July, 17 2025, 01:41pm EDT
Statement on Senate Republicans’ Violation Of Committee Rules In Trying to Silence Emil Bove Whistleblower And Advance Bove’s Nomination
Today, the Senate Judiciary Committee attempted to vote through another slate of President Donald Trump’s extreme judicial nominees, including his former defense attorney Emil Bove, apparently in violation of committee rules. As Senate Democrats voiced their concern with Bove’s nomination and the obvious ethical concerns it raises, Chairman Chuck Grassley shut down debate, an ironic change of tune for the chairman, who has previously vowed to protect whistleblowers. Senate Democrats then walked out. Nevertheless, Chairman Grassley proceeded with the vote although committee rules require the presence of at least two Members of the minority in order to transact business. In response, Accountable.US President Caroline Ciccone issued the following statement:
“Chairman Grassley and Senate Judiciary Committee Republicans just shamefully disregarded our democratic process in an attempt to ram through Trump’s judicial nominees. They tried to silence a government whistleblower who raised serious concerns about Emil Bove and his ability to rule impartially. Bove is an extreme ideologue, and his lifetime appointment sets the stage for the President and his allies to seek out favorable rulings no matter how unconstitutional their actions. It’s reprehensible that Senate Republicans silenced a basic acknowledgement of the facts, in order to jam through judicial appointments who will be a rubber stamp for Trump’s out-of-touch agenda.”
Last week, an Accountable.US research report revealed that Bove has not committed to key recusals ahead of his nomination hearing. In a nomination form, Bove pledged to recuse himself from “situations that present actual conflicts of interest based on my current or prior positions at the Department of Justice” – but Bove has so far refrained from preemptively recusing himself from any future case involving his former client and current boss, Donald Trump. By comparison, another one of Trump’s current judicial nominees, Anne-Leigh Gaylord Moe, pledged to recuse herself from any case involving her family or companies owned by her husband.
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.
LATEST NEWS
Trump DOJ Sides With Roundup Manufacturer Over Cancer Victims in Supreme Court Case
An attorney at Food & Water Watch said the DOJ sent a "clear message... to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides: Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs."
Dec 02, 2025
The Trump administration is pushing for the US Supreme Court to shield the manufacturer of Roundup from thousands of state lawsuits alleging that its widely used herbicide product causes cancer.
On Monday, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer recommended that the high court agree to hear a challenge to a Missouri jury's verdict in 2023 that awarded $1.25 million to a man named John Durnell, who claimed that the product caused him to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma.
Bayer, the agribusiness giant that purchased the manufacturer of Roundup, the agribusiness giant Monsanto, in 2018, immediately challenged the verdict.
In 2015, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classified glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, as "probably carcinogenic to humans" based on "limited evidence."
That evidence became less limited in 2019, when a prominent meta-analysis by a team of environmental health researchers found that people exposed to glyphosate at the highest levels had a 41% higher risk of developing non-Hodgkin lymphoma than those who weren't.
There are nearly 4,500 Roundup claims currently pending in federal court, and at least 24 cases have gone to trial since October 2023. They make up just a fraction of the more than 170,000 claims filed.
According to Bloomberg, Bayer has already been forced to pay out more than $10 billion in verdicts and settlements over the product, which has caused a massive drain on the company's stock price.
In what it said was an effort to “manage litigation risk and not because of any safety concerns,” Bayer removed glyphosate-based herbicides from the residential market in 2023, switching to formulas that “rely on alternative active ingredients.”
That didn't stop the lawsuits from coming. Durnell's victory was the first successful case brought against Bayer outside California, the only state that labels the product as carcinogenic. That in Missouri opened the floodgates in other states, and plaintiffs subsequently won sizable payouts in Georgia and Pennsylvania.
But now the Trump administration is trying to help the company skirt further accountability. Sauer, who is tasked with arguing for the government in nearly every Supreme Court case, filed a 24-page brief stating that there is a lack of clarity on whether states have the authority to determine whether Bayer and Monsanto violated the law by failing to warn customers about potential cancer risks from Roundup.
Bayer argues that these cases are preempted by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA), which forbids states from enacting labeling requirements more stringent than those recommended by the federal government.
Sauer agreed with Bayer, stating in the brief that the US Environmental Protection Agency "has repeatedly determined that glyphosate is not likely to be carcinogenic in humans, and the agency has repeatedly approved Roundup labels that did not contain cancer warnings."
In 2016 and again in 2020, the EPA indeed classified glyphosate as "not likely to be carcinogenic to humans" following agency assessments. However, in 2022, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals voided this assessment, finding that the agency applied “inconsistent reasoning” in its review of the science.
Among the justifications for the ruling were that the EPA relied heavily on unpublished, non-peer-reviewed studies submitted to regulators by Monsanto and other companies that manufacture glyphosate. The agency also largely disregarded findings from animal studies included by the IARC, which showed a strong link between glyphosate and cancer.
"The World Health Organization has recognized glyphosate as a probable carcinogen while the EPA continues to twist itself into pretzels to come to the opposite conclusion," Lori Ann Burd, a staff attorney and director of the Center for Biological Diversity's environmental health program, told Common Dreams.
Notably, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. built his national profile campaigning against the dangers of pesticides and railing against regulatory capture by big business.
Kennedy served as an attorney for Dewayne Johnson, the first plaintiff to win damages against Monsanto in 2018, where a jury determined that Roundup had contributed to his cancer.
"If my life were a Superman comic, Monsanto would be my Lex Luthor," Kennedy said in a 2020 Facebook post. "I've seen this company as the enemy of every admirable American value."
During Kennedy's 2024 presidential run, he pledged to "ban the worst agricultural chemicals already banned in other countries."
But after he was sworn in as President Donald Trump's HHS Secretary, he began to sing a different tune. As Investigate Midwest noted, his "Make America Healthy Again" commission's introductory report made no mention of glyphosate.
Meanwhile, he reassured the pesticide industry that it had nothing to worry about: "There’s a million farmers who rely on glyphosate. 100% of corn in this country relies on glyphosate. We are not going to do anything to jeopardize that business model," he said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing.
The Trump EPA has deregulated toxic chemicals across the board over the past year. It rolled back protections against per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), often referred to as "forever chemicals," in drinking water, which have many documented health risks. It has also declined to ban the widely used insecticide chlorpyrifos, which has been linked to neurodevelopmental disorders in children.
Elizabeth Kucinich, the former director of policy at the Center for Food Safety, described the US Department of Justice's effort to shield Bayer as another "betrayal of MAHA health promises." Her husband, the two-time Democratic presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, worked as the campaign manager for RFK Jr.'s 2024 presidential bid.
“This is regulatory capture, not public protection,” she said. “This action shields chemical manufacturers from accountability by elevating a captured federal regulatory process over the lived harm of real people. That is anti-life, and it is exactly what millions of MAHA voters believed they were voting against.”
Food & Water Watch staff attorney Dani Replogle said the DOJ filing "encourages the Supreme Court to slam judiciary doors in the faces of cancer patients across the country."
"No political posturing can undo the clear message this brief sends to sick Americans harmed by toxic pesticides," she continued. "Trump has Bayer’s back, not theirs."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Evil and Disgusting': From Sabrina Carpenter to Franklin the Turtle, 'Violent' Memes by Trump Officials Rebuked
"This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy," said one journalist.
Dec 02, 2025
Pop star Sabrina Carpenter and Kids Can Press, publisher of the popular Franklin the Turtle children's book series, are shaming President Donald Trump's administration for using their work to promote its policies of mass deportation and extrajudicial killing.
On Monday, the official White House X account posted a video showing federal agents chasing, apprehending, and detaining purported undocumented immigrants that featured Carpenter's song "Juno" as its soundtrack.
On Tuesday morning, Carpenter angrily denounced the White House for using her song in a mass deportation video.
"This video is evil and disgusting," she wrote in response. "Do not ever involve me or my music to benefit your inhumane agenda."
An administration spokesperson responded to Carpenter's message by continuing to reference her lyrics, and said that "anyone who would defend these sick monsters" that the administration is deporting "must be stupid, or is it slow," a line lifted from her hit song "Manchild."
As noted by the Guardian, Carpenter is just the latest popular artist to object to the Trump White House using their work in propaganda videos, as Beyoncé, Olivia Rodrigo, Kenny Loggins, and Foo Fighters have also attacked the White House for hijacking their songs.
Kids Can Press, meanwhile, slammed Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth after he posted a meme depicting Franklin the Turtle launching air-to-surface missiles at the boats of supposed "narco-terrorists" in the Caribbean.
In a statement, the publisher said that it "strongly" condemned "any denigrating, violent, or unauthorized use of Franklin’s name or image," such the one Hegseth posted on social media.
“Franklin the Turtle is a beloved Canadian icon who has inspired generations of children and stands for kindness, empathy, and inclusivity,” the published emphasized.
Hegseth posted the meme shortly after the Washington Post reported last week that US defense forces had conducted a "double-tap" strike against a suspected drug boat in September with the express purpose of killing two men who had survived the initial strike on the vessel.
Many legal scholars consider such an action to be murder or an overt war crime, and Hegseth and the Trump White House in recent days have been trying to shift responsibility for authorizing the second strike to Adm. Frank Bradley.
Writing in his Substack page on Tuesday, journalist Paul Waldman noted that Hegseth's attitude toward extrajudicial killing shouldn't be a surprise since he had previously lobbied Trump during his first term in office to pardon convicted war criminals.
"This is a government that is not only full of sadists, but has elevated sadism to a place of honor in politics and policy," he wrote. "If you’re one of Trump’s underlings and you aren’t publicly expressing glee at the prospect of punishing and abusing those with less power, then you won’t really fit in. That’s the context in which we have to view this event."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire-Funded ‘Trump Accounts’ for Kids Slammed as 'Another Tax Shelter' for the Rich
"If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare," said one children's advocate.
Dec 02, 2025
After Silicon Valley CEO Michael Dell and his wife, philanthropist Susan Dell, announced Tuesday their plan to invest $6.25 billion in seed money in individual investment accounts for 25 million American children, adding to the number of kids who would receive so-called "Trump Accounts" that were included in the Republican spending bill this year, advocates acknowledged that a direct cash investment could feasibly help some families.
But the National Women's Law Center (NWLC) was among those wondering whether the Dells' investment of $6.25 billion—a fraction of their $148 billion fortune—would ultimately benefit wealthy investors far more.
“While we support direct investments in families, the Trump Accounts being hailed by the White House are a policy solution that doesn’t meet most families’ needs,” said Amy Matsui, the vice president of income security and child care at NWLC. “As currently structured, these accounts will just become another tax shelter for the wealthiest, while the overwhelming majority of American families, who are struggling to cover basic costs like food, childcare, and housing, will be hard pressed to find the extra money that could turn the seed money into a meaningful investment."
The Dells, who are behind Dell Technologies, announced the investment plan months after President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill into law. The tax and spending law includes a provision that would start an investment account for every US citizen child born between January 2025-December 2028, with a $1,000 investment from the US government.
As Jezebel reported, the couple's contribution would got to an additional 25 million children, up to age 10, who were born prior to the 2025 cut-off date for the initial Trump Accounts.
"Around 80% of children born between 2016-2024 would theoretically qualify, although there are cutoffs based on household income: Applying families would have to live in ZIP codes where the median household income is less than $150,000 per year," wrote Jim Vorel.
In the corporate press, the Dells were applauded for making what they called the largest single private charitable donation to US children, but Vorel questioned the real-world impact of "a gift of $250, thrown vaguely in the direction of millions of American families by members of our billionaire ruling class."
"What can that money realistically do in terms of providing for a child’s future?" he wrote. "Is it the seed that is going to allow them to go to college, to buy a house some day? Does that really seem likely? Or are we primarily talking about billionaires running PR campaigns for a president who recently hit new second term lows in his overall approval numbers?"
The success of the individual investment accounts hinges on whether Americans and their employers—who can contribute up to $2,500 per year without counting it as taxable income—will be able to consistently and meaningfully invest money in the accounts until their children turn 18, considering that about a quarter of US households are living paycheck to paycheck, according to a recent poll.
"Do you know many families in 2025 that would describe themselves as having a spare $5,000 per year to immediately start investing in a government-backed investment account, even if that might be relatively sound financial strategy? Or are the families in your orbit already scraping to get by, without being able to commit much attention to investing in the future?" asked Vorel, adding that the artificial intelligence "bubble" is widely expected to soon burst and drag the stock market in which Trump is urging families to invest "into a deep pit of despair."
"As is so often the case, the families most benefited by the concept of Trump Accounts will be those ones who are already on the best financial footing, aka the wealthiest Americans," he wrote.
Jonathan Cohn of Progressive Mass was among those who said the Dells' investment only served to demonstrate how "they should pay more in taxes" to ensure all US children can benefit from public, not private, investment in education, healthcare, and other social supports.
"The government should not be funding only what can secure the sympathies of erratic rich people," said Cohn.
The NWLC argued the Trump Accounts are an example of the White House's embrace of "pronatalism"—the belief that the government should incentivize Americans to have more children—but fall short of being a policy that would actually make a measurable positive impact on families.
“In the end, this policy mirrors the rest of the law: another giveaway to the richest Americans that leaves everyone else further behind," said Matsui. "If the White House were serious about supporting families struggling with the costs of living, it would be advocating for investments in childcare, an expanded Child Tax Credit, and undoing the historic cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular