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 insurrection
Voter Fears Grow as Trump Continues to Lie about Election Integrity
New data find that Americans’ concerns about political violence, democratic participation, and safety at the polls remain alarmingly high.
Jun 20, 2026
President Donald Trump has baselessly claimed that there was fraud in California’s recent elections. The Department of Justice sent a federal prosecutor to observe ballot processing in Los Angeles, and the US attorney appointee has said there are “multiple election fraud investigations under way.”
These false allegations levied for years against our election systems by Trump are taking their toll on voters. New data find that Americans’ concerns about political violence, democratic participation, and safety at the polls remain alarmingly high.
This constant stoking of fears over nearly nonexistent voter fraud by Trump and other political figures is harming people’s faith in the system: 44% of Americans across the political spectrum are not confident that our elections will be free and fair, and 59% are now afraid of voter fraud either by ineligible individuals or election officials. People are afraid of each other.
Worse, voters are fearful of exercising their rights and have multiple concerns about involvement in the democratic process. In political situations, only 48% of respondents feel completely safe going to their polling place. Only 22% feel completely safe at events like political rallies and candidate forums, and only 17% feel completely safe attending a demonstration or protest. These numbers are alarming and speak to the lack of trust in our institutions and could be an indicator of significant unwillingness to participate in important aspects of our democratic processes.
When those people were asked who or what was to blame for the divisions, the top answer was President Trump and the Republican Party.
Most concerning is that a full 15% of voters would leave without voting if they witnessed or experienced harassment or intimidation at the polls. That includes 21% of Black people and 22% of Latinos compared with 11% of white people. And 19% of Gen Z and 23% of Millennials would leave. This obviously presents a challenge at a time when it’s imperative that young people are brought into the democratic process and their faith in the system is bolstered.
The Trump administration’s immigration crackdown is also stoking fear. A disturbing number, 33% of Americans, say they are very worried about future violent attacks by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), higher than fear of groups like the white supremacist Proud Boys at 26% or armed militias at 27%. When asked about an ICE attack, 70% of Black and Latino people reported being worried, while 49% of white people did so.
Of those who feel less safe than in 2022, mass shootings at 57% and general crime at 52% are the top two reasons, as would be expected, but continued political divisiveness is blamed by 51%, right behind crime. Tragically, 70% of Gen Z feel less safe because of mass shootings. And a third of respondents cite the cultural divides created by targeting specific groups as bad for the country. Another third blame fear of extreme right-wing groups as a reason for feeling less safe, compared with 17% who named fear of extreme left-wing groups.
At this moment, the political landscape of America seems to be one where acts of violence and unrest are expected. Furthermore, expectations of disruption, dispute of election results, and even the advent of another January 6 following the next presidential elections are high. Throughout the survey, people cited political and racial divides as areas of concern when it comes to fears and violence. When asked if our nation and people are as or more divided as we were at the Civil War, 69% said yes. The response was 68% four years ago.
And when those people were asked who or what was to blame for the divisions, the top answer was President Trump and the Republican Party. The number has risen to 52% in 2026 from 41% in 2022. Most significant are the changes in the Republican and Independent responses since 2022. Republicans reported a sharp increase from only 8% in 2022 to 19% in 2026 saying that Trump is to blame for the nation’s divided nature. And Independents went from 38% to 50% blaming Trump in 2026.
Given these fears, what can secretaries of state and election officials do to ensure voters feel safe exercising their rights? Well, there is one issue that is broadly agreed to by those polled: 68% of Americans fully support banning guns within 100 feet of polling stations, including 62% of gun owners. Black and Latino Americans report their greatest fear is others carrying guns at the polls. Today, 17 states have prohibitions on open and concealed carry of firearms at polling places and a total of 20 ban concealed carry. That’s up from 12 states in 2022.
Based on this alarming data, we recommended to secretaries of states across the country earlier this month that states:
- Ban all weapons in and around polling places;
- Communicate early and clearly plans and assurances that the elections will be fair and honest;
- Use the authority of the secretary of state offices to counter any misinformation about the elections;
- Communicate to the public instructions for what a voter should do if intimidated or harassed; and
- Reject any possible federal efforts to place ICE or other federal agents near the polls.
In addition to stopping the false election fraud narrative, taking these actions is critical to protect voters, especially as President Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) has not taken the usual steps to establish a “command center” to monitor and address the typical emergencies that pop up around Election Day, and which would address things like voter intimidation and targeted disinformation meant to interfere with a fair process.
The DOJ has also canceled election-integrity training sessions for prosecutors and FBI agents, deleted a 281-page guide to prosecuting elections offenses, fired most of the lawyers in its Public Integrity Section, and failed to replace the director of its Election Crimes Branch. It is up to state governments to fill the breach.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abandoning the 'Anti-Weaponization Fund' Won’t Solve Todd Blanche’s Big Problem
The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.
Jun 05, 2026
Between March 2023 and December 2024, Todd Blanche earned millions of dollars as Donald Trump’s personal defense lawyer in the Stormy Daniel hush-money case, the Mar-a-Lago documents case, and the election interference case. As Acting Attorney General of the United States, he’s wading through another Trump mess.
And he’s drowning.
The Fund is Dead; Long Live the Fund
On May 18, Trump’s lawyers and the Department of Justice (DOJ) created an “Anti-Weaponization Fund” to settle President Trump’s frivolous lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Even Senate Republicans rebelled against the prospect of using $1.776 billion in taxpayer money as Trump’s slush fund to pay January 6 insurrectionists.
To quell the uprising that was threatening Trump’s legislative agenda, Blanche met with Republicans on Capitol Hill. He made things worse as the weeklong Memorial Day break began.
Todd Blanche—who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney—now has stunning legal problems of his own.
Faced with mounting pressure—from the public, congressional Republicans, and two judges who were questioning the fund’s legality—Blanche told a House committee on June 2 that the fund was not moving forward.
Some senators found comfort in Blanche’s assurances. But the same day, Trump was asked by the New York Post in a podcast interview whether he had dropped the Fund.
Trump said, “No, a court ruled against” it.
Asked again about the fund on June 3, Trump answered: “I love it. I think it’s so important.”
But the controversy over the fund’s status is diverting attention from an issue that is much more important to Trump—and a much bigger problem for Blanche: his signature on a document releasing Trump’s potential tax liabilities.
A Phony Lawsuit Leads to a Collusive Settlement
January 29, 2026: Trump filed a lawsuit against the IRS seeking $10 billion. He claimed that a former IRS contractor had illegally obtained access to and disclosed Trump’s tax returns to media outlets.
In the past, the IRS mounted aggressive defenses to similar claims. Following normal procedure, IRS attorneys prepared a 25-page memorandum outlining the flaws in Trump’s lawsuit and recommending a motion to dismiss it. But the Justice Department didn’t even enter an appearance in the case, much less seek dismissal.
Presiding US District Court Judge Kathleen Williams was concerned that there was no “actual adversity” between the parties because Trump was on both sides of the lawsuit: The president (plaintiff) controlled the IRS (defendant). She ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address the obvious conflict of interest by May 20.
May 18: With the court deadline approaching and Blanche’s DOJ struggling internally over a response to Judge Williams’ order, Trump’s lawyers filed a notice of voluntary dismissal. Believing that she had no choice, Judge Williams entered an order dismissing the case. The court observed that “the Notice [of dismissal] does not reference any settlement or include a stipulation of settlement,” and therefore “there is no settlement of record.”
But unbeknownst to Judge Williams, there was a settlement agreement—also dated May 18. In exchange for dismissing his frivolous case, Trump’s Justice Department would create a $1.776 billion “Anti-Weaponization Fund.”
May 19: Another element of the settlement agreement emerged. It gained less attention but was far more important to Trump. Without fanfare, the Justice Department revealed an addendum that contained an extraordinary release in favor of Trump and “related or affiliated individuals or parties…” from any matters “currently pending or that could be pending..." before the IRS or other federal government agencies or departments.
The IRS has been a recurring thorn in Trump’s side. In 2022, two of his organizations were found guilty of tax fraud and falsifying business records. The New York Times estimated that the addendum's release covered audits that could have cost Trump more than $100 million on just one of his properties.
When asked who came up with the terms for the settlement, Blanche denied that he had a role: “The president has outside counsel, and their counsel, the Department of Justice, not me.”
Except Blanche—and only Blanche—signed the addendum sealing the deal.
May 29: Judge Williams reacted to a bipartisan group of 35 former federal judges urging her to reopen Trump’s previously dismissed case. The court concluded that it had been presented with “grievous allegations that Plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed this litigation solely to avoid judicial scrutiny of a lawsuit that ‘was collusive from the start’ and was only filed to provide the imprimatur of legality for an unlawful settlement.” She cited allegations that the IRS did not “‘even try[] to defend against Plaintiffs’ claims’ despite their active opposition to nearly identical claims in other litigation” and that “Plaintiffs’ claims were ‘clearly untimely’ and therefore untenable.”
Judge Williams ordered Trump’s lawyers and the Justice Department to address allegations that they had: 1) filed a collusive suit; 2) premised the earlier dismissal notice on deception; and 3) made the court a victim of fraud.
Footnote two of the court's order focused on Blanche:
This addendum, as the non-party movants point out, may be in conflict with internal Department of Justice policies that require the Department to only enter into compromises that are "specifically limited to the immediate subject matter of the claim which was in fact compromised." The addendum was signed only by the Acting Attorney General [Todd Blanche]. (Emphasis supplied)
Blanche’s Problems Grow
Apart from Blanche’s conflict of interest problem, under DOJ policy dating to 1934, the attorney general doesn’t even have the legal authority to stop civil tax audits. And after the revelations of President Richard Nixon’s abuse of the IRS, it has been “unlawful for the President and any employee of the Executive Office of the President, among other officials, to directly or indirectly request that the IRS terminate any ongoing audit or investigation of any particular taxpayer.” (Emphasis in original)
If Judge Williams concludes that Trump’s lawyers or Justice Department attorneys deceived her in connection with the original dismissal of the case, even voiding the settlement in its entirety won’t end the matter. The consequences of a lawyer misleading the court survive the case in which it occurs, and those consequences can be profound.
The addendum gives Trump a stunning victory. And Todd Blanche—who still operates as if he were Trump’s personal attorney—now has stunning legal problems of his own.
It’s a classic Trump outcome: Trump wins; his loyalist loses.
Keep ReadingShow Less
My Application for $30 Million From Trump’s $1.8 Billion Slush Fund
A formal letter to Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, faithfully submitted.
May 30, 2026
Dear Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche,
I am writing to formally submit my application to your newly established federal “Anti-Weaponization Fund” for compensation in the form of a cash payment for damages incurred at the hands of the United States government.
As you stated while announcing President Trump’s new $1.776 billion fund, “The machinery of government should never be weaponized against any American, and it is this Department’s intention to make right the wrongs that were previously done while ensuring this never happens again.”
Todd, if I may, I saw your former client — President Trump, for whom you previously provided legal representation — backed you up, saying, “This is reimbursing people who were horribly treated.”
Additionally, Todd, I read an Associated Press report noting that during congressional testimony you stated that you “wouldn’t rule out the possibility that rioters who assaulted police on Jan. 6 would be eligible for fund payouts.” After hearing your remarkably broad interpretation of governmental victimization, I felt compelled to share with you what the government has done to me and my family by writing the letter below — which reveals several forms of government abuse my family and I have endured which, while you may not find as severe as the temporary loss of access to the U.S. Capitol experienced by individuals convicted of felonies related to January 6, nonetheless caused considerable hardship for us.
I was initially reassured that my request was reasonable after learning that Adam Johnson — best known for carrying Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s lectern through the Capitol during the January 6 attack — is reportedly considering a claim of up to $5 million himself.
However, after learning that Brandon Fellows — another January 6 defendant pardoned by President Trump — reportedly plans to seek $30 million from the fund, including $21.5 million for what he described as “wrongful imprisonment,” I realized that the harms experienced by my family and me may in fact fall closer to Mr. Fellows’s compensation range.
So, after reviewing your department’s stated principles, apparent standards, and anticipated applicant pool, I believe I am highly qualified for compensation and would like to make a modest request of $30 million.
In fact, Todd, I believe I possess two major qualifications that should place me among the strongest candidates for compensation, which I will detail below.
Claim One: Descendant of Enslaved People
First, since this appears to function as a reparations program for people harmed by state injustice, I should begin by saying that I come from a family with a long legacy of being brutalized by the United States. And if you think the January 6 defendants have a compelling claim for compensation due to governmental mistreatment, wait until you hear about this historical episode called slavery.
My great-great-grandparents, Laura and Thomas Lenoir, were enslaved in Marion County, Mississippi, and spent their lives laboring without compensation in a nation loudly proclaiming “liberty” while designating Black people as property. After decades spent tracing our family history, my father recently discovered the very plantation where they were enslaved— a breakthrough that finally allowed our family to identify the precise location where generations of uncompensated labor helped build this country’s wealth.
My ancestors worked this land they did not own, built wealth they could not keep, and endured violence they could not legally resist. No compensation was ever provided for the stolen labor, stolen children, stolen wages, stolen land, stolen futures, or the generations of poverty and discrimination that followed emancipation. Stories of Laura’s beatings and brutal treatment have been passed down through my family for generations.
In explaining why she believed January 6 defendants deserved compensation, Rachel Powell — who prosecutors identified as one of the first rioters to breach Capitol grounds and who was filmed using a battering ram to smash a Capitol window — recently stated: “We endured a lot. Our lives are still not the same. I don’t know what kind of price you can put on that.”
