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
connecticut
Senator Urges Contempt Motion Against Trump Officials Over Alleged Deportations to South Sudan
"A federal judge is wise to Trump's ploy of illegally deporting immigrants and then claiming there is nothing he can do to get them back," said the former executive director of Human Rights Watch.
May 21, 2025
Democratic U.S. Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut on Tuesday urged a federal judge to consider holding U.S. officials in contempt of court following the Trump administration's alleged deportation of multiple immigrants from Southeast Asia to South Sudan, possibly in violation of an order handed down by that same judge earlier this spring.
On Tuesday, lawyers for the immigrants accused the Trump administration of deporting nationals from Myanmar and Vietnam to South Sudan in violation of a court order. In court filings, the lawyers also said they received "information" that there were likely at least 10 others also on the same plane to South Sudan.
In April, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy of Massachusetts directed the Trump administration to give immigrants a chance to challenge their deportations to a third country. Murphy ruled that the Trump administration must give them 15 days' notice to raise concerns about danger they may face if deported.
"If those individuals were on a plane sent to South Sudan, it seems a violation of the court order. Judge Murphy ought to be really angry, his order has been violated, and he ought to consider a contempt of court motion, and no doubt the plaintiffs are considering it now," said Blumenthal on CNN on Tuesday evening.
"Violation of court orders ought to be treated with the utmost of sanctions, because otherwise the law is dead letter," Blumenthal continued.
Murphy hastily called a hearing on Tuesday evening and issued a ruling that the Trump administration must "maintain custody and control of class members currently being removed to South Sudan or to any other third country, to ensure the practical feasibility of return if the Court finds that such removals were unlawful," according to The Associated Press.
During the hearing, Murphy warned criminal sanctions could be invoked against those involved in the deportations who were aware of his order. "Based on what I have been told," he said according to The New York Times, "this seems like it may be contempt."
In addition to not being the country of origin of the individuals feared deported, South Sudan has faced continued instability and political violence between government forces and opposition factions.
Murphy has ordered U.S. officials back to court on Wednesday so they can provide more information, such as who exactly was removed and what opportunity they were given to raise concerns about dangers they may face upon deportation, according to the AP. Officials must also give information about the whereabouts of the migrants who have apparently already been deported.
In March, the Trump administration sent Venezuelan immigrants to a megaprison in El Salvdor after invoking a little-used wartime statute. As those deportations were taking place, a federal judge ordered that any planes carrying them either not take off or turn around, but the Trump administration did not turn the planes around.
A federal judge has ordered the U.S. government to facilitate the release of a Salvadoran man who was on one of the planes to El Salvador. The man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, is still in El Salvador and the Trump administration has said that it is up to El Salvador whether to release him.
Commenting on reporting of the judge's order to keep the immigrants apparently sent to South Sudan in U.S. custody, human rights advocate and former executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth wrote: "A federal judge is wise to Trump's ploy of illegally deporting immigrants and then claiming there is nothing he can do to get them back."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Connecticut’s Baby Bond Experiment Could Help Bridge the Wealth Gap
It will take a lot to address America’s extreme wealth concentration, but one ingredient is critical: tangible financial resources.
Feb 29, 2024
Consider a tale of two babies born in the same American city, Jake and Justin. Jake, born into an economically secure white family, is primed for success. His grandparents set up a college savings plan for him. With both parents in professional careers, there’s ample income to secure him a quality education and extra-curricular activities. During college summers, Jake works at his uncle’s real estate firm, eyeing the launch of his own contracting business post-graduation.
Across town, Justin’s story unfolds in a neglected Black neighborhood. Justin’s father, hindered by a prison record, finds only sporadic low-wage construction gigs. His mother, an administrative assistant, scrimps to support Justin’s potential. Despite hurdles, Justin enters college, funding his education with loans and a campus job. Intent on securing a coveted tech internship, Justin juggles extra shifts to support his family when his mother is laid off. Struggling to balance work and studies, Justin eventually drops out of college.
The wealth gap is the ugly shadow of American prosperity, fueled by historic and ongoing wrongs.
Jake and Justin will carry the indelible mark of their beginnings throughout their lives: Jake’s life will embody security; Justin’s, the stark reality of wealth inequality.
What if, at that critical moment, Justin had resources to reduce his work hours and take that tech internship? What would his life look like?
Connecticut’s baby-bond initiative aims to find out.
America’s First Baby Bonds
Connecticut has made history as the first state to implement a baby bonds program—fully funded for 12 years of babies.
The state will invest $3,200 for each baby covered by HUSKY, the state’s Medicaid program—that’s about 15,000 babies a year and a whopping 36% of the state’s children. Kids are automatically enrolled; no action is required. Upon reaching adulthood (18-30), participants can claim funds for specific wealth-and-opportunity-building purposes like higher education, a home purchase, or starting a business in the state. To receive the funds, they have to be Connecticut residents and need to complete a financial literacy course (hopefully not one funded by self-serving Wall Street firms). The initial $3,200 investment is anticipated to grow to $11,000 - $24,000, depending on when claims are filed.
Turning the idea of baby bonds into reality was a rocky road: The Democratic-led Connecticut General Assembly passed the bill in 2021, championed by former Democratic Treasurer Shawn Wooden. However, Gov. Ned Lamont and his team initially opposed the program’s funding, citing concerns over borrowing more than $50 million annually. Internal conflict heated up, as revealed in a January 2023 investigation by the Connecticut Mirror, exposing tensions between Wooden and the governor’s staff. Yet, following the publication, the situation took an unexpected turn. The program became a reality.
The sticking point of funding was solved by a plan to use a $393 million reserve fund established in 2019 during the restructuring of the state’s cash-strapped pension fund for municipal teachers. Originally designed to cover shortfalls in pension fund contributions, this reserve could be repurposed. To safeguard the pension system and meet ratings agencies’ requirements, a $12 million insurance policy was necessary, leaving approximately $381 million available for investment in the baby bonds program.
An Economic Shadow
The wealth gap is the ugly shadow of American prosperity, fueled by historic and ongoing wrongs. Picture wealth as your financial mojo—the sum of all your assets minus debts. It won’t surprise you to hear that white men and white families are more likely to have wealth, and a hefty sight more of it, than women, households of color, or women of color.
Racial wealth gaps reflect the country’s troubled history of discriminatory policies that have barred people of color from growing wealth. The sad fact is that things have not been getting better. The Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances shows the racial wealth gap widening during the Covid-19 pandemic. Between 2019 and 2022, median wealth increased by $51,800, yet the gap surged by $49,950. This leaves a significant $240,120 difference between median white and Black households. Meanwhile, child poverty in America started surging as pandemic benefits ended and inflation hit hard: The child poverty rate actually doubled in 2022. The official poverty rate that year was 11.5% overall, but for Black Americans it was 17.1%.
Obviously, this is not a fair playing field. Kids don’t choose their economic circumstances.
Giving children a stake in America’s future is consistent with both a liberal and a conservative economic philosophy.
Treasurer Erick Russell, who got the Connecticut Baby Bonds Trust rolling, described the program as “leveling the playing field in the sense that regardless of what family you’re born into, or where in the state you’re born into, or what resources your parents have, you have a fair shot at having economic opportunity and growth right here in Connecticut.”
Notably, Russell refers to the wealth gap as “generational” rather than “racial.”
This move acknowledges that while the wealth gap in the U.S. is substantially shaped by racial injustices like slavery, segregation, redlining, and discriminatory lending, it’s a complex issue. Women generally contend with wealth-building hurdles such as occupational segregation, caregiving responsibilities, and restricted access to family planning. Additionally, many whites, including men, encounter barriers to wealth accumulation such as geographic disparities, limited education access, and family structure.
Calling the wealth gap generational is also politically savvy: It makes long-term policy fixes more appealing, taps into family values, sparks empathy among voters concerned about their descendants’ financial future, and garners broader support for anti-inequality measures. Plus, it shifts blame away from individuals and fosters the idea of fair opportunities, a concept voters across the political spectrum can cheer for.
There are several ongoing debates about the details of Connecticut’s program: What if political opponents gain the power to axe it? What happens after the 12 years is up? Might the program further stigmatize children born into poverty? Is it big enough to make a difference?
It will take a lot to address America’s extreme wealth concentration, like fairer tax policies and rigorous enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in housing, employment, and education. But another ingredient is critical: tangible financial resources.
Capitalists Need Capital
One thing is clear: Giving children a stake in America’s future is consistent with both a liberal and a conservative economic philosophy. Conservatives believe in limiting government spending, and baby bonds pass the test: A program is pretty cheap compared to other forms of government spending. It’s also consistent with a notion dear to the hearts of free marketeers: Baby bonds allow more people the opportunity to benefit from the markets.
Economist Darrick Hamilton, founding director of the New School for Social Research’s Institute on Race, Power, and Political Economy and a key architect of the baby bonds concept, acknowledges the devils in the details of Connecticut’s plan. But he is optimistic that state-level programs, even if imperfect and limited in scope, serve to mainstream baby bonds and help take the idea from theory to action. The ultimate goal for Hamilton is a nationwide baby bonds plan funded directly by the Treasury, akin to Social Security.
When asked about the top issue in addressing the country’s wealth gap, Hamilton responds succinctly: “Capital.”
He underscores the fact that if you lack capital in a capitalist system, you aren’t going to get very far. You can save all you want, but if you don’t have any transfers of resources from your parents or grandparents to help with things like college or the down payment on a house, it’s going to be very difficult to build wealth. “The problem with wealth-building is not how much you actively save,” says Hamilton. “It’s access to capital.” He adds that “most people with wealth generate it from owning an asset that began with some initial capital that passively appreciates over their lifetime.”
In Hamilton’s vision of a federal program, the amount allotted to each child varies based on their family’s wealth, ranging from $500 for affluent families to up to $60,000 for those at the bottom of the economic spectrum. On average, each child would receive approximately $20,000.
Inspired by Hamilton’s work and Connecticut’s plan, state-level proposals have sprouted up all around the country, including Washington, Massachusetts, Nevada, California, and North Carolina. In New Jersey, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka and 2025 Democratic gubernatorial candidate has suggested that baby bonds will be part of his agenda if he becomes governor. In Georgia, the Georgia Resilience and Opportunity (GRO) Fund is piloting a program with a simple slogan: “Wealth begets wealth.”
Undoubtedly, the wealth gap negatively impacts everyone, no matter how affluent you happen to be or what color you are. It shreds social cohesion and economic stability, limits upward mobility, and perpetuates cycles of injustice. It’s terrible for democracy, concentrating political power and paving the way to societal unrest and diminished well-being for all.
Connecticut’s experiment could be an important step in dissipating the country’s shameful economic shadow. And give the Justins a fighting chance.
Keep ReadingShow Less
DeLauro Pours Cold Water on Child Credit Boost in Exchange for Corporate Tax Giveaway
"At a time when a majority of American voters believe tax on big corporations should be increased, there is no reason we should be providing corporations a tax cut while only giving families pennies," said the lawmaker.
Jan 30, 2024
Some economic justice groups this week are pushing for the passage of a $78 billion bipartisan tax package that includes an expansion of the child tax credit—but one lawmaker who has made the credit one of her signature issues for years said Monday that the legislation does not go far enough to support families in need, especially considering the corporate tax breaks it includes.
As U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said the bill is expected to come to the House floor this week under "suspension of the rules," an expedited maneuver requiring the approval of two-thirds of members for passage, U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) said the bill "fails on equity" and leaves out too many struggling American families.
DeLauro released a fact sheet showing how the bill, negotiated by Rep. Jason Smith (R-Mo.) and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), "falls far short of comparing to the gains made under the American Rescue Plan (ARP)," which in 2021 helped slash childhood poverty by about 30% with its inclusion of an enhanced child tax credit (CTC).
With Republicans insisting on work and minimum income requirements for the version of the CTC included in the tax package—to "safeguard" against undocumented immigrants and "ineligible persons" benefiting from the bill, according to the House Ways and Means Committee—"families with little-to-no income are left behind from the full child tax credit, while allowing a single parent making $200,000 or a married couple making $400,000 to receive the full $2,000 credit," notes DeLauro's fact sheet.
The ARP included all but the highest earners in the enhanced CTC, which increased the maximum credit amount to $3,000-$3,600 per child depending on the child's age and issued half of the credit on a monthly basis, enabling families to use the money for everyday necessities.
Falling short of the credit amount included in the ARP, the Wyden-Smith plan would afford families a maximum of $2,100 per child and would not provide payments to families on a monthly basis.
The tax deal is estimated to lift "up to 400,000 kids" out of poverty, said DeLauro, while "93% of kids in the lowest quintile (the poorest 1/5th of children in the country) will continue to be left behind—meaning they will not receive the full credit."
Last week DeLauro called on her fellow Democrats to "fight to ensure our families aren't sold out for profits" and told The Connecticut Mirror the bill has "serious room for improvement."
While falling short on providing economic support for families paying for groceries, childcare, healthcare, and other essentials, the Wyden-Smith deal "locks in $600 billion in tax cuts for businesses," according to Smith.
The GOP aims to make those cuts permanent, making the three-year cost "four times higher than the child tax credit," DeLauro noted.
"This is not parity," said the congresswoman, adding that a research and development tax credit for corporations will be made retroactive "under the guise of incentivizing R&D."
"It is virtually impossible to incentivize action for anything retroactively," said DeLauro. "While the CTC phases-in, corporations will get their tax cuts on the first dollar. Families will not be getting any additional child tax credit retroactively to 2022, like the corporations are."
The tax deal "delivers huge tax cuts for giant corporations while denying middle-class families the economic security they had under the expanded, monthly child tax credit," said DeLauro. "It also leaves the poorest families behind because of a policy choice. At a time when a majority of American voters believe tax on big corporations should be increased, there is no reason we should be providing corporations a tax cut while only giving families pennies."
The Pew Research Center found last year that 61% of Americans feel corporations don't pay their fair share. Nearly two-thirds said tax rates on large corporations should be raised; 39% said by "a lot," while 26% said by "a little" and just 14% said they should be lowered.
Some of DeLauro's colleagues have suggested any expansion of the CTC should be passed, with Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) tellingThe Mirror he was "less than ecstatic" that the credit is not completely expanded but that he would "rather see this provision enacted than none at all."
Another Connecticut Democrat, Sen. Chris Murphy, said he would consult "the mother of the child tax credit"—DeLauro.
"I'm going to continue to work to improve this legislation before it's considered on the House floor because I believe that families and children need a strong child tax credit," DeLauro told the outlet. "I'm opposed to this bill in its current form. Corporations get everything they asked for and children got pennies."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular