June, 08 2023, 04:22pm EDT

Supreme Court Upholds Section 2 of Voting Rights Act in Allen v. Milligan; Brennan Center Reacts
The court upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down an Alabama congressional map because it discriminated against Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Today the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 in Allen v. Milligan. The court upheld a lower court’s decision to strike down an Alabama congressional map because it discriminated against Black voters in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.
Michael Waldman, president and CEO of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU Law and author of The Supermajority: How the Supreme Court Divided the Country, had this reaction:
“Today’s ruling vindicating the rights of Alabama voters is a huge victory for civil rights and a welcome surprise. The Voting Rights Act is one of the country’s most effective civil rights laws. This decision will ensure that voters of color can continue to use Section 2 to assure their equal opportunity to participate in elections, in Alabama and around the country.
“In this instance, the Supreme Court’s embrace of established precedent seems to have heard the public’s outcry over its radical rulings. We should all demand decisions from this court that uphold democracy and advance racial justice.”
Kareem Crayton, senior director in the Brennan Center’s Democracy Program, had this reaction:
“Today’s decision affirms the Congressional support and judicial principles that gave rise to Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Communities of color in this increasingly diverse country need assurance in the law that their right to be fairly represented in government can come from the courts when legislatures fail to follow the law. Despite the Court’s efforts of limiting the use of litigation to address discriminatory districts, this opinion reflects a fulsome application of precedent — which affirms the view of a unanimous district court.”
“Make no mistake: today’s ruling still leaves us with a weakened tool of enforcement. Ten years ago, this court ended the most effective part of the legislation, preclearance, and in 2021, made it very hard to use Section 2 to challenge suppressive discriminatory voting rules.
“Congress can and should step in to protect fair access to voting and representation for all. Our legislators must pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act and the Freedom to Vote Act.”The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
'Corruption, Pure and Simple': Probe Identifies Rich Donors Benefiting From Trump Presidency
“These people are not getting coerced. They are making business decisions,” said one former official who left the Trump White House to become a lobbyist.
Dec 22, 2025
A detailed investigation published Monday shows that many wealthy and powerful contributors to US President Donald Trump's staggering post-election fundraising haul—now at roughly $2 billion—have seen a return on their money in the form of pardons, corporate-friendly regulatory changes, government contracts, and dropped enforcement cases.
Drawing on campaign finance filings and previously unreported documents, the New York Times found that more than half of the 346 big donors it identified "have benefited, or are involved in an industry that has benefited, from the actions or statements of Mr. Trump, the White House, or federal agencies," including Palantir CEO Alex Karp, ExxonMobil, Amazon, Uber chief executive Dara Khosrowshahi, Dow Chemical, and Goldman Sachs.
“So many of you have been really, really generous,” Trump told ballroom donors at a recent dinner.
The Times investigation focused on corporations and individuals who have donated at least $250,000 through various channels, including Trump's inaugural committee, which raised nearly four times as much as former President Joe Biden's; his White House ballroom project; and pro-Trump political action committees and nonprofits.
"The astounding haul hints at a level of transactionalism for which it is difficult to find obvious comparisons in modern American history," the newspaper reported. "The identities of the donors behind much of the cash are not legally required to be, and have not been, publicly disclosed. In some cases, Mr. Trump’s team has offered donors anonymity."
Corruption, pure and simple. Trump is selling the presidency and our country. www.nytimes.com/interactive/... Hundreds of Big Post-Election Donors Have Benefited From Trump’s Return to Office
[image or embed]
— Zak Williams (@zakwilliamswzw.bsky.social) Dec 22, 2025 at 9:47 AM
Since winning a second White House term, Trump's political apparatus has reportedly raised more money than it did for the 2024 election campaign—an indication that corporations, their executives, and their armies of lobbyists saw in Trump's return to the Oval Office an enticing investment opportunity.
Harrison Fields, a former Trump administration official who left the White House earlier this year to become a lobbyist, told the Times that post-election donors to the president "are not getting coerced."
"They are making business decisions," Fields added.
The Times investigation outlines numerous ways in which Trump donors have benefited directly or indirectly from the administration's actions this year, while working-class Americans suffer the impacts of rising unemployment, tariff chaos, and a worsening cost-of-living crisis.
"While the donations far exceed most Americans’ means, the sums pale in comparison to the contracts being sought from the Trump administration," the outlet noted. "Take Mr. Trump’s 'Golden Dome' missile defense project, which could yield lucrative work for a number of contractors. Palantir has already held discussions about being involved. Firms including Lockheed Martin and Boeing also are expected to compete for pieces of the work; each company donated $1 million to Mr. Trump’s inaugural committee."
The technology firm Palantir has, according to the Times, "secured federal contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars, including to develop software to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement deport people." The company donated $10 million to the White House ballroom project.
Trump's post-election donors have also received ambassadorships, pardons for white-collar crimes, and industry-friendly policies.
"The crypto industry writ large has benefited from Mr. Trump’s cheerleading, as well as his championing and signing into law a bill creating the first federal rules for stablecoins," the Times reported. "Mr. Trump has also favored the fossil fuel industry, directing tens of billions of dollars in incentives to companies, allowing drilling in the Alaska wilderness, and repealing environmental regulations. About two dozen companies with interests in oil, gas, and coal donated at least $41 million."
