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
january 6
Judge Orders Trump Admin to Swear $1.8 Billion Slush Fund 'Is Not Happening'
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche has insisted that the plan to pay taxpayer funds to Trump allies is dead. But he hasn't said so under oath.
Jun 12, 2026
A federal judge may have dealt the final blow to President Donald Trump's $1.8 billion "weaponization fund" on Friday, indefinitely blocking it and ordering his administration to state unequivocally that it's no longer happening.
In the face of bipartisan backlash, acting Attorney General Todd Blanche had publicly backed off plans to use the money earlier this month, and a court temporarily blocked the transfer of the money to what opponents had dubbed a "slush fund" for Trump's supporters, including January 6 rioters who claim to be victims of government "weaponization" by the Biden administration.
But The Atlantic reported on Thursday that even as the US Department of Justice (DOJ) publicly swears that the payouts are dead, administration officials have been reassuring Trump's cronies behind the scenes that they'll get their checks and that the administration simply needs to wait for the legal blowback to die down or find an alternative way to award them the money, which was set to follow a DOJ-brokered settlement between Trump and his own Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
That may prove more difficult after Friday, however, when US District Judge Leonie M. Brinkema issued a preliminary injunction indefinitely extending her previous two-week pause on the fund.
She described the arrangement, to have taxpayer funds disbursed without court rulings to “an extremely small group” that many Americans feel engaged in “unacceptable” conduct, as "problematic."
The DOJ had attempted to have the case against the fund dismissed, arguing that it was now a moot point, since Blanche had publicly declared it dead. But Brinkema said, "The [government’s] mootness argument, in my view, doesn’t go anywhere.”
While the DOJ stated that the fund has “not been set up and is now not going forward," Brinkema noted that Blanche had declined to state that under oath, while Trump has publicly continued to champion the fund even as his administration has backed away from it.
During the hearing in the Eastern District of Virginia, Brinkema pressed DOJ lawyer Andrew Block on why, if the fund was truly defunct, the administration had not formally rescinded the order setting it up. He said he didn't know.
The judge gave Blanche, Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward Jr., and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, whose department would have overseen the fund, one week to sign a “clear, unambiguous” declaration stating under penalty of perjury that the fund is dead, and wrote in the order that they must affirm that it "will not proceed in any manner, or under any name."
She said in order for the lawsuit to be thrown out, the government needed to put it in writing because "we don’t have the kind of absolute certainty that this fund wouldn’t rear its head."
CEO @SkyePerryman and Senior Counsel Pooja Boisture break down our major slush fund win from court. pic.twitter.com/ngneLRsl8R
— Democracy Forward (@DemocracyFwd) June 12, 2026
Outside the courtroom, Skye Perryman, the president and CEO of Democracy Forward—the watchdog group that sued the DOJ—celebrated that the court had "put the brakes on Donald Trump's slush fund."
The group is representing several plaintiffs who say they'd be harmed if the fund were to be enacted.
They include a former federal prosecutor fired after leading January 6 cases; the city of New Haven, Connecticut, which has been targeted by the administration over its sanctuary policies; the National Abortion Federation, which says the fund could reward anti-abortion activists convicted of clinic-related offenses; and the watchdog group Common Cause, which argues that the opaque scheme could embolden January 6 defendants.
"We were thrilled that the judge understood the significant harm that our clients face as a result of the fund, as well as the American people," said Democracy Forward senior counsel Pooja Boisture. "We were thrilled that she got it right. She understood that this was not a partisan issue."
It remains unclear whether the order would stop the administration from pursuing other methods for rewarding Trump's allies. Reuters reported on Friday that his legal allies have discussed dusting off a 1946 law called the Federal Tort Claims Act, which would allow individuals to file administrative claims and lawsuits that could be settled out of court with a lot of flexibility for the government.
“The Trump administration cannot be trusted with the public’s money,” said Omar Noureldin, Common Cause’s senior vice president for policy and litigation. "We’ve successfully locked the president’s personal slush fund for now, and we’ll keep the pressure on until it’s shut down for good.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Nearly 100 Trump-Pardoned MAGA Insurrectionists Have Been Charged With Other Crimes: Analysis
Among other things, the pardoned rioters have faced charges related to grand larceny, fraud, child sexual abuse, and plots to assassinate law enforcement officials and politicians.
Jun 04, 2026
On the first day of his second term last year, President Donald Trump delivered a mass pardon to more than 1,500 people who were charged with crimes related to the violent riot at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021.
An analysis published Thursday by Lawfare associate editor Katherine Pompilio finds that at least 97 of these pardoned Trump supporters have been charged with other crimes, including serious alleged offenses such as grand larceny, fraud, and plots to assassinate law enforcement officials and politicians.
The analysis also documents 14 instances of pardoned Capitol rioters being "charged with sex crimes or crimes related to child sexual abuse material (CSAM)," while "at least six" have been charged with domestic violence.
Some of the pardoned rioters have been charged with more minor offenses, including public intoxication, possession of drug paraphernalia, and property damage.
The most notable finding is that at least five of the repeat offenders committed crimes after being freed from prison as a result of Trump's actions, suggesting that his pardon "may have actively facilitated criminal conduct."
The most infamous case involves Andrew Paul Johnson, a Capitol rioter who was freed from prison after receiving the Trump pardon and has since been sentenced to life in prison on charges related to child molestation.
"The criminal conduct for which he was convicted took place both before and after his pardon," the analysis notes.
Other repeat offenders who committed crimes after being freed by Trump were Zachary Alam, who was convicted of felony and grand larceny months after being pardoned, and Ryan Nichols, who was arrest last month for allegedly "threatening a person with a gun in a church parking lot," the analysis finds.
According to a Thursday report from The New York Times, the Lawfare analysis more than doubles the number of documented instances of pardoned rioters who have been charged with crimes beyond January 6-related offenses.
"A previous study of January 6 recidivism found that at least 40 defendants faced other criminal charges, with 12 taking place after Trump's clemency order," reported the Times. "The Lawfare study found 19 criminal cases that occurred after the clemency."
Keep ReadingShow Less
100% Tax Proposed to Counter 'Most Corrupt Thing… Ever Seen From an American President'
Sen. Ron Wyden said the $1.8 billion slush fund was "staggeringly corrupt even by Trump's bottom-dwelling standards."
May 21, 2026
President Donald Trump's attempt to create a $1.8 billion slush fund for his political allies is coming under bipartisan attack, and congressional Democrats are proposing a 100% tax on any of its future beneficiaries to thwart what's being described as an unprecedented form of corruption in the nation's nearly 250-year history.
Rep. Mike Thompson (D-Calif.) on Tuesday introduced the first bill taxing Trump slush-fund payouts at a 100% rate, and he was followed on Thursday by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who introduced a similar bill in the US Senate.
If enacted, the legislation would negate the entire $1.8 billion venture, which was created as purported restitution for Trump politcal allies who have been convicted of committing crimes on his behalf, and force beneficiaries to return any payments received to the US Department of Treasury.
The bill would slap on an additional 50% penalty "in the case of any willful attempt to avoid or evade the tax."
Wyden described the president's slush fund, which could be used to pay out cash to Trump supporters who violently stormed the US Capitol building on January 6, 2021, as "staggeringly corrupt even by Trump’s bottom-dwelling standards."
"Congress must do whatever it takes to prevent Donald Trump from stealing $1.8 billion from the American people to fund right-wing violence and handouts to insurrectionists," said Wyden. "This money doesn’t belong to Donald Trump, it belongs to the taxpayer.”
Thompson, the ranking member of the House Ways and Means Subcommittee on Tax, said that the legislation is need to stop Trump's attempt "to line the pockets of January 6th insurrectionists who attacked law enforcement and tried to overturn our democratic election."
"My legislation ensures if a sitting president sues our government while in office," added Thompson, "they get taxed 100% on any money paid through a trial or settlement."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) took some time on Thursday to provide an overview of the Trump slush fund's creation in a lengthy social media post.
As explained by Levin, the fund came about after Trump filed a $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) earlier this year over the 2019 leaking of his tax returns.
Levin noted that "IRS lawyers did their jobs" by writing a memo of legal arguments they believed would defeat Trump's lawsuit in court.
However, before the case could be fully heard in a courtroom, Trump agreed to drop his lawsuit while the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced the creation of the $1.8 billion "anti-weaponization fund" as a settlement.
Levin also called attention to the structure of the committee, which he said was riddled with conflicts of interest.
"The acting attorney general, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney, picks the five commissioners who decide who gets paid," he said. "Trump can fire any of them. Proud Boys and Oath Keepers are not ruled out."
Levin concluded by calling the fund "the most corrupt thing I've ever seen from an American president."
While Democrats are taking the lead in the effort to block Trump's slush fund, some Republicans have also indicated their opposition to the initiative.
Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick (R-Pa.), one of the most vulnerable GOP members of the House, said on Wednesday that "a nearly $1.8 billion DOJ-controlled fund cannot be created, defined, and distributed in the shadows," and he demanded acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche provide answers about who will be eligible to receive payouts and under what legal authority.
"Taxpayer dollars will not be turned into a discretionary payout fund," Fitzpatrick emphasized. "Transparency is not optional. Accountability is not negotiable."
According to a Thursday report from Punchbowl News, Senate Republicans are preparing to slap restrictions on the $1.8 billion fund that could prevent any payments from going to January 6 rioters who attacked police officers.
In an interview with Punchbowl News, Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) expressed incredulity that such guardrails were even necessary.
"Imagine that—a fund that is set up to compensate people who assaulted Capitol Police officers," Tillis said. "How absurd does that sound coming out of my mouth?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Police Officers Who Defended Capitol From Jan. 6 Insurrectionists Sue to Dissolve $1.8 Billion Trump Slush Fund
"The fund is stunningly, blindingly illegal, and the defendants must be prohibited from transferring money to this corrupt and illegal monstrosity," said a lawyer representing the officers.
May 20, 2026
A pair of police officers who defended the US Capitol from President Donald Trump's supporters on January 6, 2021 filed a federal lawsuit on Wednesday challenging the Republican's "$1.776 billion taxpayer-funded slush fund to finance the insurrectionists and
paramilitary groups that commit violence in his name."
The so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" is part of an agreement finalized this week to settle Trump's "frivolous" $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service over the leak of his tax records. As part of the deal, the IRS is also "forever barred" from pursuing any other actions against the president and his family—which experts have warned violates federal law and puts agency officers at risk.
The complaint filed in a Washington, DC court on behalf of retired US Capitol Police Officer Harry Dunn and Metropolitan Police Department Officer Daniel Hodges argues that the fund is also "illegal," as well as "the most brazen act of presidential corruption this century."
"No statute authorizes its creation, the settlement on which it is premised is a corrupt sham, and its design violates the Constitution and federal law," the filing states. It also makes the case that the fund "endangers the lives and safety" of the plaintiffs by encouraging "those who enacted violence in the president's name to continue to do so" and directly financing "the violent operations of rioters, paramilitaries, and their supporters who threatened plaintiffs' lives that day, and continue to do so."
"Although Trump and his cronies have been secretive about the fund's ends, reporting leaves no doubt that it will be used, among other purposes, to pay the nearly 1,600 people charged with attacking the Capitol on January 6, 2021," the complaint warns.
Trump—who was convicted of 34 felonies in New York after his first term—notably pardoned the Capitol insurrectionists when he returned to office last year. Some then went on to commit various other crimes, including sexual violence, illegal possession of weapons, and driving while impaired or under the influence.
"This fund creates enormous physical dangers for Officers Dunn and Hodges, who risked their lives on January 6, 2021, and who continue to do so by refusing to let that day be forgotten," said Brendan Ballou, founder of the Public Integrity Project, which is representing the plaintiffs. "The fund is stunningly, blindingly illegal, and the defendants must be prohibited from transferring money to this corrupt and illegal monstrosity."
Ballou was previously a prosecutor at the US Department of Justice, where he worked on cases related to the Capitol attack.
Dunn—who became known nationally for his testimony to the US House of Representatives select committee that investigated the Capitol attack—urged "everybody else to sue" over Trump's slush fund during an interview with MS NOW on Wednesday.
"Everybody should, this can't happen," he said. "So, we believe that we, the officers in this suit, will be harmed by this. We have been subjected to countless death threats in addition to all the violence that we faced on January 6. But for just speaking out the truth, I mean, I guarantee you somebody's watching this right now and typing death threats to us right now. And deaths only continue to embolden and potentially continue to arm a militia that Donald Trump will have on retainer."
Also in DC on Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) and Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) demanded that acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and IRS CEO Frank Bisignano supply documents and explanations for how they settled the Trump suit.
Raskin also introduced the No Taxpayer-Funded Settlement Slush Funds Act of 2026 to block Trump's fund, and moved to subpoena Blanche, Bessent, and Bisignano, plus Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward, who signed the settlement, and Treasury Department General Counsel Brian Morrissey, who resigned as the deal was being announced. The Republican-controlled House Judiciary Committee rejected the proposed subpoenas in a party-line vote.
This article has been updated to include Rep. Jamie Raskin's bill and the results of the subpoena vote.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Denounced for Enabling 'Crime Spree' With Mass Pardon of Capitol Insurrectionists
The sentencing of a man for child pornography is but one of dozens of cases—including charges or convictions for child sex crimes, rape, and weapons offenses—involving pardoned January 6 attackers.
Mar 31, 2026
President Donald Trump was elected twice on promises of upholding "law and order," but his blanket pardon of January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrectionists—dozens of whom have since run afoul of the law—is drawing renewed criticism in the wake of one particularly heinous crime.
On Monday, a federal judge in Massachusetts sentenced Daniel Tocci to four years in prison followed by five years of supervised release after he was convicted of possessing more than 100,000 child pornography images, as well as photos and videos showing extreme deadly violence against women and animals.
Tocci had been previously charged with crimes connected to the storming of the US Capitol on January 6. Trump—who was impeached for a historic second time for inciting the insurrection—pardoned more than 1,500 Capitol insurrectionists, including those who brutally attacked law enforcement officers, on his first day back in the White House.
The largest US police union warned at the time that the mass pardon sent "a dangerous message" that would "embolden" criminals, a warning that was echoed by numerous civil society groups.
However, Trump was undaunted, railing against a "corrupt" system that wrongfully persecuted "patriots."
Those pardoned "patriots" subsequently went on what the editors of The New York Times on Tuesday described as a "crime spree." At least 33 of them were rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes between the time of their pardon and December 2025, according to Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
"Six of the pardoned January 6th insurrectionists are charged with committing child sex crimes, ranging from sexual assault to possession of child pornography," CREW continued. "At least five were charged with illegal possession of weapons, including at least two who had a previous domestic violence conviction. Five were arrested or charged with driving while impaired or under the influence. In two of these cases, the defendant’s reckless driving resulted in a fatality. Two were charged with rape."
This is Andrew Paul Johnson. Andrew was convicted of insurrection on January 6 for assaulting cops.Trump pardoned Andrew. 9 months later, Andrew was caught molesting children, sharing CSAM, & buying victims' silence by giving them money from a Justice Dept settlement.Trump protects pedophiles.
[image or embed]
— Qasim Rashid, Esq. (@qasimrashid.com) March 6, 2026 at 7:30 AM
The Times editors wrote that Trump's "self-serving pardons are so numerous that public attention cannot keep up with them."
"He has created a veritable pardon industry, in which people with White House connections accept payments from wealthy convicts," they continued. "Among those on whom he has bestowed freedom are dozens of people convicted of fraud."
In May 2024, Trump was convicted of 34 fraud-related felonies after he falsified business records regarding hush money payments to cover up sex scandals during the 2016 presidential election.
"He has also pardoned Juan Orlando Hernández, a former president of Honduras, who helped traffic hundreds of tons of cocaine into the United States, and Ross Ulbricht, who was serving a life sentence for running Silk Road, a sprawling criminal enterprise that sold drugs," the Times editors added.
Yet Trump ordered the invasion of Venezuela and the kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife for alleged narco-terrorism offenses. He also ordered the campaign of nearly 50 airstrikes on boats allegedly smuggling drugs on the high seas and sent troops into Ecuador in the name of fighting drugs.
Emboldened by their pardons and, critics say, Trump's aura of impunity, some pardoned Capitol insurrectionists have parlayed their participation in the attack into runs for elected office. Some are reveling in their embrace by a Republican Party that has enabled Trump's crimes for years and has whitewashed the terror that lawmakers of both parties felt during the Capitol attack.
Steve Bannon: The J6ers are here at CPAC! All of them! The J6 choir is gonna play the Kennedy Center! pic.twitter.com/Lkj3nRPxqD
— Grace Chong, MBI (@gc22gc) February 20, 2025
Others are suing the federal government for tens of millions of dollars, alleging that the law enforcement officers—five of whose deaths are linked to the events of January 6—physically and emotionally harmed them that day. One woman, Ashli Babbitt, was shot and killed while storming the Capitol; the Trump administration agreed to a nearly $5 million settlement with her family and the Air Force offered full military funeral honors.
Responding to Tocci's sentencing for child pornography possession, Scott Kelley Ernest, a former white supremacist who now helps others leave hate groups, quipped on Bluesky, "Another one bites the dust... until Trump hires him to be an ambassador."
That's exactly what the president did for Charles Kushner, the father of Trump's son-in-law Jared Kushner, who in 2005 was convicted of 18 felony counts including illegal campaign contributions, tax evasion, and witness tampering. Trump pardoned the elder Kushner in 2020 and, in 2025, appointed him ambassador to France and Monaco, a known hub of illicit financial activity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jack Smith: Trump 'Willfully Broke the Law' and Is Seeking 'Revenge' Against Those Who Uncovered It
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold."
Jan 22, 2026
Former special counsel Jack Smith on Thursday defended his decision to bring criminal charges against President Donald Trump, while also expressing deep concerns about the rule of law in the US during the second Trump administration.
During testimony before the US House Judiciary Committee, Smith emphasized that he decided to prosecute Trump solely because the facts in the case showed he had committed crimes.
"President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law, the very laws he took an oath to uphold," said Smith. "Grand juries in two separate districts reached this conclusion based on his actions as alleged in the indictments they returned."
Smith then said that after losing the US presidential election in 2020, Trump "engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results and prevent the lawful transfer of power."
The former special counsel emphasized that he stood by his decisions to bring charges against Trump because "our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in criminal activity."
Smith told lawmakers on the committee that he had uncovered evidence that Trump knew his claims about the 2020 election being stolen were false, but he pushed them anyway in order to illegally remain in the White House.
"Trump was not looking for honest answers about whether there was fraud in the election," said Smith. "He was looking for ways to stay in power. And when people told him things that conflicted with him staying in power, he rejected them."
In addition to discussing his criminal cases against the president, which were dismissed without prejudice after the 2024 presidential election, Smith also delivered a warning about Trump's campaign of retribution against his enemies.
"President Trump has sought to seek revenge against career prosecutors, FBI agents, and support staff simply for having done these cases," he said. "Vilifying and seeking retribution against these people is wrong. Those dedicated public servants are the base of us, and it has been a privilege to serve with them."
Smith then pivoted to warning about the state of the rule of law in general during Trump's second term.
"My fear is that we have seen the rule of law function in our country for so long that many of us have come to take it for granted," he said. "The rule of law is not self-executing. It depends on our collective commitment to apply it. It requires dedicated service on behalf of others, especially when that service is difficult and comes with costs. Our willingness to pay those costs is what tests and defines our commitment to the rule of law and to this wonderful country."
Smith's testimony earned praise from Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee.
"Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts," Raskin said. "You followed every applicable law... Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You acted based solely on the facts."
The Maryland Democrat said that Smith's approach to enforcing the law was in stark contrast to the approach the US Department of Justice (DOJ) has taken during Trump's second term.
"The opposite of Donald Trump, who now has purported to take over the Department of Justice," Raskin said. "He’s in charge of the whole thing under his unitary executive theory, and he acts openly, purely based on political vendetta and motives of personal revenge. And he doesn’t deny it."
As Smith was testifying, Trump called Smith a "deranged animal" and put direct pressure the DOJ to punish the former special counsel.
"Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me," Trump wrote on Truth Social. "The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!"
On Tuesday, Trump filed a motion asking the US District Court of the Southern District of Florida to prohibit the DOJ from carrying out a planned future release of Smith's report on his case against Trump that involved the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents at his Mar-a-Lago resort after he left the White House in 2021.
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, linked the timing of Thursday's hearing with Smith to the potential release of his report on the classified documents case.
" Republicans are only now allowing this hearing simply because Judge Cannon’s injunction keeping the second volume of Jack Smith’s report private is about to expire," she said. "Keeping the truth locked away is an assault on the rule of law and on the transparency owed to the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Who Is Hiding Behind These Masks?' Raskin Demands Answers on ICE Hiring of Jan 6 Attackers
"The American people deserve to know how many of these violent insurrectionists have been given guns and badges by this administration."
Jan 13, 2026
Congressman Jamie Raskin got right to the point in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as he sought an answer to a question several Democratic lawmakers have raised in recent months regarding the Trump administration's recruiting practices as it seeks to flood American communities with immigration officers.
"How many pardoned January 6th insurrectionists have been hired by your respective departments?" Raskin (D-Md.), ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, asked the two officials.
The congressman wrote to Bondi and Noem as video evidence continues to mount of federal agents' violent tactics in communities across the US following an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent's fatal shooting of Minneapolis resident Renee Good last week.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS), said Raskin, "seems to be courting pardoned January 6th insurrectionists."
He pointed to "white nationalist 'dog whistles'" it's used in its recruitment campaigns that appear to target members of "extremist militias" like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and Three Percenters.
Potential ICE recruits have been bombarded by messages from DHS calling on them to help "defend the homeland" and images like one of a white Uncle Sam caricature standing at a crossroads with signs pointing one way—labeled "INVASION" and "CULTURAL DECLINE"—and another, labeled "HOMELAND" and "LAW AND ORDER." The image and caption appeared to be a reference to the white nationalist text Which Way, Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson.
The groups and militias apparently being targeted by the recruitment push coordinated with one another on January 6, 2021 as their members and leaders were among those who stormed the US Capitol in an effort to stop former President Joe Biden's electoral victory from being certified.
One of President Donald Trump's first actions after taking office last year was pardoning more than 1,500 people convicted of participating in the attempted insurrection, and dozens of them have been rearrested, charged, or sentenced for other crimes including child sexual assault, possession of child pornography, and domestic violence.
Other Democratic lawmakers have previously raised alarm about the lax hiring requirements DHS has put in place as it seeks to grow its ranks of ICE agents, with Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) noting in an October letter to Noem that in its push to hire more so-called "patriots," ICE has "changed the age requirements for new recruits."
"DHS announced that applicants now can apply at the age of 18 and there is no age cap. ICE also removed its Spanish-language requirement—shortening the training program by five weeks—and is pursuing additional ways to expedite training," wrote Durbin. "The loosening of hiring standards and training requirements is unacceptable and will likely result in increased officer misconduct—similar to or worse than what occurred during a small surge in hiring US Customs and Border Protection officers in the early 2000s."
On Monday, Raskin pointed out that ICE agents have been permitted to go to great lengths to hide their identities with masks as they've tackled people to the ground, "detained and battered multiple pregnant women," threatened people and confiscated their cellphones for filming them—a protected activity under the First Amendment—and rammed open the door of a home in Minneapolis as they apparently began "door-to-door" operations.
"Unique among all law enforcement agencies and all branches of the armed services, ICE agents conceal their identities, wearing masks and removing names from their uniforms. Why is that? Why do National Guard members, state, county, and local police officers, and members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines all routinely work unmasked while ICE agents work masked?" wrote Raskin.
"Who is hiding behind these masks?" he continued. "How many of them were among the violent rioters who attacked the Capitol on January 6 and were convicted of their offenses? The American people deserve to know how many of these violent insurrectionists have been given guns and badges by this administration."
He demanded the release of records related to the solicitation or hiring of anyone charged or investigated for participating in the January 6 attack.
Raskin's letter was sent as independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported on leaked documents showing that ICE and Border Patrol officials on the ground are struggling to cope with both staffing and legal compliance issues following Good's killing.
"While Homeland Secretary Kristi Noem and others in the administration preen about justifying last week’s shooting and trumpet their war on 'domestic terrorism,' DHS is privately divided and hesitant about the latest deployments," wrote Klippenstein, detailing efforts within the agency to find around 300 volunteers to deploy in Minneapolis, "in part due to opposition within the ranks."
Following DHS' aggressive recruiting push that appears to designed to appeal to extremist militias, "there might be some immature knuckleheads who think they are out there trying to capture Nicolás Maduro, but most field officers see a clear need for deescalation," a high-ranking career official at DHS told Klippenstein. “There is genuine fear that indeed ICE’s heavy handedness and the rhetoric from Washington is more creating a condition where the officers’ lives are in danger rather than the other way around.”
Officials are reportedly pushing to rein in the agents whom the Trump administration has unleashed on communities including Minneapolis, where ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot Good while she was sitting in her car after she had reportedly been given conflicting orders by officers.
While Trump has suggested Good was to blame for her killing because she was "disrespectful" to the officers and videos have surfaced of agents attacking and threatening people for filming and observing them, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino sent a "legal refresher" to agents in the field, reminding them that protesters who use profanity, insults, and rude gestures are not breaking any laws.
Noncompliance with law enforcement and recordings of ICE agents are protected activities, the document reminds officers.
Sarah Saldaña, a former director of ICE, also recently said that DHS' decision to frame its recruiting push as a "war effort" would inevitably result in a federal anti-immigration force that views itself as being at war with the communities it's sent to.
DHS is promoting a viewpoint among recruits that “the quicker we get out there and run over people, the better off this country will be,” Saldaña told the Washington Post days before Good was killed. “That mentality you’re fostering tends to inculcate in people a certain aggressiveness that may not be necessary in 85% of what you do.”
A DHS official who spoke to Klippenstein said that "the claim is that recruiting is up, but there is also dread that the gung-ho types that ICE and the Border Patrol are bringing in have a propensity towards confrontation and even violence.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Filled With Lies': Trump White House Releases False History of Jan. 6
"It is past time for 25th Amendment remedies," said one critic.
Jan 06, 2026
To commemorate the fifth anniversary of the deadly riots incited by President Donald Trump at the US Capitol Building, the Trump White House on Tuesday unveiled a website loaded with false claims about the events that took place on January 6, 2021.
The official White House January 6 website features multiple falsehoods and distortions about the Trump-incited Capitol riots, including brazenly false claims about the Capitol Police "escalating" tensions with rioters by firing "tear gas, flash bangs, and rubber munitions into crowds of peaceful protesters."
In reality, Trump supporters stormed past police barricades that had been set up at the Capitol and then smashed windows to enter the building and illegally disrupt the certification of the 2020 presidential election, which Trump falsely claimed to have won.
The website also blames former Vice President Mike Pence for refusing to go along with Trump's unconstitutional scheme to unilaterally discard certified election results from key swing states, which would have put the election results in the hands of Republican-controlled state legislatures to falsely certify Trump as the winner.
The Trump White House's revisionist history of the riots falsely claims that rioter Ashli Babbitt was "murdered in cold blood" by Capitol Police, when in reality she was shot while trying to break into into the Speaker's Lobby after being warned multiple times by officers to stand back.
The Capitol rioters garner significant praise from the White House website, which falsely portrays them as peaceful demonstrators who fell victim to the actions of Capitol Police and overly zealous Department of Justice (DOJ) prosecutors.
"On his first day back in office, January 20, 2025, President Trump issued sweeping blanket pardons and commutations for nearly 1,600 patriotic Americans prosecuted for their presence at the Capitol—many mere trespassers or peaceful protesters treated as insurrectionists by a weaponized Biden DOJ," the website says.
The blatantly false claims on the website drew a horrified reaction from many critics, including some journalists who were at the Capitol on that day and witnesses the riots firsthand.
"Never forget that Trump attempted a coup to stay in power after losing reelection, ending with the violent insurrection he incited that left 140 cops injured, five dead," wrote HuffPost White House correspondent SV Dáte on X.
"The White House's new January 6 page is filled with lies, misrepresentation, and reality denial," wrote Bellingcat founder Eliot Higgins on Bluesky. "It's a clear attempt to rewrite history and frame Trump in heroic terms."
Author Mike Rothschild accused the White House of engaging in historical revisionism on par with the government depicted in George Orwell's classic novel 1984, arguing that Trump and his underlings of embracing "an alternate reality so hackneyed and obviously fake that it would make Orwell stick his head in a wood chipper."
Victor Ray, a sociologist at the University of Iowa, raised alarms about what the January 6 White House website says about Trump's mental health.
"This is batshit," he wrote. "The White House is doing alternate reality history. It is past time for 25th Amendment remedies."
Matt Gertz, senior fellow at Media Matters for America, reacted to the section of the website blaming Pence by describing it as an ominous sign that a future coup attempt by Trump to illegally remain in power might actually succeed.
"Trump replaced Pence on the ticket with someone he fully expects would carry out this deranged scheme if he has the opportunity, instead betraying the Constitution," he wrote, referring to Vice President JD Vance, who criticized Pence for fulfilling his constitutional duty and certifying the 2020 election results.
Keep ReadingShow Less
5 Years After Jan. 6 Attack, Trump Assault on Constitution and Democracy Reaches New Heights
"This president's authoritarianism is a real and living threat to our democracy and it demands vigilance, and resistance from us all."
Jan 06, 2026
On the fifth anniversary of President Donald Trump's supporters storming the US Capitol over his reelection loss, and nearly a year after he pardoned those insurrectionists, congressional Democrats and other critics condemned the Republican leader's escalating assault on the country's Constitution and democracy.
"On his first day back in office, Trump pardoned more than 1,500 January 6 rioters, including violent criminals who bludgeoned police officers," Christina Harvey, executive director of the progressive group Stand Up America, said in a Tuesday statement.
"The message is unmistakable: Those who break the law for Trump are rewarded with pardons and protection, while those who enforce the law are punished for doing their jobs," she said. "That leaves all of us less safe. The American people deserve better."
Ahead of the anniversary, US House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) released two related reports: Where Are They Now: The Perpetrators of January 6th and the Defenders of Democracy Who Stopped Them, and One Year Later: Assessing the Public Safety Implications of President Trump's Mass Pardons of 1,600 January 6 Rioters and Insurrectionists.
On Jan. 6, 2021, bloody insurrectionary violence interrupted the peaceful transfer of power.Today, America is still caught in an epic struggle between selfish forces of rule-or-ruin autocracy & the unyielding defenders of constitutional democracy all over America.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Jamie Raskin (@raskin.house.gov) January 6, 2026 at 9:40 AM
Raskin—a former constitutional law professor who notably led Trump's historic second impeachment in the wake of the Capitol attack—also penned a Tuesday op-ed in the New York Times, arguing that January 6, 2021 "never ended."
The congressman highlighted that since returning to the Oval Office, Trump has "punished law enforcement officials en masse for doing their jobs," installing "insurrectionists in the highest ranks of the Department of Justice" and conducting a "bureaucratic purge—with firings and permanent demotions—of hundreds" of Federal Bureau of Investigation agents and prosecutors.
"These moves at the Justice Department," he wrote, "have cost the government thousands of collective years of investigative and prosecutorial experience, demoralized the civil service, and reduced our government to the moral level of a gangster state."
Raskin further pointed out that the president "granted clemency to dozens of people who had committed or been accused of violent and horrific crimes after January 6, such as plotting the murders of FBI agents, resisting arrest, assault, rape, burglary, stalking, stabbing, possession of child sex abuse materials, and DUI homicide."
Raskin also joined several other House Democrats—including Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) and Rep. Bennie Thompson (Miss.), who chaired the select committee that investigated the Capitol attack—for an unofficial Tuesday morning hearing that featured testimony from former law enforcement, state officials, and other Americans who witnessed the MAGA mob violence.
Jeffries and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also plan to mark the anniversary outside the Capitol Tuesday evening. In a morning floor speech, Schumer noted that event, recounted his experience with the "mob of rioters," stressed that "we must never relent on speaking the truth" about the attack, and slammed the pardons as "among the most sickening things Donald Trump has done in office."
"These pardons were an explicit endorsement of using violence to get your way," Schumer said. "That is who Donald Trump is at his core: a man who’s happy to see violence work in his favor, to get what he wants. And in this chamber—especially in the House of Representatives—too many Republicans remain silent in the face of obvious evil."
Separately, Schumer has spoken out against Trump's recent illegal violence abroad: a boat-bombing spree that has killed over 100 alleged drug traffickers in international waters and the weekend abduction of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which resulted in dozens of deaths.
"For two long hours we heard yesterday from the administration, and what we heard was little more than wishful thinking and no real answers," he said Tuesday. "We got no clear answer to any of the four questions I've been asking the administration for days."
"First, how many troops are we going to commit to Venezuela? Are there any limits? No answer," Schumer explained. "Second, for how long will we be committed to running Venezuela? No answer. Third, how much is this all going to cost? They said they had no cost estimate. And fourth, what country is next? Is Colombia on the table? Are we going to invade a NATO ally like Greenland? Where does this belligerence stop? I was very troubled, very troubled by their answer on this as well."
Schumer pledged Monday that this week he and other senators would force a vote on a bipartisan war powers resolution "that will affirm Congress' authority on matters of war and peace when it comes to Venezuela." So far, neither GOP-controlled chamber has been able to pass such a measure related to Trump's march toward war with the South American nation or his boat bombings.
On Saturday, Trump attacked Venezuela. Five years ago Trump attacked our Capitol. If Trump had been held accountable for the Jan 6 attack, there would've been no attack on Venezuela-nor anything else from this second term. My new article deanobeidallah.substack.com/p/the-straig...
[image or embed]
— Dean Obeidallah (@deanobeidallah.bsky.social) January 6, 2026 at 10:04 AM
In a Tuesday statement about the January 6 anniversary, Lisa Gilbert, co-president of the advocacy group Public Citizen, pointed to not only Trump's abduction of the Venezuelan leader but also how he's trampled on the rights of Americans, including by trying to deploy the National Guard in various US cities.
"Five years ago, a sitting US president incited violence against our nation in a shameless attempt to overturn a democratically held election. This day must live forever in our memory, so that we continue to seek accountability for the perpetrators and work tirelessly to safeguard our democracy from future lawlessness," Gilbert said. "As we reflect on the solemn anniversary of the insurrection, we must grapple with the reality that the same president is back in office."
"And that his disdain for the rule of law and disregard of the US Constitution are more brazen than ever, amplified by endless incendiary rhetoric and reckless actions," she continued. "From the unwanted and unlawful military deployments of the National Guard to US cities to the indefensible and brazenly unlawful kidnapping of a foreign leader for the benefit of fossil fuel corporations, this president's authoritarianism is a real and living threat to our democracy, and it demands vigilance and resistance from us all."
Keep ReadingShow Less
New Year's Eve Dump: House Releases Video and Transcript of Jack Smith Deposition
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith told members of the House Judiciary Committee.
Dec 31, 2025
Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday released both the transcript and video of former special counsel Jack Smith's December 17 testimony about his criminal cases against President Donald Trump that were shut down last year after Trump won the 2024 presidential election.
The release, which occurred as millions of Americans were preparing to celebrate New Year's Eve, revealed fresh insights into Smith's investigation and prosecution of the president, who had been indicted on charges related to the unlawful retention of top-secret government documents and his bid to illegally remain in power after losing the 2020 presidential election.
Among other things, Smith testified that he believed that Trump's false claims about fraud in the 2020 election were not protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution because they were aimed at disrupting the certification of the election results on January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters violently stormed the US Capitol building and send lawmakers fleeing for their lives.
"There is no historical analog for what President Trump did in this case," Smith emphasized. "As we said in the indictment, he was free to say that he thought he won the election. He was even free to say falsely that he won the election. But what he was not free to do was violate federal law and use... knowingly false statements about election fraud to target a lawful government function."
Smith also testified that he and his team sought gag orders against Trump because the then-former president "was making statements that were endangering witnesses, intimidating witnesses, endangering members of my staff, endangering court staff."
Smith also said that he would "make no apologies" for requesting a gag order against Trump.
When asked about his decision to subpoena phone records of US senators during his investigation, Smith laid out why Trump had left him with no other option.
"I think who should be accountable for this is Donald Trump," he said. "These records are people, in the case of the senators, Donald Trump directed his co-conspirators to call these people to further delay the proceedings. He chose to do that. If Donald Trump had chosen to call a number of Democratic senators, we would have gotten toll records for Democratic senators. So responsibility for why these records, why we collected them... that lies with Donald Trump."
Commenting on the timing of the release, New York University law professor Ryan Goodman called it "an obvious attempt" by House Republicans to "bury" the information that Smith delivered during his testimony.
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