SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
andy kim
‘Stunning Admission’: Trump Admin Targeted Democrats by Canceling Clean Energy Grants
"It is despicable that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump," said US Sen. Dick Durbin.
Jul 24, 2026
President Donald Trump's administration has admitted in court that it chose to cancel certain grants for clean energy projects because they were set to benefit Democratic-voting states.
The New York Times reported on Friday that attorneys representing the US Department of Energy (DOE) acknowledged in court documents filed earlier this month that decisions about canceling grants were based "solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state, i.e., whether the recipient’s location and/or place of performance was in a Blue State or a non-Blue State."
The Times described this as a "stunning admission" that "offered an unvarnished glimpse into the way President Trump has weaponized the provision of federal education, energy, health, housing, and infrastructure aid in his second term."
According to the Times, the DOE last year recommended canceling more than 600 grants awarded for energy projects under former President Joe Biden's administration.
However, the White House Office of Management and Budget only made 284 of the recommended cuts while leaving the rest of the grants in place.
After a group of California researchers challenged the terminated grants in a lawsuit, the DOE acknowledged that "with one exception, the 284 terminated grants had a recipient location and/or at least one place of performance in a state that awarded its electoral votes to Kamala Harris in the 2024 election and has two Democratic-caucusing senators."
The DOE also admitted that there was no "programmatic, statutory, cost-reduction, or performance-based factor" to justify the cuts.
In a social media post, New York Times reporter Tony Romm noted that the DOE made these admissions "as part of a process meant to avoid discovery" and "perhaps spare it from sharing more damaging records" in its possession.
The Times report drew a sharp reaction from Trump administration critics.
"This is corruption," said Rep. Laura Friedman (D-Calif.). "It’s how this administration has acted since day one: punishing states, businesses, and ordinary Americans who push back on Trump. It’s a major betrayal of our nation that will lead to higher energy prices and should be condemned by people of all political parties. It’s un-American and despicable."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) accused the administration of "the weaponization of government" with its selective grant cancellations.
"This administration shows us time and time again they only care about one person," Kim added, "and that person only cares about himself."
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) argued that the filings prove "what we have long known, that their grant cancellations were not based on 'waste' or sound policy but vindictiveness."
"It is despicable," Durbin emphasized, "that the administration is taking away funding from states that did not vote for Trump."
Jennifer Victory, political scientist at George Mason University, described the administration's scheme as "violations of the rule of law that would be sufficient for impeachment in any other American presidency but aren't in this one because pathological partisan loyalty has rotted the constitutional order."
Sam Stein, managing editor at The Bulwark, said that the DOE's admission about targeting Democratic states was "something we all knew and saw at the time and yet still breathtaking to read... in print."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘Nauseating’: Critics Hammer Democratic Senators' Tributes to 'Bloodthirsty' Lindsey Graham
"I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it," said one critic.
Jul 12, 2026
Hours after Sen. Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died on Saturday, many of his Democratic colleagues in the US Senate posted statements on their social media pages paying tribute to the South Carolina Republican.
Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) said that he would most remember Graham (R-SC) for his "his sense of humor and how he deployed it to move his policy positions forward."
"Though we did not often agree," Schiff added, "Senator Graham was never disagreeable."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) similarly said of Graham that "even though we disagreed on much, he was always willing to negotiate, with humor and wit," adding "my heart goes out to his loved ones."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said he was "saddened" to hear of news of Graham's death, which he said came "as a real shock."
"I’m grateful I had the chance to work with Lindsey," said Kim, "including several international trips working on foreign policy."
However, many critics argued that these tributes to Graham overlooked his destructive legacy in public office, including his decades of war mongering and his slavish devotion to the authoritarian President Donald Trump.
"I don't give a fuck that Graham used to be friends with Democratic senators," wrote Thomas Lecaque, associate professor of history at Grand View University. "He was a bloodthirsty bastard who cheered the killing of Muslims and sold his soul to the fascists to be able to push it more effectively. I don't care about any other part of him: his choices caused mass death. That's it."
Princeton historian Kevin Kruse, responding directly to Schiff's post, reminded him of Graham's behavior during the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation hearings when he "threw an angry tantrum in defense of a SCOTUS nominee credibly accused of rape."
"Did you all have a good collegial chuckle over that?" Kruse asked.
