrants" report released Tuesday by the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson School of International and Public Affairs details how Trump's xenophobic campaign reflects "specific law and policy options created and strengthened among all three branches of the US government, on a bipartisan basis, since 9/11."
"These law and policy options place heightened unchecked discretionary authority within the administration, and are particularly ripe for abuse against noncitizen persons of color by immigration authorities, law enforcement agents, and other executive branch officials," wrote Widener University Delaware Law School assistant professor Elizabeth Beavers, author of the report.
The publication focuses on five key post-9/11 precedents borrowed from the "War on Terror," though it acknowledges that "the Trump administration is relying on laws and policies far beyond those described in this paper to effectuate its broader anti-immigrant agenda, and justifying much of it in national security language."
The first of the five precedents is "conflation of immigration enforcement and counterterrorism." The report recalls that after the 2001 terrorist attacks, the Federal Bureau of Investigation "orchestrated a mass investigation" that "exclusively targeted Arab, Muslim, and South Asian immigrants in a dragnet roundup, subjecting them to secretive detention at locations inside the US," and holding many of them "for weeks or even months without any charges at all."
Beavers also pointed to the George W. Bush administration's launch of the National Security Entry and Exit Registration System, as well as the creation of the US Department of Homeland Security and the placement of Immigration and Customs Enforcement within DHS. ICE and Customs and Border Protection agents have been key to Trump's campaign.
The Muslim ban from Trump's first term "built upon the structures that came before it, but greatly expanded legal presumptions that people of particular races, religions, and nationalities carry inherent danger," Beavers wrote. His second term policies have "extended this precedent to its logical conclusion by framing migration itself as terrorism. And nearly 25 years after its post-9/11 creation, ICE has been unleashed and empowered to roam American streets, snatching and disappearing people they perceive as unlawfully present, often based solely on race, and often without verifying their immigration status."
The second precedent Beavers explored is "expanded and politicized 'terrorist' designation lists." She noted Trump's invasion of Venezuela and abduction of its president, Nicolás Maduro, as well as his boat-bombing spree allegedly targeting drug traffickers in international waters.
The expert also dove into "deporting people as 'terrorists' without proving actual violent conduct," flagging Trump's "reverse migration" pledge after an Afghan man allegedly shot two National Guard members in Washington, DC, along with the administration's decision to "hold and review" asylum applications for people from "high-risk" countries.
That review, she warned, "could result in mass removal from the country of 'terrorist' noncitizens who involuntarily paid money to cartels at some point in their lives, whose family remittances have crossed hands with cartel-controlled actors, who have family members or other connections to a designated cartel but no involvement themselves, or who have unwillingly been pressed into service of a cartel at some point."
Much gratitude to @costsofwar.bsky.social for publishing my newest paper, highlighting how legal tools that started as post-9/11 counterterrorism abuses are now being weaponized further for Trump's anti-immigrant agenda:
[image or embed]
— Elizabeth Beavers (@elizabethrb.bsky.social) May 5, 2026 at 10:49 AM
The fourth precedent examined in the analysis is "indefinite detention, torture, and rendition of noncitizens." Beavers began the section with the detention camp at US Naval Station Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, which she called "perhaps one of the most notorious features of the US government's post-9/11 'War on Terror.'"
"It is both a place where every post-9/11 president has detained Muslim men in connection with the post-9/11 counterterrorism wars, but it is also a place where unauthorized migrants are sometimes held," she wrote. "More than 700 migrants have been sent to and from Guantánamo in President Trump's second term, detained there by ICE with support from the military."
The expert also highlighted Trump's deportation of hundreds of men to El Salvador's infamous Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)—based on often dubious claims that they belonged to the gang Tren de Aragua, which the president designated as a terrorist organization—as well as the "practice of disappearing people into secretive immigration detention" within the United States, and reports indicating that "abusive treatment in those facilities may amount to unlawful torture."
The final precedent Beavers explored is the "anti-democratic concentration of executive national security powers." She wrote that "the second Trump administration has made prompt use of this latitude" from federal courts since 9/11.
"This has included: manipulating the 'terrorist' designation lists in novel ways to include drug cartels without needing court approval, which has expanded the scope of people who can be deported as 'terrorists'; claiming a maximalist version of its immigration powers, daring courts to intervene; invoking the state secrets privilege to avoid accountability in cases challenging its deportation orders; and indefinitely detaining and torturing migrants," Beavers continued. "They have taken each of these actions without fear they will be meaningfully held accountable in court."
Based on her review, the professor concluded that "indisputably, administration officials are weaponizing the law in new and particularly indefensible ways to effectuate a widespread harassment and mass deportation campaign that is more akin to ethnic cleansing than routine immigration enforcement."
"Neither Congress nor the courts have meaningfully checked presidents or held them accountable for their expansive and spurious claims of war authorities, national security powers, and counterterrorism mechanisms to justify harmful and discriminatory practices against noncitizens and especially against people of color," she stressed. "In these and many other ways, US policymakers on a bipartisan basis built and sharpened the legal weapons that President Trump is now utilizing against immigrants."
"Providers are stretched thin, doing everything they can as resources disappear and the system buckles under the pressure of Republicans cutting more than $1 trillion from healthcare."
An advocacy group tracking the impacts of the unprecedented Medicaid cuts that congressional Republicans and President Donald Trump enacted last year said Monday that at least 900 hospitals, nursing homes, and other healthcare facilities are now shutting down or at risk of closure—a disaster for low-income Americans who lack easy access to care.
Protect Our Care's Hospital Crisis Watch project has identified healthcare centers that have closed or are at risk of closing, cutting services, and shutting down wards as they grapple with the impacts of the GOP's 2025 budget law, which included over $1 trillion in total healthcare cuts over the next decade. More than $900 billion of the cuts will come from Medicaid, which pays hospitals and other providers for services delivered to low-income patients.
"Hospital Crisis Watch has now reached 900 pins, 900 communities where access to care is evaporating as Republicans’ healthcare cuts ripple across the country,” said Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care. “Providers are stretched thin, doing everything they can as resources disappear and the system buckles under the pressure of Republicans cutting more than $1 trillion from health care to fund tax breaks for billionaires and big corporations."
"Families are driving further for care, parents are scrambling to find services for their kids, and seniors are being left without the support they need," Woodhouse continued. "Care is getting harder to access, in too many places, disappearing entirely, and communities are left to deal with the consequences."
The impacts of the Trump-GOP Medicaid cuts have been felt in both urban and rural areas, despite Republicans' inclusion of a $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Fund that supporters touted as a way to bolster at-risk healthcare facilities. Critics of the fund have warned from the start that it would not be nearly enough to offset the devastation caused by massive Medicaid cuts. (The Trump-GOP law includes an estimated $137 billion in cuts to Medicaid in rural areas.)
"In Nebraska and other states, rural hospitals are facing across-the-board cuts—and the rural health fund Congress created to offset the impact of Medicaid cuts on rural healthcare is falling short," Adam Searing, an associate professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy’s Center for Children and Families, wrote in a blog post last week.
"What is quickly becoming clear, even at this early stage, is that as a result of the cuts enacted by Congress, healthcare is going to become much harder to access for many people," wrote Searing. "Rural areas and small towns across the country will be particularly affected."
The latest assessments of surging healthcare facility cuts and closures across the US came as Nebraska became the first state to implement the punitive work requirements that the 2025 Republican law imposes on some Medicaid recipients. Early estimates indicate that more than 20,000 Nebraskans could lose Medicaid coverage due to the stringent work requirements and the procedural hurdles the new mandates entail.
States must implement the new work requirements by the start of 2027.
"Everyone who is eligible for Medicaid will be at risk of having their health coverage taken away—whether or not the work requirement applies to them, and whether or not they prove their compliance or exemption status if it does—because the administrative burden of implementing the work requirement strains a state’s entire Medicaid system," Farah Erzouki, a senior policy analyst at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, warned last week.
"Without sufficient time and guidance," Erzouki added, "states will be unable to implement these requirements without harming many more eligible people and millions will lose coverage."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," said one critic.
Even though President Donald Trump has long insisted that his proposed White House luxury ballroom would be funded by private donations, congressional Republicans unveiled legislation on Monday that would put US taxpayers on the hook for the project.
As reported by Punchbowl News, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) released a proposal for a budget reconciliation package that includes $30 billion more in funds for US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), $3.4 billion for Customs and Border Protection, and $2.5 billion for the Department of Homeland Security.
Tucked into the proposal is $1 billion for what is described as an "East Wing modernization project, including above-ground and below-ground security features."
Given that Trump is planning to build his ballroom on the area of the White House's East Wing that he demolished last year, this means that $1 billion in taxpayer money would be going to the president's vanity project.
Democratic officials immediately pounced on news that their Republican counterparts are planning to funnel $1 billion to the ballroom project, noting that the budget plan comes as Americans are struggling with the surging costs of energy and food.
"Zero dollars to lower costs," wrote Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), ranking member of the House Budget Committee. "Zero dollars to protect your healthcare. A massive check for an out-of-control ICE, and $1 billion for Trump’s ballroom. This Republican budget bill is a disaster."
Rep. Sean Casten (D-Ill.) responded to the GOP ballroom plan by declaring, "Oh hell no."
"Spiking prices, SCOTUS attacking democracy, collapsing faith in the US government," Casten added, "and the GOP is prioritizing sending more money to murderous ICE agents and Trump's ballroom vanity project. This is offensive."
Rep. Yassamin Ansari (D-Ariz.) contrasted the GOP finding money to fund the ballroom with its unwillingness to extend enhanced subsidies for Americans who buy health insurance through exchanges established by the Affordable Care Act.
"Add the ballroom to the laundry list of things Trump said someone else would pay for," Ansari wrote. "Ultimately, of course, it’s always the American people footing the bill for his outrageous pet projects. A $1BN price tag while he rips away your healthcare. Sickening."
Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) welcomed the chance to have his Republican colleagues go on the record in favor of funding the ballroom.
"Just flagging that now everyone gets an up or down vote on the ballroom!" he wrote.
Elected Democrats weren't the only ones to hammer the GOP for the proposal to fund Trump's ballroom.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, called the GOP plan a "corrupt absurdity" that would make taxpayers shell out $1 billion for the president's "grandiose, bombastic, vanity project."
"Using taxpayer dollars to toady to a wannabe-dictator is both pandering and pathetic," added Gilbert, who decried the plans for increased ICE funding as "abhorrent."
Kristen Crowell, executive director of Families Over Billionaires, denounced the ballroom funding plan as "a glaring symbol of misplaced priorities and grift," while also calling attention to other harmful aspects of the GOP's budget proposal.
"At a time when families are struggling to afford housing, child care, and other basic necessities," Crowell said, "the White House and Republicans in Congress are proposing to pour tens of billions of dollars into an already bloated and unaccountable deportation machine—while also carving out funding for the president’s own luxury projects."