Todd, I must admit I found Ms. Powell’s reflections unexpectedly relatable. Indeed, many descendants of slavery have similarly struggled to determine what monetary figure might adequately compensate for generations of forced labor and legally sanctioned terror.
For many years, I was informed that reparations for descendants of slavery were unrealistic, unaffordable, divisive, or simply impossible. Republican and Democratic leaders alike repeatedly explained that while slavery was unfortunate, there was no practical mechanism for compensating descendants in the present day. However, your department’s new fund has helped me understand that no sum of money is too large for the government to produce once it decides that a great injustice has been perpetrated.
And then there is the symbolism of the fund’s exact amount — $1.776 billion — which is especially moving. President Trump, with his trademark subtlety and keen sense of gravitas, must have chosen this specific figure for providing reparations to people claiming mistreatment by the government as a fitting tribute to a nation founded by those who declared liberty for all in 1776 while simultaneously enslaving and brutalizing Black people.
Claim Two: My Arrest at a Capitol Building During Political Protest
My second major qualification is that, like many of the fund’s anticipated beneficiaries who stormed the capitol building on January 6, I was also arrested at a capitol building during a political protest.
In 2012, Washington state announced a special legislative session to determine how to slash education and healthcare budgets by some $2 Billion during the aftermath of the Great Recession. At the time, I was helping organize with the Social Equity Educators (SEE), a group of educators fighting against austerity and for educational justice.
We joined a much larger mass protest at the Washington State Capitol in Olympia to oppose billions of dollars in cuts to public services. Just before lawmakers gaveled in the special budget cutting session inside the House Ways and Means Committee meeting room, several of us managed to enter the chamber before they locked the door to the many protestors surrounding the building. The moment the session began, we mic-checked the room and read aloud the Washington State Constitution language that explicitly specifies funding education is the “paramount duty” of the state, and we declared therefore the state not only had a moral obligation but also a legal obligation to fully fund public education.
After finishing the statement, I produced a pair of plastic handcuffs I got at the dollar store and invited the legislators into my custody for what I announced was citizen’s arrest.
As I approached the legislators’ benches carrying self-made citizen’s arrest warrants to issue to each member, a police officer apparently arrived at a somewhat different interpretation of the law than I had. In an astonishing twist, he arrested me instead of the legislators.
He grabbed my arm, forced it behind my back, and cinched the handcuffs tightly around my wrists. Officers then moved me into a back room while they attempted to figure out how to remove me from the building as hundreds of protesters outside chanted, “Let the teacher go!”
Eventually, police whisked me out and pushed me into the back of a squad car and repeatedly questioned me about my actions even after I informed them that I wished to speak only in the presence of legal counsel. I was transported to a nearby jail, had my mugshot taken, ordered to exchange my clothes for a jail-issued orange jumpsuit, and placed in a jail cell with several other people for the evening.
While I was in jail, unbeknownst to me, my students at Garfield High School created a Facebook page titled “Free Mr. Hagopian.” When I returned to school the next day, students had changed the page into “Seattle Student Walkout for Education.”
Within twenty-four hours of my arrest, more than 500 Garfield students organized a mass walkout protesting the education cuts, carrying signs reading “Fund Our Future” and chanting, “We’re the future of our nation, no more cuts to education!” Students later formed a coalition called Students of Washington for Change to pressure the legislature through protests and letter-writing campaigns.
Importantly, Todd, not long afterward the Washington State Supreme Court ruled that the legislature actually was violating the constitution in what became known as the McCleary decision, so I trust that my legal vindication strengthens my application considerably. And if generations of slavery fall short in qualifying me for compensation, I trust my arrest at a capitol while protesting government lawbreaking will place me in strong standing under your department’s standards.
A Possible Weakness in My Application
Now Todd, in the interest of full transparency, I should acknowledge one possible weakness in my case. The Department of Justice fact sheet explaining your fund notes that “Claims are awarded on a case-by-case basis, and the Commissioners must consider a claimant’s personal conduct and character when making a determination.”
I must admit, Todd, this language gave me some pause.
While I was arrested at a capitol building during a large political protest — something I understand may weigh heavily in my favor given your department’s apparent sympathy for January 6 defendants — I did not use a battering ram to breach the Capitol building, assault police officers, carry Confederate flags through the halls of government, or attempt to overturn the results of a presidential election.
In retrospect, I recognize this may complicate my claim.
Still, I would respectfully submit that my application remains highly competitive. Unlike many January 6 defendants, when I protested at a capitol, the court later ruled that the government I was protesting had actually broken the law.
Instructions for Disbursement of Funds
Todd, thank you for taking the time to read and consider my formal application for compensation from the Anti-Weaponization Fund.
Once my claim has been approved, you may issue a direct payment in the form of a contribution to Where I Got My Name: Down in Mississippi — a documentary film project about my father discovering the plantation where our family had been enslaved and our journey to Mississippi to recover our family’s history — or to Rethinking Schools and the Zinn Education Project, organizations that have spent decades supporting honest education about the history of this country and the people who were truly “horribly treated” by their government (as President Trump put it).
Todd, I appreciate your department’s newfound commitment to reparative justice, and I look forward to receiving confirmation of my $30 million award soon.
Sincerely,
Jesse Hagopian
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Blatant Abuse of Power' Blocked as Judge Puts Temporary Halt on Trump's $1.8 Billion Slush Fund
"Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician," said the head of one advocacy group.
May 29, 2026
A federal judge in Virginia on Friday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from moving to create a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" that would use nearly $1.8 billion in taxpayer money to reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6 insurrection.
Judge Leonie M. Brinkema of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia issued a 2-page order barring any action “pursuant to the creation or operation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund, which includes the transferring of money to the Fund; the consideration of any claims submitted to the Fund; and the disbursing of any funds from the Fund.”
Brinkema—a nominee of former President Bill Clinton—set a June 12 hearing date for arguments on whether she should extend the pause amid numerous legal challenges to what critics have called a "felon-to-felon slush fund," a reference to President Donald Trump's 34 felony convictions and the serious crimes, including violent assaults on police officers with dangerous weapons, committed by January 6 insurrectionists who were later pardoned by the president.
In January, Trump sued the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department for $10 billion over the leak of his tax returns by a former IRS contractor. Trump’s own Justice Department settled the case earlier this month by agreeing to create the roughly $1.776 billion settlement slush fund for people claiming they were unfairly targeted by the government.
January 6 insurrectionists are expected to be among the fund's beneficiaries. Trump was accused of rewarding political violence by granting clemency to roughly 1,500 Capitol attackers, dozens of whom have since been charged or convicted for serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
Brinkema's decision came less than 24 hours after plaintiffs in one of the legal challenges to the fund, who are represented by Democracy Forward, filed a motion for emergency relief. Plaintiffs' attorneys told Brinkema that they’re “already being irreparably harmed by the unconstitutional and unlawful creation of the Anti-Weaponization Fund," and that such harm "will be permanent if the administration takes action, including by irreversibly disbursing funds, before this court can act."
Democracy Forward president and CEO Skye Perryman said following Friday's ruling, "Today, a federal court recognized the urgent need to prevent taxpayer dollars from being distributed through a secretive and unprecedented political compensation scheme before the legality of that program can be fully reviewed by the court."
“This is a victory for transparency, the rule of law, and the American people," Perryman added. "No administration has the authority to spend public money through a political rewards program that Congress never authorized. We look forward to the next stages in this case.”
Case plaintiffs issued a statement following Brinkema's order:
We are pleased that the court granted our request to ensure the administration does not distribute taxpayer funds until our motion has been considered. The court acted quickly to stop this unlawful scheme before money could start flowing out the door. The Trump-Vance administration attempted to create a secretive, taxpayer-funded program that rewards political allies, operates without oversight, and evades the constitutional safeguards that protect our democracy. We are grateful that the court recognized the urgency of the situation and acted to preserve the status quo before further irreparable harm occurred.
Democratic lawmakers welcomed Brinkema's order, with Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) calling it "an important win."
"Of all Trump’s corrupt schemes, his insurrectionist slush fund is one of the most depraved," said Schumer, who acknowledged the battle over Trump's fund is far from over. "We’ll keep fighting in the courts and in Congress to make sure this $2 billion giveaway to cop beaters, criminals, and MAGA cronies never sees the light of day."
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) posted on social media: "I’ve said from the start that this is an absolute waste of taxpayer dollars. This needs to be stopped permanently."
Stand Up America executive director Christina Harvey said in a statement that “today’s ruling is a critical reminder that no one is above the law, not even the president of the United States."
"Trump’s $1.8 billion slush fund for his friends and diehard loyalists—including those who tried to overthrow our democracy on January 6—is a blatant abuse of power, and the court rightly blocked it," Harvey added. "Taxpayer dollars should serve the American people, not finance political favors or reward blind, and sometimes violent, loyalty to a single politician."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'He's Just Stealing Your Money': House Dems Launch Bid to Block $1.8 Billion Trump-MAGA 'Slush Fund'
"It's illegal and corrupt as hell," Congressman Don Beyer said of the president's self-dealing $1.77 billion IRS settlement. "We're fighting it in court."
May 18, 2026
Ninety-three House Democrats on Monday launched a bid to block President Donald Trump's $1.77 billion taxpayer-funded settlement with the Internal Revenue Service, through which the president could reward supporters, including people convicted of seditious and violent felonies during the January 6, 2021 Capitol insurrection.
The Democratic lawmakers joined an amicus brief filed in Trump v. IRS before Judge Kathleen Williams in the US District Court for the Southern District of Florida. Their action followed the Trump administration's announcement of the creation of a so-called "Anti-Weaponization Fund" as part of an agreement to drop a $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS over a leak of the president's tax returns.
Acting US Attorney General Todd Blanche described the fund as “a lawful process for victims of lawfare and weaponization" allegedly carried out by the US Department of Justice (DOJ) during the Biden administration "to be heard and seek redress.”
However, House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) called the settlement "pure fraud and highway robbery," noting that Trump oversees the agency that agreed to settle with him.
"No president can concoct a fake case for $10 billion in damages against the government so he can be plaintiff and defendant and then ‘settle’ his bogus case against himself as a judge," Raskin said.
"This case is nothing but a racket designed to take $1.7 billion of taxpayer dollars out of the treasury and pour it into a huge slush fund for Trump at DOJ to hand out to his private militia of insurrectionists, rioters, and white supremacists, including those who brutally beat police officers on January 6, 2021, and sycophant accomplices to his election-stealing schemes," he added.
Trump's slush fund would give nearly $2 BILLION in taxpayer dollars to his supporters, including violent criminals.He's just stealing your money.There's no transparency, we won't know who gets paid, or how much.It's illegal and corrupt as hell. We're fighting it in court.
[image or embed]
— Congressman Don Beyer (@beyer.house.gov) May 18, 2026 at 10:41 AM
The Democratic lawmakers' amicus filing seeks to block the settlement, which could use taxpayer funds to compensate pro-Trump figures like the nearly 1,600 Capitol insurrection defendants charged or convicted of crimes connected to the Capitol attack, including seditious conspiracy, assault on law enforcement officers with dangerous weapons, and other felonies.
“Trump suing the IRS was never about justice, it’s another self-enrichment scheme on the backs of hard-working taxpayers," House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said Monday.
“Now, with the court poised to weigh in only days from now, Trump is scrambling to cut a backroom deal and solidify his position as the judge, jury, and executioner," Neal added. "Reporting detailing Trump’s interest in a billion-dollar slush fund for the J6 criminals and permanent immunity from any further IRS scrutiny only deepens the stench of corruption."
Matt Platkin and Norm Eisen, lawyers representing the Democrats, said Monday: “It's against the law for the president to in effect sue himself—and then settle for a huge sum. The court has the power to put a stop to these shenanigans and should do so."
Trump was accused of rewarding political violence when he granted blanket pardons to the January 6 insurrectionists on his first day back in the White House. According to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, dozens of pardoned Capitol attackers have since been charged or convicted of serious crimes, including child sex crimes, rape, grand larceny, burglary, home invasion, gun violations, death threats against public officials, and fatal DUI incidents.
The president and other MAGA figures have accused the Biden administration of "weaponizing" the DOJ against Trump and his supporters. Meanwhile, Trump has targeted political opponents; federal officials involved in investigating and prosecuting him for alleged election interference and mishandling classified documents; pro-Palestine activists; universities and corporations resisting his anti-diversity, equity, and inclusion crusade; journalists; civil society groups; and others.
Progressive advocacy groups and legal experts joined Democratic lawmakers in condemning Trump's settlement.
“Donald Trump and his compromised Department of Justice have created a slush fund to make payouts to Trump supporters and cronies,” Public Citizen co-presidents Lisa Gilbert and Robert Weissman said in a statement. “This scheme amounts to the creation of a January 6 payment fund.”
I say without hyperbole that this is the most brazenly corrupt action in US Presidential history. That it does not immediately lead to impeachment is a dangerous sign of how far the rule of law has declined.
[image or embed]
— Ryan Enos (@ryanenos.bsky.social) May 18, 2026 at 10:28 AM
Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and public affairs at Stand Up America, said that “while Americans struggle with rising costs fueled by his economic mismanagement and war with Iran, Donald Trump is teaching a masterclass in grift."
"He’s negotiated with himself to create a $1.7 billion tax-dollar slush fund with no oversight, no transparency, and no accountability," Edkins continued. “In simple terms, Trump is stealing $1.7 billion in taxpayer dollars to hand out to himself, his cronies, his donors, or anyone he deems sufficiently loyal—including supporters who were convicted by juries of assaulting police officers on January 6, 2021."
"This is truly unprecedented corruption," he added, "and American taxpayers will foot the bill.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats on Capitol Hill Should Not Support Trump’s State of the Union Deception
If Democrats attend the SOTU, they are implicitly sending a message that these are normal times and that Trump is a normal president.