While the Times emphasized that it is "not possible to prove that any of the donations directly led to favorable treatment from the Trump administration," the newspaper added that "many of the deep-pocketed individuals and corporations who have given large sums have a lot riding on the administration’s actions, raising questions about conflicts of interest."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Americans Face Affordability Crisis, Two-Thirds Say Trump Policies Mainly Favor the Rich
Sen. Tammy Baldwin said that when Trump gives his economy high marks, "it is so clear that he's talking about the economy for him, his billionaire friends, his billionaire Cabinet members."
Dec 22, 2025
As Americans increasingly struggle with the cost of living, nearly two-thirds now say President Donald Trump's policies favor the wealthy over everyone else, according to poll results published Sunday.
When respondents were asked by a CBS News/YouGov poll back in March who they felt the president's policies were most geared toward, already a majority, 55%, said the wealthy were benefiting the most, while 33% said his policies benefited everyone equally. Just 1% said his policies would most benefit the poor.
Since then, Trump has imposed a series of regressive tariffs that have driven inflation up, costing the average family an extra $1,200 this year, according to an estimate by Democrats on the Joint Economic Committee in Congress.
He also passed what has often been described as the largest upward transfer of wealth in US history. After July's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, the top 1% of earners are poised to pay over $1 trillion less in taxes over the next decade.
Meanwhile, its cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act health insurance subsidies are expected to result in around 15 million people losing health insurance, while roughly 4 million—including 1 million children—will see cuts to their Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) benefits.
When CBS/YouGov asked the same question nine months later, the number who said Trump's policies favored the wealthy had shot up by 10 points to 65%. The number who said they'd benefit everyone equally has dropped by about the same amount, and Trump convinced no one that he was primarily looking out for the poor.
Trump's approval ratings have hit record lows in 2025, with the economy—once the area where Americans had the greatest faith in him—now serving as one of the biggest sources of backlash.
Last week, after months of delay, a Labor Department report showed that unemployment had climbed to 4.6% in November, the highest rate since 2021—nearly 50,000 manufacturing jobs, which Trump's tariffs are supposedly meant to protect, were shed between February and September. At the same time, wage growth has decelerated to 3.5% year-over-year, the department said.
Just 18% told CBS News/YouGov they felt as if they were financially better off since Trump took office, while 50% said they were worse off. Thirty-two percent said they were about the same.
When not simply pretending that the economy has improved under his watch—as he did in his primetime address last week—Trump and his allies have blamed economic sluggishness on his predecessor, former President Joe Biden.
But Americans largely do not buy this framing: 47% say Trump's policies are more responsible for the state of the US economy today, while just 22% still predominantly blame Biden, and another 22% say both are equally to blame.
Last week, Trump said his economic performance deserves an "A++++." But just 5% of voters gave him an A. Instead, 24% gave him an F, another 25% gave him a D, and 26% gave him a C.
In a post on social media, Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) said that when Trump gives his economy high marks, "it is so clear that he's talking about the economy for him, his billionaire friends, his billionaire Cabinet members."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Decimated by Tariffs, US Farmers Warn Trump Bailout Not Nearly Enough to Erase Pain He Caused
"The average soybean acre in the United States this year is going to lose $109 an acre, and that's well over two dollars a bushel," said one farmer. "It's bloody."
Dec 22, 2025
President Donald Trump has announced a $12 billion relief package for US farmers hurt by his global trade war, but there are already signs that it will be woefully insufficient.
The Guardian reported on Monday that many US farmers are concerned that the bailout offered by the Trump administration won't come close to making up for the damage done by Trump's tariffs over the last nine months.
The report cited data from the American Farm Bureau showing that US crop farmers have collectively lost $34.6 billion this year, a total that is nearly three times the size of Trump's farm aid proposal.
Dan Wright, president of the Arkansas Farm Bureau, told the Guardian that Trump's plan is both too little to make up for lost sales and too late to prevent many farms from going under.
"A program that provides roughly $50 an acre will not save the thousands of family farms that will go bankrupt before the end of the year," Wright explained.
The Guardian noted that farms in Arkansas are expected to be hit particularly hard by bankruptcies this year, although farmers across the US report being under duress.
Ohio Capital Journal reported last week on new data from the Atlantic Council’s Tariff Tracker showing that Ohio farmers lost $76 million worth of exports to China this year after the Chinese government cut off all US soy purchases in retaliation for Trump restarting his trade war.
A Monday report from the Times-Picayune quoted Louisiana Commissioner of Agriculture and Foresty Mike Strain saying recently that roughly half of Louisiana farmers "are facing significant challenges" in which they're dealing not only with lost sales to foreign nations, but also increased costs for supplies and equipment thanks to Trump's tariffs.
"The cost has gone up, but the price the farmers receive went down," Strain explained.
Kentucky farmer Caleb Ragland, chairman of the American Soybean Association, told Spectrum News 1 on Monday that soy farmers were bracing for major losses from their crops as they get hit from both sides by depressed soy prices and increased input costs.
"The average soybean acre in the United States this year is going to lose $109 an acre, and that's well over two dollars a bushel," Ragland explained. "It's bloody."
While China recently pledged to start buying more soy from US farmers, the country has been gradually increasing its reliance on Brazil and other countries so that it no longer has to deal with unpredictable US trade policies.
Andrew Muhammad, a professor of agricultural policy at the University of Tennessee, said in an interview with local public radio station WPLN that China's shift toward Latin American markets means it is no longer held hostage to Trump's whims, and it can now ensure a steady supply of soy regardless of the US president's tariff policies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


