

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.
"This isn’t normal," said the president of the group behind the ad campaign. "If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will."
The progressive advocacy group Demand Justice on Wednesday launched a seven-figure advertising campaign targeting three members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm President Donald Trump's lifetime judicial nominees, enabling the ongoing right-wing takeover of the nation's courts.
The first series of ads will target Sens. Maggie Hassan (D-NH), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), and Angus King (D-Maine), three of the 16 members of the Senate Democratic caucus who have voted to confirm at least one Trump judge this year. Other Senate Democrats who have voted with Republicans in support of at least one Trump judicial pick include Sens. Dick Durbin of Illinois, Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota, Adam Schiff of California, and Chris Coons of Delaware.
"It is outrageous that Senate Democrats are voting to confirm Trump’s judicial nominees who refuse to tell the truth about January 6th and the 2020 election,” Josh Orton, the president of Demand Justice, said in a statement. “This isn’t normal. If Senate Democrats don’t take a stand and strongly oppose these judicial nominees who have disqualified themselves—we will. And we won’t let up.”
The group's campaign will also include a national cable TV ad buy and "coordinated digital rollout across key battleground states" naming and shaming Democrats who support "Trump loyalist judges" even as the lawmakers condemn the president's authoritarian assault on democracy.
Watch the Demand Justice ad targeting Maggie Hassan, who on Tuesday voted to confirm Lindsey Ann Freeman, Trump's nominee to the US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina:
Freeman, like other Trump judicial picks, refused during her confirmation process to say directly that the president lost the 2020 election.
"President Biden was certified as the winner of the 2020 presidential election and served as the 46th President of the United States," Freeman wrote in response to questions from Durbin, who ultimately voted in favor of her confirmation.
In a report released last month, Demand Justice analyzed Trump judicial picks' written responses to senators' questions. The analysis shows that "nominees' responses appear nearly identical, with many nominees using verbatim phrasing, repeating key words, and, overall, using unusual and evasive language that’s almost entirely outside the normal, historical, and common lexicon used to describe such events."
"Every nominee provided near-identical phrasing to avoid a direct answer about the 2020 election, instead referencing the results of the congressional 'certification' process, or answering by noting that President Biden 'served' as president," the report notes. "And 21 of 27 nominees provided extremely similar responses in regard to January 6, often describing what transpired as a 'political issue' and refusing to comment further."
Orton of Demand Justice said that "it is unprecedented for lifetime nominees to the federal bench to provide dishonest and misleading answers about historical facts—and it is deeply concerning that Trump’s nominees are parroting such strikingly similar language, the president’s own language, to avoid telling the truth."
That more than a dozen Senate Democrats still voted to confirm at least one of those nominees is "simply unacceptable," said Orton.
"Bold choice going with a strategy of 'we are losers,'" wrote one critic of King's statement.
Sen. Angus King, one of the senators who broke with the majority of the Democratic caucus to support a deal to end the federal government shutdown, drew swift anger when defending his vote on Monday morning.
During an appearance on MSNBC's "Morning Joe," King (I-Maine) tried to make the case that shutting down the government had only given President Donald Trump a free hand to consolidate power in the White House.
"In terms of standing up to Donald Trump, the shutdown actually gave him more power, Exhibit A being what he's done with [the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program]," he said. "So, standing up to Donald Trump didn't work, it actually gave him more power."
Sen. Angus King: "Standing up to Donald Trump didn't work" pic.twitter.com/Y751B5SajR
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 10, 2025
Senate Democrats who supported the deal have been denounced by progressives, and even some moderates, for agreeing to fund the federal government without securing an extension for enhanced tax credits for people who buy health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges. The tax credits have been at the center of the shutdown—the longest in US history—but the Democrats who voted with the GOP did so after securing only the Republicans' claim that they'll hold a vote on healthcare in the future.
Polls have shown a majority of voters have blamed the Republican Party for the shutdown, and a plurality of respondents to a KFF survey last week said Democrats should hold firm in their demand on healthcare subsidies. Trump said last week that the election results put more pressure on the GOP—not the Democrats—to take action to end the shutdown.
Additionally, the decision to cave on the shutdown came less than a week after Democrats won sweeping victories in key elections where candidates unapologetically stood up to Trump and vowed to fight his administration's unpopular policies.
Given this, King's statement that "standing up to Donald Trump didn't work" was met by swift and immediate blowback.
"Bold choice going with a strategy of 'we are losers,'" wrote Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, in a post on X.
"Breaking Points" host Krystal Ball reacted with angry profanity to King's statement.
"Jesus fucking Christ," she fumed. "Resign. Genuinely just fucking resign."
Photographer Brett Banditelli accused King and his likeminded Democratic senators who supported the deal of "living in another reality."
"They're just DC brained," he wrote on Bluesky. "They live in a world where Politico and Punchbowl News are the most important publications."
Indivisible cofounder Leah Greenberg sarcastically imagined Democrats incorporating such "inspiring messaging" about failing to stand up to Trump into fundraising appeals.
Fordham University economist Tony Annett marveled at King's belief that it was ineffective to stand up to a president with historically low approval ratings, which stood at just over 41% last month according to one poll.
"No wonder their brand is in the toilet," he said of the Democratic Party.
A Pew Research poll released in late October found that two-thirds of Democratic voters said they were "frustrated" by the party, with the top listed reason being that Democrats have "not pushed back hard enough against the Trump administration."
"I cannot defend the indefensible," said Sen. Angus King.
A longtime supporter of military aid to Israel in the U.S. Senate is drawing a red line amid the ongoing starvation crisis in Gaza.
Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) on Monday released a statement saying he would not vote to support any more aid to Israel unless Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government drastically reversed course to allow more food and other life-saving supplies to enter Gaza.
In a statement flagged on X by Dylan Williams, the vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, King delivered a harsh rebuke to the Israeli government for its role in the humanitarian catastrophe unfolding under its watch.
"I cannot defend the indefensible," King's statement began. "Israel's actions in the conduct of the war in Gaza, especially its failure to address the unimaginable humanitarian crisis now unfolding, is an affront to human decency. What appears to be a deliberately-induced famine among a civilian population—including tens of thousands of starving children—can never be an acceptable military strategy."
King emphasized that he supported Israel's right to retaliate after the October 7, 2023 attacks on the country by Hamas, but then said "that tragic event cannot in turn justify the enormous toll on Palestinian civilians caused by Israel's relentless bombing campaign and its indifference to the current plight of those trapped in what's left of Gaza."
The Maine senator then vowed to back up his words with actions.
"I am through supporting the actions of the current Israeli government and will advocate—and vote—for an end to any United States support whatsoever until there is a demonstrable change in the direction of Israeli policy," he said. "My litmus test will be simple: No aid of any kind as long as there are starving children in Gaza due to the action or inaction of the Israeli government."
Israel has come under increased international pressure as images and video footage of starving children has been pouring out of Gaza in recent weeks. The Israeli government over the weekend announced a tactical "pause" in its Gaza military campaign to allow more humanitarian assistance into the area, although critics such as Bushra Khalidi, Oxfam policy lead for the occupied Palestinian territory, described the Israeli measures as woefully inadequate in the face of mass starvation.
"Deadly airdrops and a trickle of trucks won't undo months of engineered starvation in Gaza," said Khalidi on Sunday. "What's needed is the immediate opening of all crossings for full, unhindered, and safe aid delivery across all of Gaza and a permanent cease-fire. Anything less risks being little more than a tactical gesture."