Brandon Friedman, co-founder of the Rakkasan Tea Company and a veteran of the Iraq War, also responded directly to Schiff.
"What I'll remember most about Senator Graham," Friedman wrote, "is how he sent my friends to die in an unnecessary war in Iraq."
Jen Rubin, editor-in-chief of The Contrarian and former columnist for The Washington Post, described the Democrats' tributes to Graham as "nauseating" and "everything that is wrong" with the US Senate.
Nicholas Grossman, professor of international relations at the University of Illinois, said the Democrats' statements were just one more signal of weakness from the party.
"The Democratic Party's approval rating is in the toilet," Grossman wrote, "and the main reason is voters see Dem leaders and prominent members acting like things are basically okay instead of fighting like there's an emergency. Slot 'my friend Lindsey Graham, so funny, how great to work with him' comments into that."
Cartoonish Eli Valley was apoplectic about Democrats' fawning hagiography of their late Republican colleague.
"That Democrats see mass-murdering fascists dismantling the country as nothing more than 'colleagues they dislike' is why we've been in a non-stop plummet," Valley wrote. "Incredible this is still debatable, by people who ostensibly oppose fascism, ten years into this?!?"
Political consultant Jamison Foser wrote a parody of the Democrats' statements that imagined them paying tribute to none other than Satan.
"Deeply saddened to learn of the loss of my dear friend Satan, the Prince of Lies," wrote Foser. "Though we often disagreed about matters such as the appropriate role of torture in the afterlife, I will most remember how his quick wit and affable nature made our weekly golf outings a ritual. He will be missed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
‘What I Witnessed and Experienced Today Was Shameful,‘ Says US Senator Pepper Sprayed by ICE
Sen. Andy Kim of New Jersey said federal immigration agents "poured gasoline on the fire" as protesters condemned appalling conditions inside the Delaney Hall detention facility.
May 26, 2026
A sitting US senator was pepper sprayed by federal immigration agents on Monday during a demonstration outside of the notorious Delaney Hall detention center in Newark, New Jersey, where migrants are engaged in a hunger strike to highlight deplorable conditions inside the facility and demand their release.
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) said he rushed to the migrant detention center—which was reopened by the Trump administration last year—after learning of the hunger strike, which began late last week. Following Monday's protest, Kim wrote on social media that he saw "chaos" and "more of the same lawlessness we've see elsewhere around the country," alluding to horrific—and sometimes deadly—abuses by Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agents (ICE) in Minnesota, Georgia, Texas, and elsewhere.
"Instead of engaging with me and others about the poor conditions, ICE sent in an armored vehicle and a line of armed agents that only poured gasoline on the fire. Civilians were tackled and restrained, and agents fired pepper balls and spray into the crowd," said Kim. "Our country deserves accountability. Our country deserves the humane treatment of every person here. In fact, our Constitution demands this. What I witnessed and experienced today was shameful."
"Delaney Hall is a failure; it’s this administration’s failure," Kim added. "The only way to make this right for our communities is to shut it down and make sure the failures we’ve seen never happen again."
NJ.com reported that Kim, who was visiting the facility along with other New Jersey representatives including Democratic Gov. Mikie Sherrill, "initially tried to broker a temporary agreement between the demonstrators and federal agents, in which the agents would scale back tactical teams and immigrant advocates could inspect cars leaving the facility to see if detainees were inside."
Demonstrators had earlier expressed concern that ICE was planning to secretly transfer hunger strike participants to other detention facilities.
"But in the meantime, agents began pushing the crowd backward, firing less-lethal rounds containing an irritant toward the protesters and making several arrests," NJ.com continued. "At times, Kim stepped between the protestors and agents putting his arms up in a 'stop' motion as the scene grew chaotic. Later, Kim was among those who received first aid after being exposed to pepper spray."
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which oversees ICE, issued a statement characterizing protesters as "dangerous rioters" and claiming that "no individuals were directly struck by pepper ball projectiles."
DISGRACEFUL: ICE agents tear-gassed U.S. Senator Andy Kim at Delaney Hall detention facility in NJ today!
Kim was supporting hunger-striking detainees protesting spoiled food, no medical care & extreme heat when federal agents unleashed tear gas & pepper spray. Kim struggled to… pic.twitter.com/CyPQJCkW50
— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) May 26, 2026
Delaney Hall is run by the private prison corporation GEO Group under a $1 billion, 15-year contract with ICE.
The families of people detained at Delaney Hall have decried "dangerous conditions" inside the facility, alleging "medical neglect, lack of air conditioning, and lack of food—including rotten and spoiled meals." The ACLU of New Jersey noted earlier this year that "when food is provided—as it is not often supplied—people have reported that it is frozen or otherwise inedible, in small portions, and distributed at odd hours, which is particularly harmful for people who are diabetic and trying to maintain a stable blood sugar level."
After seeing the inside of the facility over the weekend, Kim wrote that "our government should focus on helping Americans afford their lives, not lock people up in for-profit detention centers where corporations like Geo Group and CoreCivic make billions."
"No profiting off of human misery," Kim added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Abomination': Enormous 'Dictatorship-Style' Banner With Trump Face on Side of Justice Department Decried
“It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings," said one critic.
Feb 19, 2026
Critics reacted with outrage on Thursday after a large banner featuring President Donald Trump's face was hung on the outside of the US Department of Justice.
The banner shows a large blue banner draped from the side of the department's headquarters in Washington, DC, with the slogan, "Make America Safe Again" written across the bottom.
Although the Trump administration in the past has hung up banners with the president's face on other federal buildings, including the US Department of Labor, many critics were particularly alarmed by a banner going up at the DOJ given how the department has been pursuing criminal prosecutions against his political enemies, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
"This is a stunning confirmation of the grim reality," wrote MS NOW justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian, "which is that Donald Trump has seized control of the once independent Justice Department and is using it to pursue his political objectives—including trying to punish his perceived enemies."
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) marveled at "the irony of a twice-impeached, convicted felon putting his own picture on the wall of the Department of Justice," while adding that "President Trump is weaponizing the DOJ as his own personal law firm."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) objected to the banner and reminded his social media followers that "the Department of Justice is supposed to work for and represent you, not him."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) linked the banner to the ongoing scandal of the DOJ's continued failure to release all files related to the criminal investigation of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"Want more evidence that the Justice Department is covering up the Epstein files to protect Epstein’s best friend Donald Trump?" wrote Lieu. "Look at this photo."
Attorney Brian Farnkoff, a former DOJ official, described the banner as "an abomination and an outrage," while acknowledging it was symbolic of how the president has taken over the department to use as a weapon against his enemies.
David Frum, staff writer at the Atlantic, also said that the symbolism being conveyed by the banner was apt.
"The Trump DOJ is a pure creature of presidential whim, retribution, and cover-up," he wrote, "so this banner has the virtue of candor at least."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the banner showed "Trump is laughing at the idea that the Justice Department is independent of the White House."
"It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings," Gilbert added. "It’s also beyond satirical that Trump, who is at the center of numerous current court cases and was convicted of numerous felonies, is splashing his face on the exterior of the Department of Justice."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to run for president in 2028, called the Trump DOJ banner "beyond parody," and asked, "How many dictatorship-style monuments, building name changes, and fake awards do Americans have to endure?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Description of FCC as 'Independent' Scrubbed From Agency Website After Chair Says It Isn't
One critic called the removal—which came immediately after FCC Chair Brendan Carr ignored nearly a century of historical precedent by claiming the agency is not independent—"a chilling authoritarian touch.”
Dec 17, 2025
Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr stunned many observers Wednesday by suggesting that the FCC is subordinate to President Donald Trump—an assertion followed almost immediately by the removal of the word "independent" from the agency's website.
Pressed by Democratic—and some Republican—lawmakers during a contentious Senate Commerce Committee hearing that addressed the FCC's mission of independently implementing and enforcing US communications laws and regulations, Carr said that "formally speaking, the FCC is not independent."
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) read aloud from the FCC's website, which at the time proclaimed the agency's independence.
"Is your website lying?" asked Luján.
"Possibly," replied Carr.
Within minutes of Carr's testimony, the mission statement on the FCC's website no longer described the agency as "independent."
Addressing Carr's apparent fealty to Trump, Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) asked, "If you don’t think that the FCC is independent, then is President Trump your boss?”
Carr replied: “President Trump has designated me as chairman of the FCC. I think it comes as no surprise that I’m aligned with President Trump on policy.”
A former telecommunications attorney, Carr has been criticized for siding with corporations and against the public interest on nearly ever major issue to come before the FCC. Many of his views are laid out in the chapter on the FCC he authored for Project 2025, the Heritage Foundation-led blueprint for a far-right overhaul of the federal government.
As chair, Carr has been accused by critics including Democratic lawmakers—some of whom have demanded his firing or resignation—of being a Trump sycophant, especially over his role in getting ABC late-night talk show host Jimmy Kimmel suspended for joking about the assassination of far-right firebrand Charlie Kirk.
Asked by Kim if it would be appropriate "for the president or senior administration officials to give you direction to pressure media companies," Carr declined to directly answer the question.
“The easy answer is, ‘No.’ It’s not a hypothetical," the senator said. "Trump is not your boss. The American people are your boss."
Matt Wood, general counsel and vice president of policy at the advocacy group Free Press Action, said that "if Brendan Carr proved anything today, it’s only that he’s willing to shout down senators and contort his supposed free speech principles to protect Trump’s ego and attack Trump’s critics."
Wood lamented that Carr "proudly trashed his own agency’s historical independence."
"Right after senators pointed out the contradiction between the FCC’s online description and Carr’s claim that Donald Trump ultimately called the shots, language noting the agency’s independence disappeared from the FCC.gov website—a chilling authoritarian touch," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Demolition of White House's East Wing Seen as Potent Metaphor for Trump’s Destructive Presidency
"Healthcare costs are skyrocketing and federal workers aren’t getting paid. What is Trump doing? Building his gold plated ballroom."
Oct 21, 2025
A demolition crew on Monday began tearing down the East Wing facade of the White House in order to make way for President Donald Trump's luxury ballroom, in a project that one journalist said "captures" the president's approach to leading the country.
As reported by The Washington Post, workers used a backhoe to rip down the facade, and Trump later described the destruction as the start of a "much-needed project" at the White House.
“For more than 150 years, every president has dreamt about having a ballroom at the White House to accommodate people for grand parties, state visits, etc.,” Trump wrote on his Truth Social platform, without citing any evidence that "every president" has wanted such a ballroom.
The cost of the ballroom is estimated at $250 million, and Trump is financing it by soliciting donations from some of America's wealthiest corporations—including several with government contracts and interests in deregulation—such as Apple, Lockheed Martin, Microsoft, Meta, Google, Amazon, and Palantir. The president held an exclusive White House dinner for some of the largest donors to the ballroom last week, in a move that many critics decried as a "cash-for-access" event.
This is Trump’s presidency in a single photo: Illegal, destructive, and not helping you. pic.twitter.com/KOqk4mADpE
— Elizabeth Warren (@ewarren) October 21, 2025
The destruction of the East Wing facade comes as the federal government is three weeks into a shutdown that began when Democrats refused to join Republicans in voting for a continuing resolution that would allow crucial healthcare subsidies expire for millions of people, and Trump has shown little urgency in working to end the standoff—during which he's worked to purge the federal workforce.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) shredded Trump for working on a vanity project while government workers have been missing paychecks.
"We are 20 days into the Republican shutdown—healthcare costs are skyrocketing and federal workers aren’t getting paid," she wrote in a social media post. "What is Trump doing? Building his gold plated ballroom."
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) also blasted Trump for focusing on his ballroom instead of on the needs of the American people.
"Oh, you're trying to say the cost of living is skyrocketing?" she asked rhetorically. "Donald Trump can't hear you over the sound of bulldozers demolishing a wing of the White House to build a new grand ballroom."
Former US Labor Secretary Robert Reich also linked Trump's focus on the ballroom to his lack of urgency in reopening the government.
"Trump hosted a dinner last week for donors helping fund his ballroom project," he wrote Monday. "Today, crews are starting construction and literally tearing down parts of the White House. It's day 20 of the government shutdown and this is what he's prioritizing?"
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) shared an old photo of his family at the White House East Wing before it was torn down and expressed sadness about the president's destruction of the historic building.
"We didn’t need a billionaire-funded ballroom to celebrate America," he said. "Disgusting what Trump is doing."
Prem Thakker, a reporter for Zeteo, added that the destruction of the East Wing was highly symbolic of what the president is doing to the country.
"Trump demolishing the White House to build a $250 million ballroom funded by Amazon, Lockheed Martin, and Palantir," he wrote. "All during a government shutdown, and as he covers up the Epstein files—captures it all pretty well doesn't it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Infinitely More Honest': Trump DOD Rebrand Revives 'Department of War' Moniker
Many anti-war figures actually welcomed the news, with one professor calling the Department of Defense name "a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression."
Sep 05, 2025
In his latest attempt to project an image of strength for an empire in a state of decline, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, a move that would ultimately require congressional authorization.
"I think it's a much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now," Trump explained during a signing ceremony for the move.
When floating the name change idea last month, Trump said that "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that."
Indeed, on Friday Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill meant to coincide with Trump's decree. The Department of War name dates back to the 18th century but hasn't been used since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment (NME)—a name that was changed to Department of Defense because the acronym NME sounded too much like the word "enemy."
"The United States military is not a purely defensive force," Scott said in a statement. "We are the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet—ready to defeat any enemy when called upon. Restoring the name to Department of War reflects our true purpose: to dominate wars, not merely respond after being provoked."
The move faces considerable opposition from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy combat pilot who, in a dig at Trump, quipped that "only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War," and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who argued that "Americans want to prevent wars, not tout them."
However, others noted that "War Department" is a moniker befitting a nation that has attacked, invaded, or occupied others in all but a handful of the Defense Department's 78-year history, and which has a global military footprint of hundreds of overseas bases.
well, it’s truth in advertising and it’s honest, which is rare for Trump
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) September 4, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Many "non-interventionists and foreign policy realists" concur that the name change "is just more honest," as Jack Hunter wrote for Responsible Statecraft.
Pointing to this week's deadly US strike on an alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat of more such attacks to come, former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said Friday on social media that if Trump "keeps sending US forces to blow up alleged (but unproven) drug traffickers, he should call it the Department of Summary Executions."
Keeping with that theme, photojournalist Joshua Collins said on social media that "I actually think calling it 'the Department of War' is infinitely more honest. Because that's exactly what it does."
"Maybe while they're at it though, they can rename ICE 'the Department of kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances, and human trafficking," Collins added, referring to Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement anti-immigrant blitz.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, said on social media that "this is wonderful news."
"The US 'Department of Defense' has never been primarily about defense; it is a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression," he wrote. "At least now there is no pretending otherwise."
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, wrote: "I'm glad Trump is changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Dept because it has never been about defense. And calling it the 'Department-to-make-the-merchants-of-death-rich' is kind of long."
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) remarked: "Department of War? More like Department of Distraction... Epstein."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Friday that no matter what the president calls the Pentagon, "Trump is really good at renaming things, but bad at keeping Americans safe and prosperous."
"He ran as the supposed anti-war candidate but has proven to be just the opposite," Duss noted. "This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing, and the safety of our armed services."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'That's Incorrect': Kristi Noem Fails Junior High Civics Test on Habeas Corpus During Senate Hearing
"The level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's leadership team "is mindblowing," said one critic of the homeland security secretary.
May 20, 2025
Fueling further alarm over the Trump administration's lurch toward authoritarianism, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem could not accurately describe the principle of habeas corpus when asked a question that may appear on a junior high school student's civics exam during a Tuesday morning Senate hearing.
"So Secretary Noem, what is habeas corpus?" Sen. Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) asked during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing about the fiscal year 2026 budget request.
"Well," Noem responded, "habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country and suspend their right to—"
At that point, Hassan cut her off, saying: "Let me stop you... That's incorrect... Habeas corpus is the legal principle that requires that the government provide a public reason for detaining and imprisoning people."
"If not for that protection, the government could simply arrest people, including American citizens, and hold them indefinitely for no reason," Hassan continued. "Habeas corpus is the foundational right that separates free societies like America from police states like North Korea. As a senator from the 'Live Free or Die' state, this matters a lot to me and my constituents, and to all Americans."
"So, Secretary Noem, do you support the core protection that habeas corpus provides that the government must provide a public reason in order to detain and imprison someone?" the senator asked.
The secretary replied: "Yeah, I support habeas corpus. I also recognize that the president of the United States has the authority under the Constitution to decide if it should be suspended or not. Let us be clear, though, that this president—"
Hassan interjected again, pointing out that "it has never been done without approval of Congress," and even former President Abraham Lincoln got retroactive approval for his suspension during the U.S. Civil War.
HASSAN: What is habeas corpus? NOEM: Habeas corpus is a constitutional right that the president has to be able to remove people from this country HASSAN: That's incorrect
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) May 20, 2025 at 10:16 AM
Lawyers, journalists, and other critics described Noem's remarks as "highly concerning," "embarrassing," and "jaw-dropping."
"This is extraordinary," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The secretary of Homeland Security doesn't know what the right of habeas corpus is (the ancient right to go to court to challenge government detention) and offers an incoherent definition which suggests she thinks it's a presidential power to deport people?"
Independent journalist and legal analyst Katie Phang declared that "the level of abject stupidity" in President Donald Trump's Cabinet picks "is mindblowing."
Habeas corpus is Latin for "that you have the body." As Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) explains: "In the U.S. system, federal courts can use the writ of habeas corpus to determine if a state's detention of a prisoner is valid. A writ of habeas corpus is used to bring a prisoner or other detainee (e.g. institutionalized mental patient) before the court to determine if the person's imprisonment or detention is lawful."
The U.S. Constitution states that "the privileges of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it."
LII notes that "only Congress has the power to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, either by its own affirmative actions or through an express delegation to the executive. The executive does not have the independent authority to suspend the writ." Since the late 1700s, Congress has passed various related laws.
Later in Tuesday's hearing, Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.) asked Noem, "Can you confirm to us that you understand that any suspension of habeas corpus requires an act of Congress?"
Noem said: "President Lincoln executed habeas corpus in the past with a retroactive action by Congress. I believe that any president that was able to do that in the past, it should be afforded to our current-day president."
"This president has never said that he's going to do this," Noem continued. "He's never communicated to me or his administration that they're going to consider suspending habeas corpus, but I do think the Constitution allows them the right to consider it."
KIM: Do you know what section of the Constitution the suspension clause of habeas corpus is in? NOEM: I do not. Nope. KIM: Do you know which article is it in? NOEM: I do not, sir.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar ( @atrupar.com) May 20, 2025 at 10:55 AM
Trump's second administration has framed unauthorized immigration as "the invasion at the southern border."
White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Millertold reporters earlier this month that the "the Constitution is clear—and that of course is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion, so it's an option we're actively looking at" as part of the Trump administration's pursuit of mass deportations.
Miller suggested the possible suspension of habeas corpus—or attempt at it—depends on what courts do. The Trump administration has targeted multiple legal immigrants who have been critical of the U.S.-backed Israeli assault on the Gaza Strip for deportation. Some of them have recently been freed from detention by federal judges in response to their legal teams filing habeas corpus petitions.
Republicans narrowly control both chambers of Congress, but it's not clear all GOP members would support a suspension.
"I was a conservative Republican long before Donald Trump became a Republican, joined the Reform Party, became a Democrat, became a Republican again, became an Independent, and finally returned to the Republican Party," David Chung, an editorial fellow at Iowa's The Gazette, wrote Sunday. "But after reading this column, I'm sure some of my Republican friends will accuse me of being a RINO—a Republican in Name Only."
Chung highlighted that after Miller's remarks, during a U.S. House of Representatives hearing last Wednesday, Rep. Eli Crane (R-Ariz.) asked Noem if the current state of illegal immigration into the United States met the "invasion" requirements for a suspension. The secretary said, "I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I believe it does."
Recalling the case of Mollie Tibbets, a University of Iowa student murdered by an undocumented man, Chung wrote that "I want to see violent, criminal aliens (legal or illegal) imprisoned, deported, or both, just as much as the next Republican. But I believe that our Constitution and laws are robust enough to accomplish this without trampling on fundamental rights."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Critics Seize on Impending Walmart Price Hikes Due to Trump Tariffs
"If a retailer as big as Walmart can't escape the pain of tariffs, what chance does a small business have?" wrote the Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.
May 15, 2025
Democratic lawmakers and other voices are highlighting a Thursday announcement from Walmart that the world's largest retailer will have to raise prices on some items in response to tariffs in order to heap criticism on the Trump administration's tariffs regime.
"We will do our best to keep our prices as low as possible. But given the magnitude of the tariffs, even at the reduced levels announced this week, we aren't able to absorb all the pressure given the reality of narrow retail margins," said Walmart CEO Doug McMillon on a Thursday earnings call, according to CNN.
"The higher tariffs will result in higher prices," said McMillon. CNN reported that price increases will begin later this month.
"We knew this was coming," wrote Sen. Andy Kim (D-N.J.), who said that U.S. President Donald Trump's tariffs "will leave working families with the bill."
The Trump administration has imposed 10% global tariffs on all goods entering the United States and imposed higher tariffs on goods coming from China—though on Monday the two countries said they had reached a deal to lower the tariffs they had imposed on one another.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) used the Walmart news as a way to plug their recently introduced legislation, the Truth in Tariffs Act, which would require large retailers to display how much of an item's price stems from tariffs.
"These tariffs are just a tax hike on consumers," Schumer wrote on X on Thursday. "If a retailer as big as Walmart can't escape the pain of tariffs, what chance does a small business have? Their customers are inevitably going to see prices rise. Donald Trump's tariffs are nothing more than a tax hike on consumers."
The White House may not respond kindly to Walmart's announcement. Last month, after reports that Amazon would display tariff-based price increases next to the price of products online, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called such a move "a hostile and political act."
After a call between Trump and Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, a company spokesperson said displays had been considered for only a section of the site but wouldn't be happening.
After Walmart's announcement, End Citizens United, a campaign finance reform group, wrote: "Everyday, it becomes more clear that his promise to lower costs was merely a lie he told voters on the campaign trail. He doesn't work for us. He works for himself and his deep-pocketed donors."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Newark Mayor Decries 'Egregious' Warrantless ICE Raid
"Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized," Mayor Ras Baraka said.
Jan 24, 2025
Federal agents with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement carried out a warrantless raid on Thursday targeting a local establishment in Newark, New Jersey, according to Newark Mayor Ras Baraka—who decried the move as an "an egregious act" in violation of the of the U.S. constitution.
Federal agents detained both undocumented residents and citizens, including a U.S. military veteran, Baraka said in a statement Thursday.
The local outlet PIX11 reported that ICE agents targeted the Ocean Seafood Depot, a wholesale seafood distributor. Store owner Luis Janota told the outlet that three people were taken into custody, including a Puerto Rican employee who is a military veteran. People from Puerto Rico have U.S. citizenship.
"We don't fret, we fight," wrote the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, which is distributing materials to inform community members about their rights.
Immigration raids on so-called "sanctuary cities"—a list that includes Newark—were expected. On Monday, Trump issued executive orders ramping up immigration enforcement via executive orders, including attempting to end birthright citizenship, reinstating his "Remain in Mexico" policy, suspending refugee resettlement, and moving to restrict federal funds for sanctuary cities.
Trump's deputy acting attorney general sent a memo to Justice Department staff this week indicating that state and local officials could potentially be criminally prosecuted for failing to cooperate with Trump's ramped up immigration enforcement, and the Trump administration has also revoked a directive barring arrests in "sensitive" locations, such as schools.
The changes to immigration enforcement have already been met with hurdles. On Thursday a federal judge temporarily blocked his challenge to birthright citizenship, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional."
"Newark will not stand by idly while people are being unlawfully terrorized. I will be holding a press conference in alliance with partners ready and willing to defend and protect civil and human rights," Baraka said Thursday.
U.S. Sens. Andy Kim and Cory Booker, both New Jersey Democrats, said they were concerned about the news and that their offices had reached out to the Department of Homeland Security "to demand answers."
Following the incident, ICE issued the following statement to multiple news outlets: "U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement may encounter U.S. citizens while conducting field work and may request identification to establish an individual's identity as was the case during a targeted enforcement operation at a worksite today in Newark, New Jersey."
On X, ICE posted on Thursday that it had arrested 538 people and detained 373 others, though it's not clear from the post where those arrests and detentions took place.
"A reminder these raids and attacks on the Constitution are an attack on all of us—not just immigrants, not just their families, everyone. You, your neighbors, your colleagues—you're not safe just because you're a citizen, a legal resident, a veteran," wrote Peter Chen, an analyst at the think tank New Jersey Policy Perspective.
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy