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
john kennedy
DHS ‘100 Million Deportations’ Claim Was No Joke. Bovino Had ‘Master Plan’ to Purge Nearly a Third of the Country
This month, a GOP senator accused an immigration researcher of “hyperbole” for saying the Department of Homeland Security was advocating “ethnic cleansing” with its calls to expel 100 million people.
Mar 26, 2026
When the official social media account for the US Department of Homeland Security made a post glorifying the idea of “100 million deportations," it was dismissed by many as a joke, while those who said it amounted to a call for ”ethnic cleansing“ were accused of ”hyperbole.“
But the man who once led President Donald Trump’s mass deportation campaign says he was always dead serious about purging nearly a third of the country’s population.
On Tuesday, The New York Times published an interview with Gregory Bovino, the former “commander-at-large” of President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, who was unceremoniously demoted back to his old post in El Centro, California this January, after immigration agents’ rampage across Minnesota—which included the public executions of two American citizens—ignited nationwide backlash.
Bovino, who is retiring this week at the age of 55, told the Times he had few regrets about his tenure leading the efforts of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP), which were marked by rampant racial profiling, large indiscriminate roundups, violations of civil liberties, and violent attacks on peaceful protesters.
But he wishes he had gone much further. According to the Times:
Mr. Bovino said he had a master plan that was in motion before his exile back to El Centro. It would have neutralized protesters, he said, and made it possible to deport 100 million people.
That is a goal that the Department of Homeland Security has widely promoted. If it sounds extreme, that’s because it’s nearly 10 times the estimated number of undocumented people in the country. It is also more than a quarter of the entire US population.
As Common Dreams reported back in late December, when DHS posted a meme about "100 million deportations," that number bears striking significance, since it was close to the number of people living in the US who identified as non-white on the 2020 census—about 96 million.
According to the Migration Policy Institute, it's also approximately the number of foreign-born people and their children, which was about 97.2 million as of 2024.
There are about 47 million foreign-born people living in the US, meaning that such a policy would also entail the deportation of around 53 million US-born citizens.
While Bovino and former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem have lost their jobs, it's unclear whether the new head of DHS, Secretary Markwayne Mullin, will join the push to expel 100 million people from the US.
The Times provided little exposition about how precisely Bovino planned to carry out what would be by far the largest campaign of forced displacement in American, if not world, history.
However, the article demonstrates that the idea was not simply a troll post by a social media intern, but a sincere objective for a man who answered directly to the Secretary of Homeland Security and was elevated to the position of America’s most powerful immigration enforcer.
Bovino's admission of this goal was of particular note to David J. Bier, an immigration researcher at the Cato Institute and a prominent critic of Trump's immigration policy. He discussed the "100 million deportations" goal earlier this month during a Senate Budget Committee hearing.
DHS's post came up after Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) attempted to discredit Bier by reading off supposedly "hyperbolic" posts he'd made on social media, including one accusing Republicans of thinking "they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing."
Bier responded that his post was "in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about 100 million deportations. That is what DHS has tweeted from their account."
As Kennedy attempted to shout over Bier, the researcher said: "100 million deportations would be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one-third of the country."
"And you don't think this is hyperbolic?" Kennedy interrupted, smirking. The senator brought up another of Bier's posts in which he claimed Trump was carrying out a "population purge agenda," adding sarcastically, "No hyperbole there!"
“When I talk about ‘population purge,’ I’m talking about the fact that they’re trying to deport US-born citizens, people born here,” Bier responded. “They are trying to deport them as well. So it’s not a ‘mass deportation' agenda. It’s also an agenda intended to reduce the population of the United States, including US-born citizens. So these are not ‘hyperbolic’ statements.”
Kennedy ignored Bier's argument, instead derisively asking "what planet" he was from and saying he triggered his "gag reflex." It is not clear if Kennedy was aware of Trump's frequent calls to "denaturalize" American citizens or his administration's efforts to eliminate the constitutional provision of birthright citizenship.
The Houston-based immigration attorney Steven Brown said that Bovino’s apparent “master plan” was “exactly what Bier testified about, since 100 million deportations would expel ”one-third of the US population and would necessitate citizens being deported to accomplish.“
Jessica Riedl, a fellow at the Brookings Institution, called the idea "just dangerously insane," and something out of "white supremacist fan fiction."
"These are the armed fanatics who were given police power in our cities," she added.
Noting that many of the commenters who replied to his posts expressed support for the idea, Bier warned that "DHS's 100 million deportations ethnic cleansing agenda is spreading throughout the right-wing echo chamber as it is intended. It is only a matter of time before this extremism becomes standard rhetoric for GOP candidates."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Expert Explains in Fiery Hearing How Trump's Mass Deportation Agenda Is Actually a 'Population Purge'
Republican Sen. John Kennedy scoffed as David J. Bier of the Cato Institute outlined how the Trump administration has openly demanded "ethnic cleansing" through the deportation of 100 million people.
Mar 11, 2026
A Republican senator on Tuesday accused an immigration policy expert of "hyperbole" in his condemnation of President Donald Trump's anti-immigration agenda during a hearing—but the witness, David J. Bier of the libertarian Cato Institute, emphasized that the administration's own words and policies have clearly pointed to a goal of expelling millions of citizens from the United States.
At a hearing on sanctuary cities held by the Senate Budget Committee, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) read a post Bier wrote on social media in December 2025 in which he said Trump administration officials "think they can troll their way into us accepting ethnic cleansing," suggesting it was one of many "hyperbolic statements" that discredit Bier.
Bier, the director of immigration studies for the Cato Institute, has spent the past year tracking the Trump administration's mass deportation agenda, in which a majority of people who have been detained have had no criminal convictions, despite the White House's persistent claims it is targeting "the worst of the worst" violent criminals.
He was unfazed by Kennedy's questioning, quickly replying that his comment was in response to a social media post by the Department of Homeland Security's official account in which the agency shared an image of a Cadillac on a beach, featuring the message, "America after 100 million deportations."
"That was in regard to a Department of Homeland Security post about advocating 100 million deportations," said Bier as the senator attempted to talk over him. "One hundred million deportations would be ethnic cleansing. You would be removing one-third of country."
This exchange between David Bier and Sen Foghorn Leghorn (R-LA) is something else. Kennedy thinks he has him in three separate gotcha moments, but not so fast Bier had his number. The clip is a bit long but it’s 3 minutes of Kennedy getting owned. Watch👇pic.twitter.com/HPHicyUcl1
— Brian Cardone 🏴☠️🇺🇦 (@cardon_brian) March 10, 2026
Kennedy didn't respond, instead reading a post Bier wrote on March 2 which said: "If you rule against Trump's population purge agenda... the nativists will name you, threaten you, and come after you. These judges are much braver than the [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] agents who hide behind masks while violating the Constitution."
Bier stood by his defense of judges; his post had been in reference to a "60 Minutes" interview given by US District Judge John Coughenour, who described a hoax in which law enforcement showed up at his house after getting a report that he had murdered his wife. He also received a bomb threat, with both incidents taking place after he ruled against Trump's executive order aimed at ending the 14th Amendment's guarantee of birthright citizenship.
The Cato expert also defended his reference to a "population purge," saying: "I'm talking about the fact that they're trying to deport US citizens, people born here. They are trying to deport them as well. So it's not a 'mass deportation agenda.' It is also an agenda intended to reduce the population of the United States."
"These are not hyperbolic statements," he said as Kennedy hurled insults at Bier, asking "what planet" he was from and telling him he triggered the senator's "gag reflex" before being cut off by Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC).
Kennedy also accused Bier of making a "hyperbolic statement" on February 11, when he posted on the social media platform Bluesky that in addition to advising US military officers to refuse to carry out illegal orders, Democratic members of Congress should warn them "to refuse unethical orders."
Bier readily defended his remark, asking Kennedy: "Do you disagree with it? You think people should do unethical things?" The senator didn't respond.
It was unclear whether Kennedy was unfamiliar with the president's plan to strip people of their US citizenship—one of the first efforts of his second term, with the executive order signed just after he took office—or if he was simply "looking for fundraising sound bites," as one Cato Institute staffer posited.
Bier said Wednesday that it was the second time in a month that Kennedy has appeared "shocked" to learn about the policies of the president he has supported for nearly a decade.
"Just a month earlier I had explained to him how the Trump administration has already banned HALF of all legal immigrants to the US," said Bier, pointing to his testimony from February in which he explained how the White House has suspended immigrant visas and US Citizenship and Immigration Services benefit applications.
Listen to how shocked Senator Kennedy was. I should've clarified more how it's actually three different overlapping policies (the presidential visa ban, the USCIS benefits suspension, and the State Dept immigrant visa suspension) leading to the theft from applicants. pic.twitter.com/SZh4PMzc6j
— David J. Bier (@David_J_Bier) February 11, 2026
The hearing on sanctuary cities was subtitled "The Cost of Undermining Law and Order," but Bier focused his testimony on the Cato Institute's extensive research that's found immigration has reduced government deficits by at least $14.5 trillion over the last 30 years.
"I was invited to the Budget Committee because of this comprehensive study Cato published, not to discuss random tweets," said Bier. "The Democrats all wanted to talk substance. The other side name-called. Incredible contrast."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Pro-War Republican Senator Apologizes for Iran Girls' School Massacre After Trump Blames Tehran
An ongoing US military probe has determined that the United States launched the Tomahawk missile attack that killed around 175 people—mostly children—in Minab on the first day of the war on Iran.
Mar 11, 2026
A Republican senator apologized this week for what US military investigators have reportedly determined was an American missile strike on a girls' school in southern Iran that killed around 175 people—mostly children—amid continued sidestepping by President Donald Trump, who has blamed Tehran for the massacre.
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.)—who supports the US-Israeli war on Iran—first apologized for the attack on the Shajareh Tayyebeh girls’ elementary school in Minab during a Monday interview with NBC News senior national political reporter Sahil Kapur.
"It was terrible," Kennedy said. "We made a mistake... I'm just so sorry it happened."
Kennedy repeated his apology Tuesday on CNN, telling political correspondent Kasie Hunt: "The investigation may prove me wrong. I hope so. The kids are still dead, but I think it was a horrible, horrible mistake. I wish it hadn't happened. I'm sorry it happened."
1. GOP Senator John Kennedy on why he felt it was important to apologize and acknowledge the truth about the bombing of a school in Minab, Iran, which multiple reports indicate was caused by a U.S. military targeting error.
[image or embed]
— Yashar Ali 🐘 (@yasharali.bsky.social) March 10, 2026 at 4:51 PM
Reuters first reported last week that US military investigators believe American forces carried out the school strike, a preliminary conclusion that came on the heels of a New York Times analysis that found the US was “most likely to have carried out the strike" due to its near-simultaneous bombing of a nearby Iranian naval base.
This week, Iranian officials displayed fragments from what is believed to be the Tomahawk missile used in the school bombing. The remnants were marked with the names of two US arms companies, a Pentagon contract number, and the words "Made in USA."
On Wednesday, Tfhe New York Times reported that the ongoing military probe has determined that the US launched the Tomahawk strike, which paramedics and victims' relatives said was a so-called "double-tap," in which the attacker bombs a target and then follows up with a second strike meant to kill survivors and first responders. Investigators attribute the strike to a "targeting error," according to the Times.
This, as Trump—who warned as his illegal war started that "bombs will be dropping everywhere"—continued sidestepping blame for the attack.
On Saturday, Trump said aboard Air Force One that "based on what I’ve seen, that was done by Iran.”
Two days later, the president falsely claimed that Iran has "some" Tomahawk missiles and may have used one of them to bomb the school. Iran has no Tomahawks—which are highly restricted and sold only to a handful of close allies—and the US does not sell weapons to the Iranian government, with the notable exception of the Iran-Contra Affair, when the Reagan administration secretly sold arms to Tehran in order to fund anti-communist Contra terrorists in Nicaragua.
Other senior Trump administration officials including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and US Ambassador to the United Nations Michael Waltz have declined to back the president's claims and have instead deferred to the ongoing military investigation.
Kennedy told NBC News and CNN that the school bombing was unintentional.
"Other countries do that sort of thing intentionally, like Russia," he told Kapur. "We would never do that intentionally."
Since then-President George W. Bush launched the so-called Global War on Terror following the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States, more than 430,000 civilians have been killed in over half a dozen countries, according to the Costs of War Project at Brown University's Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs.
In 2020, the Costs of War Project reported a 330% rise in civilian casualties in Afghanistan following the first Trump administration's move to loosen military rules of engagement meant to protect noncombatants. While campaigning for president in 2016, Trump infamously vowed to "bomb the shit" out of Islamic State militants and "take out their families"—a war crime—and after his election he ramped up bombing of Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries, killing thousands of civilians.
The Biden administration subsequently attempted to tackle the issue, publishing the Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response Action Plan (CHMR-AP), which laid out a series of policy steps aimed at preventing and responding to the death and injury of civilians.
However, since returning to office, Trump has effectively sidelined the plan. Prioritizing "lethality," Hegseth said at the outset of the current war that US forces won't be bound by "stupid rules of engagement."
Israel, which is bombing Iran along with US forces while simultaneously striking Lebanon and Gaza—where more than 250,000 Palestinians have been killed or wounded during 29 months of genocidal war—dramatically loosened its rules of engagement following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack, effectively allowing for an unlimited number of civilian deaths in any strike targeting any member of the militant resistance group, no matter how low-ranking.
According to leaked Israel Defense Forces data, 5 in 6 Palestinians killed by the IDF through the first 19 months of the US-backed war were civilians.
Hundreds of Iranian and Lebanese civilians have been killed by US and Israeli attacks since February 28. US and Israeli use of artificial intelligence systems to select bombing targets exponentially faster than any person has also raised concerns regarding a lack of meaningful human oversight. One former IDF officer said AI enabled a "mass assassination factory" in Gaza.
Last year's US and Israeli attacks on Iran also killed hundreds of civilians, according to the group Human Rights Activists in Iran.
Kennedy's apology—which some observers dismissed due to the senator's support for the war and rejection of a war powers resolution meant to limit Trump's ability to attack Iran without the legally required congressional approval—is still notable, as US leaders, and especially Republicans, are usually highly reluctant to say they're sorry for civilian deaths.
For example, after the USS Vincennes accidentally shot down Iran Air Flight 655 in 1988, killing all 290 civilians aboard, then-Vice President George H.W. Bush—who was running for president—infamously declared, "I'll never apologize for the United States of America, ever; I don't care what the facts are."
The history of US-Iran relations they don’t teach you:
A month after the US shot down Iran Air Flight 665, killing 290 passengers, George H.W. Bush proudly declared:
“I’ll never apologize for the United States, I don’t care what the facts are.” https://t.co/1nNvIYR9MX pic.twitter.com/iFa3Ydh4Fo
— Afshin Rattansi (@afshinrattansi) February 25, 2026
Two years later, Bush, then president, awarded the Vincennes officer in charge of air warfare a commendation medal for the “heroic achievement” of "quickly and precisely" downing the civilian airliner. The ship's captain was also honored with the Legion of Merit for his “outstanding service.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
How a Senate Hearing Designed to Combat Hate Ended Up Exhibiting It
One side wanted to understand the problem of hate and what can be done to understand and arrest its growth, while the other side seemed more intent on pouring gasoline on the fire. It was shameful.
Sep 23, 2024
Our politics and system of governance is in crisis. This was made clear this past week before and during the US Senate Judiciary Committee’s hearing on hate crimes in America.
The hearing was titled, “A Threat to Justice Everywhere: Stemming the Tide of Hate Crimes in America,” and was designed to examine the dramatic increase in hate crimes and to suggest a whole of government approach to deal with this problem. The expert witnesses invited to present testimony were: Kenneth Stern, Director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate; Maya Berry, Co-chair of the Hate Crimes Task Force at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (LCCHR) and Executive Director of the Arab American Institute; and Rabbi Mark Goldfeder, Director of the National Jewish Advocacy Center. Stern and Berry were invited by the Majority (Democrats), while Goldfeder was the pick of the Republican side.
Even before the day of the hearing, the depth of the divisions plaguing American society were evident. Republicans objected that the hearings were designed to focus on hate crimes affecting all vulnerable communities in the US. What they wanted instead was a replication of the hearings that the GOP-led House had convened, ostensibly focused on antisemitism, but which strayed far afield. A few conservative American Jewish organizations were also troubled by this broader approach.
Republicans criticized Stern, who despite having been an official at the American Jewish Committee and the lead author of the controversial International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) definition, has since become a critic of the way this IHRA definition has been used to restrict free speech and its conflation of some legitimate criticism of Israel with antisemitism.
Berry is one of the leading researchers on hate crime data on the federal and state levels and the problems encountered in hate crime reporting. She was also the force behind the “Jabara-Heyer NO HATE Act” designed to improve federal hate crime reporting. Though highly regarded for her advocacy for all affected communities through her work with LCCHR, she was seemingly targeted by Republicans for one simple reason: She’s an Arab American who has been critical of Israeli policies and of efforts, domestically, to punish critics of those policies.
It was clear from the outset that all would not go well. Democrats made the case that their concern was the overall rise in hate crimes affecting multiple groups, while Republicans derided the entire effort as deliberately sidestepping the “real problem”—antisemitism. For her part, Berry meticulously detailed the statistics of the dramatic rise in recent years in hate crimes against each group: Blacks, Latinos, Asians, Arabs, Jews, Muslims, LGBTQ, and those with disabilities. She then outlined problems with underreporting, the difficulty in reconciling state and federal data, and made specific recommendations for improving reporting and enforcement of existing hate crime legislation.
Stern insisted that universities have an obligation to protect all students and faculty against being “bullied, harassed, intimidated, threatened, or discriminated against,” cautioned Congress against codifying a broad definition of antisemitism, noting it has not been necessary to fight hate for any community. He argued that instead of policing speech— prioritizing one view over another, resulting in an “us versus them” polarization—universities had the responsibility to protect speech and promote civil discourse by challenging students to understand diverse points of view and the people who hold these views. It is the more difficult path to pursue, but, in the end, it is the role of the university to educate not police or punish.
On the other hand, Goldfeder agreed with the Republicans that the hearing should have only focused on antisemitism, arguing that it is not only the most important challenge facing America today, but also that all other forms of hate emanate from it.
True to form, the Republicans who asked questions rejected the broad focus of the hearing, delivering inflammatory remarks against U.S. students protesting the genocide unfolding in Gaza, charging that they were being funded or encouraged by Hamas, Hezbollah, and Iran. Goldfeder agreed saying that the students were either directly serving these entities or were their “useful idiots.”
Others harassed Berry, demanding that she denounce Hamas and agree that statements like “intifada” or “from the river to the sea…” were calls for genocide against Jews. Berry calmly rejected this baiting, saying that she of course didn’t support Hamas as it is a “foreign terrorist organization” and she rejected all forms of violence. This, however, wasn’t enough for one Senator, who continued to badger her, causing her to respond that she was only being asked these questions because she is an Arab-American woman. She went on: “It’s regrettable that as I sit here today, I have experienced the very issue that we’re attempting to deal with today. This has been regrettably a real disappointment, but very much an indication of the danger to our democratic institutions that we’re in today.”
The audience of largely Arab and Jewish Americans, who had gathered to witness the hearing, instead of learning about the rise of hate and the crimes that might result from it, left with heightened passions. It was, as Berry noted, disappointing and an indication of how broken we have become. One side wanted to understand the problem of hate and what can be done to understand and arrest its growth, while the other side seemed more intent on pouring gasoline on the fire and watching it burn—all for political gain.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Omar Says Bigotry of Senator Kennedy 'Just the Tip of the Iceberg'
"It was telling that Kennedy along with his Republican colleagues could not avoid actively engaging in anti-Muslim hate speech during a hearing about the rise in hate crimes," said the congresswoman.
Sep 20, 2024
The U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing earlier this week on the rise in hate crimes since last October was historic for its inclusion of testimony on crimes against Palestinians, Muslims, and Arab Americans, said Rep. Ilhan Omar on Friday—but the event also served to illustrate how Islamophobia is still widely accepted—and practiced—among top government officials, including elected lawmakers.
The Minnesota Democrat responded to comments made by Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) to witness Maya Berry, executive director of the Arab American Institute, in which the lawmaker accused Berry of supporting Hamas and Hezbollah and told her to "hide [her] head in a bag."
"It was telling that Kennedy along with his Republican colleagues could not avoid actively engaging in anti-Muslim hate speech during a hearing about the rise in hate crimes," said Omar in an op-ed published by The Guardian. "As unfair remarks were hurled at [Berry], the American people witnessed the very purpose of the hearing in plain view for all: The normalization of hate speech is alive and well."
Omar applauded Berry's "grace, sensitivity, and poise" as she spoke out against hate speech and violence against all groups in a departure from how bigotry has been approached by Congress since October, when Hamas led an attack on southern Israel.
The congresswoman noted that while "the rise of antisemitism has sparked many hearings in Congress... this was the first hearing since October 7 that addressed hate targeting Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian Americans. Fighting bigotry requires us to condemn it wherever we see it. For far too long, hate speech made against Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian Americans goes ignored."
Berry said at the hearing that "hate against any one group is inseparable from hate against all and hate prevention should be done collectively—in coalition and partnership with all communities affected by hate."
But the acceptance within Congress of hatred against Muslims and Arab Americans was made clear on Tuesday not just by Kennedy's remarks, but also those of Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).
Graham rejected the inclusion of bigotry other than antisemitism in his opening remarks, while Cruz said the Democratic Party has a "pro-Hamas wing," apparently referring to those who oppose the U.S.-backed Israeli military's assault on Gaza, which has killed more than 41,000 people—the majority of whom were civilians—since last October.
"Islamophobia sells to their base and that is why they remain hellbent on ginning up hate speech at the expense of communities across this country they deem as 'other,' including their own constituents," wrote Omar. "The reality is, Kennedy will face no consequences for his actions because of his power, position, privilege, and incompetence. But for millions of Arab, Muslim, and Palestinian Americans across this country, it is imperative that we call out this speech in order to bring needed change and for the safety of those communities."
"Not only should his comments be unequivocally condemned by every single sitting member of Congress," added Omar of Kennedy, "but his remarks raise serious concerns about the normalization of Islamophobic hate speech in our country."
Numerous rights groups including the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the Center for American Progress, and the ACLU have denounced the senators' remarks, but has not faced wide condemnation from his colleagues.
Omar warned that allowing Kennedy's remarks to stand without wide condemnation from his congressional colleagues could have "tangible consequences"—noting that Arab Americans have faced deadly violence since last October. Three students of Palestinian descent were shot in Vermont weeks after Israel began its assault on Gaza, leaving one paralyzed, and six-year-old Wadee Alfayoumi, a Palestinian American, was murdered in Chicago soon after.
As Omar's op-ed was published on Friday, the right-wing National Review published a political cartoon showing Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) with an exploding pager—a reference to Israel's deadly bombings this week using communications devices in Lebanon. Rights advocate and Dearborn, Michigan mayor Abdullah Hammoud denounced the drawing as "absolutely appalling."
"As someone who has been the subject of frequent death threats and offensive Islamophobic speech, I know the harm of hate speech firsthand," said Omar. "This speech is corroding our democracy, the fabric of our communities, and the future of our country."
But if Kennedy felt comfortable openly accusing an Arab American rights advocate of supporting terrorism in a public hearing, the congresswoman suggested, Islamophobia is proliferating throughout Congress and the Republican Party.
"Kennedy's comments were just the tip of the iceberg," said Omar. "It is incumbent upon all of us to call out hate speech whenever we see it because fighting bigotry of any kind means fighting bigotry of every kind."
Keep ReadingShow Less
GOP Senator Accused of 'Hate Speech' Against Arab American Witness at Hate Crimes Hearing
At the hearing, advocate Maya Berry said she "experienced the very issue that we're attempting to deal with today."
Sep 17, 2024
After Republican lawmakers and some activists objected to Arab American Institute executive director Maya Berry's inclusion in the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee's hearing on the rise in hate crimes in the country, GOP Sen. John Kennedy unleashed what one critic said was anti-Muslim "hate speech" during his questioning.
"You support Hamas, don't you?" asked the Louisiana senator at the hearing titled "A Threat to Justice Everywhere: Stemming the Tide of Hate Crimes in America." Kennedy also conflated Hamas with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), the agency tasked with providing public services and aid to Gaza's 2.3 million residents.
Berry replied that it was "exceptionally disappointing that you're looking at an Arab American witness before you and saying, 'You support Hamas.'"
She then said clearly, "I do not support Hamas," but was cut off by Kennedy as he raised his voice to accuse her of being unable to disavow the group, also accusing her of supporting Hezbollah and Iran.
"You should hide your head in a bag," said Kennedy, drawing gasps from the audience.
The "horrific remark" was "a blatant example of anti-Arab, anti-Palestinian, and anti-Muslim rhetoric," said the Muslim voter mobilization group Emgage Action.
The Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee denounced Kennedy's "horrible" comment, instead amplifying Berry's response, in which she said that while taking part in a hearing on hate speech and hate crimes, she "experienced the very issue that we're attempting to deal with today."
"This has been, regrettably, a real disappointment but very much an indication of the danger to our democratic institutions that we're in now," said Berry.
Berry also faced condemnation from Kennedy over her opposition to the United States' decision to suspend funding for UNRWA—a move that resulted from unverified Israeli claims that agency employees had worked with Hamas, and which has been denounced by international rights groups and experts due to its impact on people who rely on the agency in Gaza.
"Maya Berry went before the committee to discuss hate crimes. Both Ms. Berry and the topic should have been treated with the respect and seriousness they deserve," said Robert McCaw, government affairs director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR). "Instead, Sen. Kennedy and others chose to be an example of the bigotry Arabs, Palestinians, and Muslims have faced in recent months and years."
Republicans on the committee had decried Democrats for inviting witnesses whose testimony delved into issues aside from antisemitism—which was conflated with anti-Zionism in a bill passed by the House earlier this year and in one introduced in the Senate.
Along with Berry, a leading advocate against anti-Arab and anti-Muslim bias in the U.S., the Democrats invited Kenneth Stern, director of the Bard Center for the Study of Hate, who has denounced right-wing groups for "weaponizing" claims of antisemitism against people who speak out against the Israeli government.
In her testimony, Berry spoke about the rise in hate crimes against Arab and Muslim Americans, as well as against Jewish people, Black people, Asian Americans, and other groups.
After Israel began its bombardment of Gaza in retaliation for a Hamas-led attack last October, CAIR reported a 56% rise in hate crimes against Palestinians and Muslims in the United States, with 8,061 attacks reported in 2023. From January-June 2024, the grou documented 4,951 complaints, a 69% increase over the same period in 2023.
Arif Rafiq, a strategist and author, said that there would likely be "no censure of Sen. Kennedy" following his comments in the hearing.
"Bigotry toward Arabs and Muslims, even in this most brazen form," said Rafiq, "is acceptable in American politics."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Billionaire Harlan Crow Also Bankrolled GOP Lawmakers Blocking SCOTUS Ethics Reform
A new analysis shows Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee have received more than $450,000 from the same GOP megadonor who has lavished Justice Clarence Thomas with undisclosed gifts.
May 09, 2023
The Senate Judiciary Committee on Monday sent a letter asking Harlan Crow—the billionaire GOP megadonor who has secretly showered U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas with hundreds of thousands of dollars in gifts since the mid-1990s—to provide a full accounting of his financial ties to Thomas and any other judges on the high court.
It comes as "no surprise" that none of the panel's nine Republicans signed the letter, Accountable.US declared Tuesday, because they have collectively accepted nearly half a million dollars in campaign cash from Crow since the turn of the century, as a new analysis from the watchdog group shows.
Last month, one day after ProPublica published its bombshell report on Crow's under-the-table funding of near-annual luxury vacations for Thomas—the first of what would become many revelations about the two men's financial relationship—Accountable.US calculated that the current Republican members of the Senate Judiciary Committee received $453,300 from Crow between 2001 and 2022. The group revised that figure up to $457,000 on Tuesday in light of a $3,700 donation Crow made to Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) earlier this year.
The following is a list of Crow's total contributions to the nine GOP lawmakers on the panel as well as their affiliated PACs and joint fundraising committees, in descending order:
- Cornyn: $294,800
- Sen. Chuck Grassley (Iowa): $46,600
- Sen. Tom Cotton (Ark.): $23,900
- Sen. Ted Cruz (Texas): $23,500
- Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.): $20,600
- Sen. Mike Lee (Utah): $19,500
- Sen. Thom Tillis (N.C.): $13,400
- Sen. John Kennedy (La.): $8,300
- Sen. Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.): $6,400
"There should be bipartisan outrage about the undisclosed gifts and travel billionaire megadonor Harlan Crow has given Justice Thomas," Accountable.US president Kyle Herrig said last month. "Senate Judiciary Republicans should join their Democratic colleagues to act. However, their silence so far may be because they have received hundreds of thousands of dollars from Crow as well."
"The highest court in the land should have the highest ethical standards," he added. "When it doesn't, Congress should exert its oversight authority."
Not only have Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee with apparent conflicts of interest refused to join their Democratic colleagues in trying to establish enforceable ethics rules for the Supreme Court, but they have attempted to downplay the seriousness of the court's growing crisis of legitimacy.
Several of the panel's GOP members used last week's hearing on proposed Supreme Court ethics reforms—a hearing Chief Justice John Roberts refused to testify at despite mounting evidence of possible corruption involving Thomas and others, including Roberts himself as well as Justice Neil Gorsuch—as "an opportunity for political grandstanding and performative outrage," Accountable.US noted Tuesday.
"Cornyn claimed Congress did not have the authority to regulate the courts due to separation of powers—a claim that was disproven by an expert witness that testified at the hearing," Accountable.US pointed out. "Cruz claimed the hearing was not about judicial ethics, but instead, was an attempt to attack Justice Thomas for having rich friends."
Lee went so far as to say that "when this chapter of American history is written, those who attack Justice Thomas today will be justly dismissed as intolerant bigots."
Meanwhile, Graham, the ranking member, accused the left of trying to "delegitimize the court and cherry-pick examples to make a point." Echoing his right-wing ally, Grassley argued that recent revelations are part of a long-term effort to "cast doubt on certain judges and justices, all because the left is opposed to recent court rulings."
Kennedy, for his part, denounced "attacks on conservative justices" as "targeted" and "exaggerated" and dismissed proposed Supreme Court ethics rules as "unnecessary."
Two days after right-wing senators accused reform advocates of launching what Cruz called a "smear campaign" against Thomas, ProPublica revealed that Crow also paid tens of thousands of dollars for the jurist's grandnephew to attend a pair of elite private schools. This came after earlier exposés about Crow footing the bill for yacht trips, buying and remodeling Thomas' mother's home, and more.
Given the mounting evidence of potential connections between Crow's gifts, which Thomas sought to keep hidden, and Thomas' inclination to rule in ways favorable to his superrich benefactor, calls for the judge to resign or face impeachment are growing.
Not only does Crow have links to numerous right-wing groups involved in Supreme Court cases since Thomas was first confirmed to the bench in 1991, but his own real estate company, Crow Holdings, was directly implicated in a 2021 case before the court.
As The Lever reported last month, Thomas voted to end the Covid-era federal eviction moratorium after Crow Holdings called the lifesaving policy a threat to its "profit margins." Now, as a group of New York City landlords prepares to ask the high court to overturn local rent control laws condemned by Crow Holdings—a move that would endanger rent stabilization efforts nationwide—"there is no indication" Thomas would recuse himself, the outlet noted.
Moreover, as Common Dreams reported last week, an Americans for Tax Fairness analysis of campaign finance data shows that after Thomas provided a deciding vote in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission case, the Crow family's average annual campaign contributions soared by 862%, from $163,241 before 2010 to $1.57 million since.
This massive increase, which is partly reflected in Crow's donations to Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee, underscores how the 5-4 ruling that effectively legalized unlimited political spending has strengthened the wealthy's ability to shape electoral outcomes, further undermining U.S. democracy.
On Tuesday, The Lever argued that the main goal of Crow and other billionaires who provide gifts and outside money to members of the Supreme Court is not to obtain certain decisions in specific cases, given that the court's right-wing ideologues would likely rule conservatively anyway, but to prevent GOP appointees from becoming more liberal over time—a phenomenon that has occurred in the past.
Alluding to Monday's letter from Senate Judiciary Committee Chair Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), The Washington Post reported that "if Crow ignores the request for information by the committee's May 22 deadline, it's unclear what Durbin's next move would be."
The San Francisco Chronicle reported Tuesday that Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) is returning to Capitol Hill after an illness kept her away from the Senate since February. Feinstein's absence has left Durbin without a majority on the panel, enabling the GOP minority to impede action, but her return would open up options.
In an interview with CNN on Sunday, Durbin did not rule out the possibility of a subpoena, saying that "everything is on the table."
In addition to the implementation of robust ethics rules, progressives have called for other far-reaching changes to disempower the country's "rogue" Supreme Court justices, including expanding the court. Seats have been added seven times throughout U.S. history.
Polling data shows that public approval of the nation's chief judicial body has decreased sharply in the months since its reactionary supermajority eliminated the constitutional right to abortion care, among other harmful and unpopular decisions. According to a survey conducted last month, nearly two-thirds of U.S. adults no longer have confidence in the high court.
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