Feb 21, 2026
The annual state of the union address by the president is perhaps the oldest ritual in American politics. Informing the Congress of the state of the union is one of the few presidential duties written into the Constitution. Up until Woodrow Wilson, American presidents simply submitted a written assessment of the state of the union. Over the decades, SOTU has become a media spectacle. Members of Congress have been known to arrive in the chamber of the House of Representatives hours in advance to be seen on national television shaking hands with the president. Beginning with Ronald Reagan in 1982, presidents have invited guests to send a political message. Members of Congress now follow suit and use guests to make political points.
The SOTU is quite simply American political theater at its best. It is far more about posturing than public policy. In normal times, the issue of boycotting the SOTU would be a minor issue. These, however, are anything but normal times. Since the introduction of the SOTU speech by Wilson, no political party has boycotted SOTU. Members of Congress have chosen other means of making political points, which have included heckling of the president.
There is currently a debate raging among Democratic members of Congress as to whether the best way to protest President Donald Trump’s assault on American democracy is to attend the SOTU as normal or to protest the speech by boycotting it and attending an alternative event. Democratic leader Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) has said that he will attend the SOTU. The New York Times reported on February 17:
Mr. Jeffries on Tuesday said it was his “present intention” to attend. “We’re not going to his house, he’s coming to our house,” he told reporters at a news conference. “Having grown up where I grew up, you never let anyone run you off your block.” (Mr. Jeffries grew up in the Crown Heights section of Brooklyn.)
I certainly understand and appreciate Jeffries’ attitude. In past years under a Reagan or George W. Bush presidency it would have made a lot of sense. However, Trump 2.0 is far different presidency than either Reagan or Bush. Democrats had profound differences with Presidents Reagan and Bush. These differences are nothing compared with what the Democrats have with Trump. The bottom line is that unlike Reagan or Bush, Trump is waging war against our democratic system and the rule of law.
If Democrats attend the SOTU, they are implicitly sending a message that these are normal times and that Trump is a normal president. The argument can be made that members of Congress have an obligation to listen to any president’s SOTU. To counter this argument, I would say that by simply showing up in the House chamber to listen to the SOTU, Democratic members of Congress are sending the message that Trump is a president like we have had in the past. After the attack on the Capitol on January 6, 2021 and Trump pardoning those who stormed into the Senate chamber and who almost made it into the House chamber, the very space that the SOTU is held, destroyed completely any conception that Trump is a normal president.
Any Democratic member of Congress who attends the SOTU is simply acting as a bit player in Donald Trump’s latest reality show. Connecticut Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy who boycotted the SOTU last year put it quite simply, “These aren’t normal times, and we have to stop doing normal things.”
Democratic members of Congress have the opportunity by boycotting the SOTU and attending an alternative event to send America the message that these are not normal times. By boycotting Trump’s SOTU, Democratic members of Congress can stand up for American democracy.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democrats to Spotlight Trump Election Threats at January 6 Hearing
A panel aimed at fighting GOP efforts to "rewrite history" regarding the US Capitol attack will also "examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections posed by an out-of-control Trump administration."
Dec 30, 2025
At a hearing on the fifth anniversary of the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol next week, House Democrats plan to look back as well as forward—countering Republicans' efforts to "rewrite history and whitewash" the attempted insurrection by President Donald Trump's supporters and warning of the GOP's threats to upcoming elections and to US democracy.
The event next Tuesday will be an unofficial one, as Democrats are in the minority and do not have the authority to call formal hearings.
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) said in a Dear Colleague letter to other lawmakers on Monday that the hearing would shed light on the "toxic priorities" of Trump, who after taking office in January issued blanket pardons for nearly 1,600 people who were charged in connection to the January 6 attack.
" Donald Trump promised to lower the high cost of living on day one of his presidency," wrote Jeffries. "One year later, costs are out of control, America is too expensive, and Republicans believe that the affordability crisis is a hoax. They have done nothing to lower costs for everyday Americans, but are gutting healthcare and enacted massive tax breaks for their billionaire donors."
While doing nothing to make life more affordable for families—and helping to make household grocery and electricity bills higher—Trump has pardoned hundreds of people who "brutally assaulted law enforcement officers" on January 6, including several who have been charged with new crimes and "a troubling number" who "have been arrested for child molestation, sexual assault, and kidnapping," said the Democratic leader.
"Republicans own the failed economy, their broken promise to lower costs, and the crime spree the dangerous criminals pardoned by the president have visited on our country," wrote Jeffries.
The mob on January 6 attempted to stop the certification of the 2020 election, which Trump had spent weeks at that point insisting had been stolen from him and which the president and his allies continue to deny was won by former President Joe Biden.
But Republicans including House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) have made efforts to sanitize the attack, which took place after Trump held a rally urging his supporters to march "over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard" and said they would see whether "Republicans stand strong for integrity of our elections."
After Trump took office this year, Johnson announced a new congressional subcommittee that would expose "the false narratives peddled by” the previous bipartisan panel that issued a report in 2022 about Trump's efforts to overturn the 2020 election results and his encouragement of the attack.
Rep. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.), who led the bipartisan committee, will also oversee next Tuesday's hearing.
In addition to exposing "the election deniers who hold high-level positions of significance in the executive branch," wrote Jeffries on Monday, the panel "will examine ongoing threats to free and fair elections posed by an out-of-control Trump administration."
The president has pushed Republican-led state legislatures in Texas, Missouri, North Carolina, and other states to draw new congressional maps to help the GOP maintain power in the 2026 midterm elections.
He signed an executive order in March that purported to require proof of citizenship for people who register to vote—an effort that was blocked by a federal judge in October—and the US Department of Justice has sued several states to compel them to share voter registration data with the federal government.
Legal experts have emphasized that the president does not have the authority to change how elections are run, despite Trump's continued efforts.
Jeffries said the January 6th Select Committee would join Thompson in leading the hearing, which is scheduled for 10:00 am Eastern time next Tuesday.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Has TrumpWorld Replaced SportsWorld?
Who really needs a Super Bowl after Trump’s mob of fans attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and were rewarded with a ticker-tape parade of pardons by the reelected mobster-in-chief?
Dec 24, 2025
In the year I was born, 1938, the white Christian males who ruled the sports world considered their various games and pastimes as definers of righteousness, crucibles of character, and a preparation for dominance in business and war. Anyone who played but didn’t look like them was an interloper, clearly operating with some kind of performance enhancers.
That was made clear in a book published that very year by one of the premier sportswriters of his time, Paul Gallico. It was called Farewell to Sport and in it he declaimed that the “colored brother” was so good at boxing because he “is not nearly so sensible to pain as his white brother. He has a thick, hard skull and good hands”; that New York Yankee slugger Babe Ruth, “like all people who spring from what we call low origins… never had any inhibitions”; and that the reason basketball “appeals to the Hebrew… is that the game places a premium on an alert, scheming mind and flashy trickiness, artful dodging, and general smart aleckness.”
I was particularly struck by his observation that Mildred (Babe) Didrikson Zaharias became one of the greatest athletes of the century (and in so many sports!) “simply because she would not or could not compete with women at their own best game—man-snatching. It was an escape, a compensation. She would beat them at everything else they tried to do.”
The backstory to that observation holds a key to the more general misogyny in sports then, if not in society in general. During a friendly golf game, Gallico and Zaharias were talked into a footrace by the famous sportswriter Grantland Rice. The Babe ran Paul into the ground, and he rarely wrote about her again without mentioning her muscles, Adam’s apple, and loud voice. After all, how could a real woman beat a real man?
I came to wonder if the values of sports were faintly in the best interests of this country, much less any individual—and, in the end, came to believe that they’re not.
By the time I read Farewell to Sport at age 15, Gallico had produced several sappy bestsellers, including The Snow Goose. At the time, I was a mere four years away from answering an ad for a copyboy job at the New York Times sports department. My first year at the paper, 1957, would prove a turning point for New York sports fans in their realization that the industry by no means returned their devotion. After all, the elopement west that year of the New York Giants and Brooklyn Dodgers (to become the San Francisco Giants and the Los Angeles Dodgers) was considered a total betrayal. Hadn’t those teams been part of our extended families? Wasn’t loyalty to them promoted almost as a Judeo-Christian duty?
On the other hand, expansion also made the big leagues national and kicked off the boom that lifted sports into the highest levels of entertainment (where it now resides).
And in that context, consider what follows an old sportswriter’s meditation on sports at the end of a tumultuous political year—with its tribalism, violence, false narratives, and dangerous entertainment—that seems to have made what was once my prime area of study superfluous. After all, who really needs a Super Bowl (or a sportswriter) after Trump’s mob of fans attacked the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and were rewarded with a ticker-tape parade of pardons by the reelected mobster-in-chief on January 20, 2025?
Sometimes, I think I’d like to run this past Gallico. Was his bigotry just the expression of a sportswriter of his times, or was he an early Trumpist?
In 1938, sports were generally considered a positive force for the national psyche, a way for children to learn courage and self-control, old people to find blissful nostalgia, and families to discover congenial areas of communication. In fact, it was there that we would then all find a unifying language. The melting pot may have been a myth, but we would all come together in the ballpark.
Welcome to SportsWorld
I came to call that web of aspirations and attitudes SportsWorld (the title of one of my books) and thought of it as an imposed infrastructure meant to help contain our natural energies; divert our political passions; and socialize us for work, war, or depression. In my years as a sportswriter for the Times, I came to wonder if the values of sports were faintly in the best interests of this country, much less any individual—and, in the end, came to believe that they’re not.
Winning is everything? Think where that’s taken us.
In a Trumpian world where white Christian males have renewed their manifest destiny of ruling over everything as they drive the ball toward that goal line, the character of everything else has indeed changed, and sports, at least as we once imagined it, is gone.
Growing up as a casual spectator rather than a participant—my Dad and I went to the library together, but never played catch—my take on the games I came to cover as a reporter would prove to be sociological rather than fan-based. I never bought into games as gauges of courage, manhood, or success.
In fact, there were too many questions I found I couldn’t take for granted. My favorite example: the first time I covered the annual major college national basketball tournament—dubbed March Madness, I thought, to pardon its excesses in advance—I noticed how many top teams fielded three or four Black players on their starting fives from student bodies that were routinely 90% white.
Other sportswriters shrugged when I mentioned it, not because they necessarily thought the point irrelevant but because it had become too routine to mention without annoying editors (who believed that our readers didn’t care). And I think it was true that most didn’t care because they hadn’t been conditioned to see sports as anything but a dreamworld. If you covered horse-racing, would you note it every time the owners of those horses were predominately upper-class whites, the trainers middle-class whites, and the stable hands mostly men of color (and a few white women)? It is what it is, as we were told on ESPN.
Covering the Spread
And then there was sports gambling, illegal at the time except in Las Vegas, yet still the pumping heart of the fans’ game. The first time I covered a pro basketball game at New York’s Madison Square Garden in the early 1960s, I was confused by some Knicks fans (you could tell by the team jerseys they so often wore) cheering when the other team scored. I finally asked an older sportswriter what to make of that and he gave me a funny look before saying, “the spread,” and patiently explaining that more sophisticated fans often bet on the disparity of the final score rather than simply who won or lost.
Betting was then so verboten as an obvious corrupter of the purity of games that several baseball and football stars were suspended for seemingly harmless gambling or simply associating with casinos. And that came to be considered hypocritical, since everybody gambled. It should be legal, fans insisted. Now, of course, almost every sports entity has an official connection with an online gambling site and there have already been betting scandals in basketball and baseball.
I lasted 14 years in my first stint in the Times sports department. After I left, I found that I missed the people and the paper, but not sports itself. I rarely watched games. Most of my next 20 years were spent writing books and appearing on television which, while less satisfying than newspaper writing, was considerably easier. And when I did do a sports piece for TV, my subjects tended to treat me with far more respect. The jocks wanted to be on TV, too.
The bestselling sports narratives tended to flare and disappear. Trump, however, proved to be the comeback player of the century.
In fact, one shrewd old football coach, Eddie Robinson of historically Black Grambling State University, made a deal with me—full access with camera and crew to his locker room in return for his players having a Q&A session with us on how to break into TV. These days, former players and coaches dominate sportscasting (as they undoubtedly should). Their insider insights go further in enhancing the entertainment of the event than anything most everyday sportscasters might do.
During the 20 years between my gigs at the Times—1971 to 1991—it seemed as if performance-enhancing drugs, traumatic brain injuries, and the commercialization of amateur sports made far greater inroads than the most obvious positive trend, the growth of women’s sports, particularly pro basketball’s WNBA. However, in 2024, when the women’s league finally produced a transcendent superstar, Caitlin Clark, jealousy with overtones of racism marred the story.
Perhaps the saddest trend of those years, though, was the increasing elitism of even school sports, as recess play for every kid came to be displaced by ever more resources going into the creation of potential stars. The ever-fatter kids who most needed supervised athletics all too often remained indoors, snacking over video games, while their athletically gifted siblings went off on travel teams. The best of them would also face sweeping changes caused by steroid use, brain trauma, and new rules passed by Congress in 2021 that enabled colleges to pay their athletes for the use of their names, images, and likenesses. By the end of high school, the best quarterbacks and point guards were already on track to become millionaires through shadowy confederations of agents, college athletic departments, and booster clubs without even having to turn pro.
A relatively new wrinkle, the tranfer portal, now enables college athletes to switch schools, creating a complicated and highly commercialized college sports environment, particularly in the revenue sports of football and basketball.
Any Kind of Bud
The SportsWorld that awaited my return to Times daily sports writing in 1991 was already a distinctly more market-driven, sophisticated place. It was far harder by then to access athletes. No more congenial drinks in a hotel bar after a game. Interviews were now generally set up by press agents. In those years, however, one of my best times was a season I spent covering the National Association for Stock Car Auto Racing, better known as NASCAR, traveling the South, and learning about stock car carburetors from some of the most accommodating stars I had ever met in sports. That sport was then trying to gentrify itself for a new northern urban audience. At the first NASCAR cocktail party I attended, I bellied up to the bar, asked for a glass of white wine, and got a wink and the reply, “Any kind of Bud you’d like.” Nine months later, toward the season’s end, the reply was, “Chardonnay, Pinot Grigio, or Sauvignon Blanc?” And that tells you so much about where car racing, like so many other sports, was heading.
Perhaps the most emblematic moment of the mercantile new times for sports was basketball star and sneaker salesman Michael Jordan’s famous line, “Republicans buy shoes, too,” to explain his refusal to back a Democratic Senate candidate against a notorious racist. That line would be endlessly decoded as the shameful selfishness, understandable neutrality, or tragic suppression of the era’s premier athlete and salesman. Each of those interpretations held some credibility for me, since Jordan labored long and hard to overcome early failures and fulfill the big three promises of corporate sports to their followers—thrilling entertainment, a modern model of behavior (and consumption), and membership in a fan base that offered a kind of cultish sense of belonging. And yet, until recently, athletes, like factory workers, never owned the means of production.
And none of them ever achieved Donald Trump’s level of idolatry in his early ascendency. The bestselling sports narratives tended to flare and disappear. Trump, however, proved to be the comeback player of the century.
Mark and Sammy
I remember one night in 1998 being in a Bronx sports bar with several Latino friends watching the Chicago Cubs’ Sammy Sosa and the St. Louis Cardinals’ Mark McGwire hammering out their home-run competition. It was a thrill to see that high-stakes, warmhearted face-off—Sosa, the dark-skinned Dominican poor boy versus McGwire, the big, pale California dentist’s son vying for the late Roger Maris’ 1960 record of 60 homers in a season. What fun! How American! I didn’t know Sosa or McGwire, but I had known and liked Maris. (A New York boy, from my earliest days I had been a Yankee fan.) For me, it was the rare connection of a fan.
What I suspected but didn’t know then was that both Sosa and McGwire were probably juiced on steroids at the time, part of a generation of athletes driven by the need to produce bigger numbers. McGwire eventually won that home-run race, hitting 70 to Sosa’s 66. I could later imagine the surly slugger Barry Bonds, a far better player than either Sosa or McGwire, seething at the attention they were getting and wondering if he needed a chemical boost, too.
What better metaphor could there be for that than football’s dominance as the new national pastime, its violence mirrored in the language and actions of the second Trump administration?
Five years later, Bonds, by then considered the poster boy for steroid use in baseball, hit 73 homers and still holds the record. With both home-run and base-stealing records, he was one of the most complete baseball players ever (with or without chemical help), but he’s better known now for the controversy over his proposed election to the Baseball Hall of Fame. The case against his induction has probably been fueled as much by his unpleasant and uncooperative interaction with teammates, fans, and sports journalists as by his steroid use. If the sainthood of election and the emoluments and celebrity that go with it are to have meaning beyond just technical superiority, how can Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa, much less Pete Rose, who actually bet on his own games, be included?
Or maybe in 2025, a case can be made for Rose as a good fit. As I wrote recently, he “was another of the thugs who mugged us on the dark road to dishonor and—yes, in Donald Trump’s case—even possibly tyranny. So stopping his beatification is just the sort of thing we need to do if we hope to put his version of manhood into the Hall of Shame and transform ourselves into the patriotic beast that will strike Donald Trump out.”
The Heroes Are Gone
Muhammad Ali, the biggest story of my sports writing career, died in June 2016. A few months later, Colin Kaepernick, the San Francisco 49ers’ quarterback, sat and then knelt during the national anthem before a preseason game. It was a protest against racism, more particularly against the police shootings of unarmed Black men. My initial reactions were similar to those I had watching John Carlos and Tommie Smith raise black-gloved fists from the Olympic podium in Mexico City. First, I thought that this would be an extension of Ali’s effect and then I wondered: Is this all there is?
It was, of course, even more complicated than that. Just as Ali, Carlos, and Smith paid a great personal price for their principles and courage, Kaepernick was blackballed from the National Football League. The talented Super Bowl quarterback never played after the 2016 season and most sportswriters made little fuss about it, while colluding in the effort to turn Ali into a teddy bear of history, another beatified sports hero.
But this time, the stakes were higher. Democracy was also up for grabs, and the white Christian males who ruled sports in 1957 were now ruling the country as well. What better metaphor could there be for that than football’s dominance as the new national pastime, its violence mirrored in the language and actions of the second Trump administration? In any sane country, flag football would have replaced the concussion game by now. Lots of luck on that, I’m afraid. Continuing to batter the brains of young men is as morally bankrupt a way of life as continuing to send them off to senseless wars.
Sometimes, I think sports were terminally replaced by Trumpism on January 6, 2021, when his mob of supporters enacted their own Super Bowl at the Capitol. And that—excuse me for using the word—sporting event got its own ticker-tape parade a little over four years later when President Trump pardoned them all.
Eighty-seven years after my birth and the publication of his era-defining Farewell to Sport, I wonder what Paul Gallico would have thought about that.
Keep ReadingShow Less
BBC Vows to Fight Trump's $10 Billion Lawsuit Over Documentary Editing
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said one former BBC official. "So they should definitely fight it."
Dec 16, 2025
The British Broadcasting Corporation vowed to fight back against President Donald Trump's $10 billion lawsuit filed on Monday—the latest legal challenge brought by the president against a media organization over its coverage of him.
A spokesperson for the BBC said in a brief statement on Tuesday, "We will be defending this case" after Trump filed a lawsuit in a federal court in Florida, alleging that the network defamed him and violated the state's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act when it aired edited comments he made in a speech on January 6, 2021, just before thousands of his supporters attacked the US Capitol.
Before last year's presidential election, the BBC series Panorama aired a documentary titled "Trump: A Second Chance?" The film includes a section featuring Trump's speech to a crowd in Washington, DC on January 6, with two clips of him speaking about 50 minutes apart spliced together, making it appear as though he directly urged people to march to the Capitol.
With his lawsuit, Trump has suggested the edited clip created the impression that he incited violence—though several journalists have noted that those allegations predate the documentary. The edited clip received little attention until recent months when the right-wing Daily Telegraph published details from a memo by Michael Prescott, a former BBC standards adviser with links to the Conservative Party.
In the memo, Prescott took aim at the documentary's editing and alleged a "pro-transgender bias" and "anti-Israel bias"in the BBC's news coverage.
Trump's lawsuit cites the internal review mentioned in Prescott's memo, alleging “a string of incidents that demonstrate serious bias in the corporation’s reporting.”
The BBC has publicly apologized for the editing of the documentary, but has denied that Trump has a legitimate basis for a defamation claim.
The lawsuit is Trump's latest against a media company over coverage of him. At least two cases—against ABC and CBS and its parent company, Paramount, have ended in settlements, with the companies agreeing to pay the president $16 million each. He also has a defamation case pending against the New York Times.
On Monday, Trump gave a muddled explanation of his latest lawsuit while speaking to the press at the White House, falsely claiming the BBC was accused of using AI to make him say "things [he] never said" in the documentary.
"Trump is suing the BBC. He doesn’t know why. But he’s suing anyway," said BBC presenter Sangita Myska.
Trump: "I'm suing the BBC for putting words in my mouth ... I guess they used AI or something" pic.twitter.com/VxYMDp6oZ2
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 15, 2025
Richard Tice, deputy leader of the right-wing Reform Party, expressed support for Trump's lawsuit on Tuesday and agreed with the push for "wholesale change" at the BBC. Christopher Ruddy of the Trump-aligned network Newsmax also told The Guardian that the BBC should "figure out a quick and easy settlement."
But on the network's "Today" program, former BBC Radio 4 controller Mark Damazer said that "it would be extremely damaging to the BBC’s reputation not to fight the case."
"This is about the BBC’s independence," said Damazer. "And, unlike American media organizations which have coughed up the money, the BBC doesn’t have commercial business interests that depend on President Trump’s beneficence in the White House. So they should definitely fight it."
"The BBC has likely an extremely strong case," he added. "The 1960s established a very wide margin of press freedom in a case called Sullivan v. The New York Times, from which the BBC would undoubtedly benefit... President Trump was not harmed by what the BBC mistakenly did in its Panorama edit. The program wasn’t shown in the United States. He was neither financially nor politically hurt, and the BBC should definitely fight this case."
Zoe Gardner, a researcher and commentator on migration policy in the UK, denounced "far-right politicians and pundits" for "cheering" Trump's lawsuit.
"Given the BBC is publicly funded, this is Donald Trump suing you and me," Gardner said. "It’s a pathetic cry-bully attack on journalism by a wannabe dictator and an attack on every British person."
Keep ReadingShow Less
From Minnesota to the US Capitol: Tracing the Threat of Christian Nationalism
It’s safe to say that Vance Boelter’s actions were at least partially motivated by sycophants and political figures who twisted the Gospel and scripture for their benefit.
Aug 17, 2025
It’s easy to look at Vance Boelter, who pleaded not guilty to federal charges for murdering a Minnesota state representative and her husband, and think of him as a deeply unwell individual who took out his personal anger and frustration on civil servants. But there’s more at play here.
The ideology reported to have likely contributed to Boelter’s violence is the same set of beliefs espoused by elected officials across the country, including US House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), who flies a flag symbolic of those beliefs outside his office.
Boelter graduated from Christ for the Nations Institute, a nonaccredited Bible college in Texas, that is reported to be a “stronghold of the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), the charismatic movement that teaches that Christians are called to take over the US government.” Adherents are taught “to see themselves as agents of the supernatural”—a belief Boelter seems to hold about himself based on correspondence with the New York Times. Notable alumni of the Institute include Lance Wallnau and Dutch Sheets. In addition to their roles as self-appointed NAR prophets, both are influential within MAGA circles and were big proponents of the Big Lie, preaching violence to win power.
The NAR, and the related Seven Mountain Mandate theology championed by Wallnau in particular, is a push for total control of society through any means necessary. The Appeal to Heaven flag, propped up by Sheets and associated with the movement, was proudly flown on January 6, 2021 by insurrectionists storming the Capitol building and infamously outside the home of US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito. Its presence outside the speaker’s office makes a clear declaration about Christian nationalism and the dangerous NAR as ever-present forces in the highest offices of power, shaping policies that impact the lives of millions of Americans.
Always painting political opponents as enemies of God and your work as God’s will, and calling on adherents to take up arms—even if the intent is metaphorical—leads adherents to being more open to violence.
Wallnau regularly appeared on Christian media outlets and platforms to prop US President Donald Trump up as a holy savior and has called for “spiritual warfare” and expressed support for political violence in support of Trump. Meanwhile, Sheets’ daily YouTube broadcasts reached more than 200,000 views a day to spread the Big Lie. In fact, Matthew D. Taylor, religious studies scholar and Christian nationalism expert, writes, “No Christian leader did more to mobilize Christians to be in DC on January 6 than Dutch Sheets.”
Though we don’t know how closely Boelter followed Wallnau and Sheets, it’s safe to say that his actions were at least partially motivated by sycophants and political figures who twisted the Gospel and scripture for their benefit.
Certainly, neither of these men told Boelter or anyone else to assassinate anyone or take violent action. However, always painting political opponents as enemies of God and your work as God’s will, and calling on adherents to take up arms—even if the intent is metaphorical—leads adherents to being more open to violence. Nonpartisan research organization PRRI, finds that support for Christian nationalism and adherence to right-wing authoritarian views correlate with acceptance of political violence.
For years, men like Wallnau and Sheets have joined the likes of Michael Flynn, David Barton, Sean Feucht, Charlie Kirk, Lara Locke, Alex Jones, Mike Lindell, Jackson Lahmeyer, current Federal Bureau of Investigations Director Kash Patel, and sitting elected officials, including Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.), touring the country through events like ReAwaken America and the Courage Tour. At each stop, they’ve framed their work as a “holy war,” offering speeches steeped in hateful, harmful rhetoric that created a permission structure for violence.
In the immediate aftermath of a tragedy, as happened in Minnesota, when we rush to characterize the perpetrator as a lone wolf, as crazy, we miss the forest for the trees. We begin to normalize the ideologies and conditions that contributed to the violence, risking more harm as they seep more deeply into our culture.
For example, proud evangelical and self-proclaimed “amateur historian” David Barton once called “the most influential evangelist you’ve never heard of,” has secured the ear of lawmakers, both local and national, and has had his fingerprints on “28 bills that have cropped up before 18 states this year,” including my home state of Oklahoma. He’s also one of the leading voices behind the movement to dismantle the US Department of Education—an initiative straight from the pages of Project 2025, which has become the Trump administration’s policy roadmap.
I’ve watched first hand as Oklahoma became a testing ground for Project 2025 and our schools dropped to among the worst in the nation. State Superintendent Ryan Walters has pushed for legislation requiring the Ten Commandments to be displayed in every classroom. Walters even went so far as to buy Bibles branded with Trump’s name, which he intended to place in every classroom in the state, while seeking to force teachers to teach liturgy instead of literacy.
We cannot, therefore, divorce what happened in Minnesota from the actions on Capitol Hill, in state legislatures, or at school board meetings across the country, for they are bound by an ideology that preaches power by any means necessary.
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