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
mike lee
Trump and Vought Turn Shutdown Into a 'Weapon' to Target Democrats
"It's going to harm them," boasted Sen. Mike Lee, a top Trump cheerleader. "Russ Vought, the OMB director, has been dreaming about this moment... since puberty."
Oct 02, 2025
President Donald Trump is using the government shutdown to carry out an unprecedented attack on his enemies through more layoffs of federal workers and cuts to grants aimed at blue states.
In the Oval Office Tuesday, hours before the shutdown began, Trump told reporters that “when you shut it down, you have to do layoffs. So, we’d be laying off a lot of people that are going to be very affected, and they’re Democrats. They’re gonna be Democrats.”
In the days leading up to the shutdown, congressional Democrats attempted to force Republicans to roll back cuts to Medicaid and Affordable Care Act subsidies—cuts that are expected to result in as many as 15 million Americans losing their health insurance while raising premiums for tens of millions more. Trump and the GOP have blamed Democrats for the shutdown, falsely claiming that theyare pushing to fund free healthcare for "illegal aliens."
However, they've struggled to make this story land with the American public. A Washington Post poll released Thursday found that 47% of US adults blame Trump and Republicans for the shutdown, while just 30% blame Democrats and 23% say they are unsure. The sample was divided roughly equally between those who voted for Trump and those who voted for former Vice President Kamala Harris (D) in 2024.
In what Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) called an effort to use "taxpayer dollars to try and shift blame," the websites for numerous government agencies—including the US departments of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), as well as Justice, Agriculture, and several others—were updated with banners that blamed "Democrats" and the "Radical Left" for the shutdown.
Meanwhile, government employees, including those at the Small Business Administration (SBA) were directed to include similar partisan language in their out-of-office auto-reply emails.
Experts have told Politico that the use of taxpayer money for such explicit partisan messaging likely violates multiple ethics laws, including the Anti-Lobbying Act, which forbids the use of appropriated funds for lobbying activities designed to “support or defeat legislation pending before Congress.” It also pushes the boundaries of the Hatch Act, which requires federal programs to be used in a nonpartisan fashion.
The progressive consumer watchdog group Public Citizen said it has filed complaints against HUD and the SBA for what it said was an "obvious Hatch Act violation."
"The SBA and other agencies increasingly adopting this illegal, partisan tactic think they can get away with it because Trump has gutted any and all ethics oversight of the federal government," said Craig Holman, a government ethics expert with Public Citizen.
After being asked about Trump's promise to lay off "Democrats" at a press conference on Wednesday, Vice President JD Vance told reporters, "We are not targeting federal agencies based on politics."
But in a Truth Social post early Thursday morning Trump struck a somewhat different tone. He spoke of plans to meet with Russell Vought, the director of the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB), "to determine which of the many Democrat Agencies, most of which are a political SCAM, he recommends to be cut. I can’t believe the Radical Left Democrats gave me this unprecedented opportunity."
Trump also proudly described Vought as "he of PROJECT 2025 fame," referencing his leading role in crafting the Heritage Foundation's infamous blueprint for a far-right takeover of government—a takeover carried out in part through the purging of civil servants disloyal to Trump. During the 2024 election, Trump repeatedly insisted that he had "nothing to do with" Project 2025.
Vought has already begun to unilaterally withhold congressionally appropriated dollars for projects specifically for blue cities and states.
On Wednesday, he said that $18 billion in subway and tunnel funding for New York City had been “put on hold to ensure funding is not flowing based on unconstitutional [diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI)] principles.” Not long before that, Trump had threatened to entirely cut off federal funding to the city if its voters elect the democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee and current frontrunner, as its next mayor in November.
Vought then announced Thursday that he was also stripping away another nearly $8 billion worth of funding for climate-related projects, referring to it as "Green New SCAM funding to fuel the Left's climate agenda." Vought said that the funding was being withheld exclusively from projects in states led by Democrats: California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington state.
House Republicans were reportedly told by Vought on Wednesday that mass firings would also begin in "one to two" days, though he did not outline specifics about who would be fired. However, a memo Vought issued last week instructed agencies to prepare to eliminate employees “not consistent with the president’s priorities," triggering a lawsuit from federal workers' unions.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) told the press Thursday that Vought was carrying out these cuts "reluctantly" and is "not enjoying the responsibility" of deciding which programs and employees get the axe.
But in an interview on Fox News, Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), a top Trump cheerleader, was a bit more candid, proudly declaring that Trump and Vought are using the shutdown specifically to hurt Democrats.
"They're doing it deliberately. It's going to harm them," Lee said. "Because Russ Vought, the OMB director, has been dreaming about this moment, preparing for this moment, since puberty."
Rep. Mike Levin (D-Calif.) said that "Vought is pushing a scheme to turn a government shutdown into a weapon to fire career civil servants and dismantle programs Congress has already passed into law. That is not only reckless. It is flatly illegal and unconstitutional."
"Have we ever had a president work so hard to hurt the people he represents?" asked Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.). "I'm not going to be intimidated by these crooks."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Infinitely More Honest': Trump DOD Rebrand Revives 'Department of War' Moniker
Many anti-war figures actually welcomed the news, with one professor calling the Department of Defense name "a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression."
Sep 05, 2025
In his latest attempt to project an image of strength for an empire in a state of decline, US President Donald Trump on Friday signed an executive order to rename the Department of Defense the Department of War, a move that would ultimately require congressional authorization.
"I think it's a much more appropriate name, especially in light of where the world is right now," Trump explained during a signing ceremony for the move.
When floating the name change idea last month, Trump said that "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that."
Indeed, on Friday Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) introduced a bill meant to coincide with Trump's decree. The Department of War name dates back to the 18th century but hasn't been used since the National Security Act of 1947, which created the National Military Establishment (NME)—a name that was changed to Department of Defense because the acronym NME sounded too much like the word "enemy."
"The United States military is not a purely defensive force," Scott said in a statement. "We are the most lethal fighting force on the face of the planet—ready to defeat any enemy when called upon. Restoring the name to Department of War reflects our true purpose: to dominate wars, not merely respond after being provoked."
The move faces considerable opposition from lawmakers, including Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a former Navy combat pilot who, in a dig at Trump, quipped that "only someone who avoided the draft would want to rename the Department of Defense to the Department of War," and Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ), who argued that "Americans want to prevent wars, not tout them."
However, others noted that "War Department" is a moniker befitting a nation that has attacked, invaded, or occupied others in all but a handful of the Defense Department's 78-year history, and which has a global military footprint of hundreds of overseas bases.
well, it’s truth in advertising and it’s honest, which is rare for Trump
[image or embed]
— David Sirota (@davidsirota.com) September 4, 2025 at 4:54 PM
Many "non-interventionists and foreign policy realists" concur that the name change "is just more honest," as Jack Hunter wrote for Responsible Statecraft.
Pointing to this week's deadly US strike on an alleged drug-running boat in the Caribbean and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's threat of more such attacks to come, former Human Rights Watch director Kenneth Roth said Friday on social media that if Trump "keeps sending US forces to blow up alleged (but unproven) drug traffickers, he should call it the Department of Summary Executions."
Keeping with that theme, photojournalist Joshua Collins said on social media that "I actually think calling it 'the Department of War' is infinitely more honest. Because that's exactly what it does."
"Maybe while they're at it though, they can rename ICE 'the Department of kidnappings, extortion, forced disappearances, and human trafficking," Collins added, referring to Trump's Immigration and Customs Enforcement anti-immigrant blitz.
Jason Hickel, a professor at the Autonomous University of Barcelona's Institute for Environmental Science and Technology, said on social media that "this is wonderful news."
"The US 'Department of Defense' has never been primarily about defense; it is a euphemism for an institution that is mostly focused on wars of imperial aggression," he wrote. "At least now there is no pretending otherwise."
Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the peace group CodePink, wrote: "I'm glad Trump is changing the name of the Defense Department to the War Dept because it has never been about defense. And calling it the 'Department-to-make-the-merchants-of-death-rich' is kind of long."
Former Congressman Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) remarked: "Department of War? More like Department of Distraction... Epstein."
Matt Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy and a former foreign policy adviser to Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said Friday that no matter what the president calls the Pentagon, "Trump is really good at renaming things, but bad at keeping Americans safe and prosperous."
"He ran as the supposed anti-war candidate but has proven to be just the opposite," Duss noted. "This stunt underscores that Trump is more interested in belligerent chest thumping than genuine peacemaking—with dangerous consequences for American security, global standing, and the safety of our armed services."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Public Land Sale Out, But Senate GOP Megabill Still Attacks Planet
"It's a job killer, a planet killer, and an economy killer," Sen. Ed Markey said of Republicans' so-called Big Beautiful Bill.
Jun 29, 2025
While welcoming that U.S. Senate Republicans are removing a provision that would have forced the sale of public lands from their budget reconciliation package, Democratic lawmakers and environmentalists this weekend condemned other attacks on the planet that are part of the megabill making its way through the upper chamber.
After Senate Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough blocked Sen. Mike Lee's (R-Utah) initial public land sale policy earlier this week, the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources chair tried to sneak in an amended version late Friday. However, as the chamber's Republicans scrambled to generate enough support for a procedural vote Saturday night, Lee announced the withdrawal of his provision from the package.
"This is a momentous win for conservation and a powerful reminder that Americans deeply value our public lands and waters. That was made crystal clear by the remarkable, bipartisan outcry opposing the liquidation of our natural heritage," said Tom Kiernan, president and CEO of American Rivers. "Future generations should be able to continue to use these lands for fishing, rafting, hiking, and swimming, and to enjoy the clean water that begins in these priceless places. It is our responsibility to protect that legacy."
Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club's Lands Protection Program, said that "from the moment Mike Lee first introduced this proposal, Americans across the political spectrum have made it clear they oppose selling off the natural heritage of our public lands to fund tax cuts for billionaires—not now, not ever. This is a victory for everyone who hikes, hunts, explores, and cherishes these places, but it's not the end of the threats to our public lands."
U.S. President Donald Trump "and his allies in Congress have made it clear they will use every tool at their disposal to give away our public lands to billionaires and corporate polluters, whether it's Mike Lee's fire sale, leasing them to Big Oil CEOs for pennies on the dollar, or gutting the permitting and oversight process for industrial development," Manuel warned. "This fight isn't over, and we are going to keep working to keep the 'public' in public lands."
We won this battle, but no doubt Republicans are going to keep trying to sell off your public lands any chance they get. Our public lands are worth fighting for, and as long as I have the honor of representing Oregon in the Senate that's what I'll be doing.
— Senator Ron Wyden (@wyden.senate.gov) June 28, 2025 at 11:08 PM
Anna Peterson, executive director of the Mountain Pact, which works with over 100 communities on climate, outdoor recreation, and public lands policy, said that "as millions of Americans and western communities have reminded people again and again over the past few weeks, public lands are bipartisan, deeply revered, sustain our communities, power our economies, and serve as the cornerstone of our outdoor way of life. We must remain steadfast in our commitment to defending public lands, and continue to fight to make sure they remain where they belong forever: in public hands."
The Natural Resources Defense Council had criticized both the axed public land sale provision and attacks on renewable energy, which remain in the megabill. NRDC executive director Christy Goldfuss said that "the new budget reconciliation bill text is a shocking fossil fuels industry fever dream come to life. The corruption on display is galling."
"The bill has gone from fossil fuels boosterism to an active effort from Congress to kill wind and solar energy in the United States. This cannot be viewed as anything other than a 'Trump energy tax,'" Goldfuss said, blasting Republican plans to not only end incentives for renewable energy, but also impose new taxes on wind and solar generation.
"This bill was already going to force the biggest utility bill increase in history, but the new language can only be interpreted as a corrupt effort to advance oil, gas, and coal on the backs of everyday Americans," she continued. "This is a shocking effort to manipulate energy markets, siphon money from every household in the country, kill jobs, and shut down the fastest growing segment of the energy economy--all to enrich the barons at the helm of the most profitable enterprise in history."
Referencing one of Trump's early executive orders, Goldfuss added that "the administration claims that we are in an energy emergency, making it the wrong time to choke off the cheapest and fastest-to-deploy sources of energy."
Adrian Deveny, founder and president of policy advisory firm Climate Vision and a former policy director to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), told Politico: "It's a kill shot. This new excise tax on wind and solar is designed to fully kill the industry."
Costa Samaras, a clean energy leader in former Democratic President Joe Biden's White House, also warned on the social media network Bluesky on Saturday that the policy would kill Americans.
"The new bill in Congress puts a new tax on wind and solar. They're taxing clean energy to give your money to billionaires," Samaras said. "Taxing clean energy and making it harder for new clean energy to be built in the U.S. at a time when the grid is under increasing stress from extreme weather, will lead to people dying in heatwaves."
"They are taxing wind and solar power. Not just taking away the credits in Biden's climate law. But actively taxing wind and solar. My god this bill is terrible," he continued. "If you have a [Republican] representative, call and leave a message saying you don't want to raise taxes on clean energy... If you're a reporter, there's a story here. Why is the Senate putting the grid and Americans' lives at risk?"
Senate Democrats are also speaking out about the GOP assault on renewable energy. Sens. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) are among those sounding the alarm.
"Big Oil has been getting tax breaks for more than a century," noted Markey. "Trump's big billionaire bill doesn't just cut clean energy incentives, it RAISES TAXES on wind and solar. It's a job killer, a planet killer, and an economy killer."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular