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
senate democrats
As Democrats Push for ICE ‘Reforms,’ a Judge Shows How Flagrantly the Agency Already Violates Law
"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
Jan 29, 2026
Amid the latest budget standoff in Congress, Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they may be willing to make a deal to fund the US Department of Homeland Security in exchange for a slate of "reforms" designed to rein in what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "state-sanctioned thuggery."
But just because something is written in law doesn't mean ICE agents will follow it.
That's what Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—demonstrated when, as part of an order issued Wednesday, he published a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE has violated in just the month of January.
Schiltz issued the list as part of an order canceling a hearing for acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, whom he’d previously ordered to appear in court on Friday or face contempt. The judge demanded Lyon's personal appearance after ICE ignored the judge’s order to give a bail hearing to a detainee, Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, one of “dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.” Schiltz canceled Lyons’ hearing when Robles was released from custody.
"That does not end the Court’s concerns, however," Schiltz wrote on Wednesday. "Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases."
"This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law," he went on. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
"ICE," he said, "is not law unto itself."
This scathing document of ICE's willful disregard for the law was top of mind for many critics of the compromise Democrats appear poised to make in exchange for passing a budget package that includes $64.4 billion in DHS funding, including $10 billion for ICE and $18 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
On Thursday, seven Republicans joined Democrats in a 45-55 vote to block the spending package, which needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they want to separate DHS funding from the rest of the bill in order to negotiate a series of "reforms." If a deal is not reached by January 30, funding for DHS and several other agencies will lapse, causing another partial government shutdown.
On Wednesday, Schumer told the press that Democrats are "united" behind three key reforms to DHS. Per TIME Magazine:
“We want to end roving patrols,” Schumer said, laying out Democrats’ first demand. “We need to tighten the rules governing the use of warrants and require ICE coordination with state and local law enforcement.”
Second, he said, Democrats want to “enforce accountability,” including a uniform federal code of conduct and independent investigations into alleged abuses. Federal agents, he argued, should be held to the same use-of-force standards as local police and face consequences when they violate them.
Third, Schumer said, Democrats are demanding “masks off, body cameras on,” a reference to proposals that would bar agents from wearing face coverings, require they wear body cameras and mandate that agents carry visible identification. “No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives,” he said.
Journalist and political analyst Adam Johnson described these proposals as "superficial," with many already being codified into law or even the US Constitution.
"As many scholars have noted, Trump arresting people without warrants is already unconstitutional and illegal, but his DHS is doing it anyway," he wrote. "Passing laws to enforce existing law may dissuade the Trump regime in some contexts, but it’s unclear why Trump wouldn’t just ignore the new law since they duly ignored the previous one."
He also said, "It’s unclear how much power Congress or states would have to 'enforce accountability' while Trump’s cartoonishly corrupt DOJ continues to investigate and threaten state lawmakers and leaders with prison time."
Johnson noted that the list of demands made by progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was more comprehensive, including bans on arrest quotas and forcing ICE to end its reign of terror in Minneapolis, but said "it’s unclear how Congress would define, much less enforce, these parameters. And most conspicuous of all, their demands make zero mention of reducing DHS’s obscene budget."
DHS funds were already increased by $170 billion over the next five years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress last year, and ICE funding tripled, from $10 billion per year to $30 billion, making it the equivalent of the 13th most expensive military in the world.
Aaron Regunberg, a writer at the New Republic, questioned what good it was to subject ICE to new laws when, as Schiltz's order showed, "ICE breaks the law, courts order them to stop, and then they keep breaking the law."
"You have to be dumb as bricks to think the answer is to pass a law saying it's against the law to break the law," he continued. "The answer is to stop giving these fascist goons billions of our tax dollars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
We Are Not Powerless to Stop ICE—But We Must Act Now
We taxpayers fund ICE, the Border Patrol, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s salary (and her two jets). Without congressional action by the end of January, funding for ICE will lapse.
Jan 16, 2026
With the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed mother of three, the American people have reached a breaking point. As protests surged beyond Minnesota to all 50 states, a critical window has opened in Washington. Congress has until the end of January to decide whether to fund a massive expansion of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and Democratic senators alone can just say no.
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey told ICE to leave, but instead the Trump regime doubled down, adding to the thousands of federal agents already sent to the twin cities. Federal agents smashed car windows to grab people observing their activities, broke down doors, and created fear and chaos around schools. President Donald Trump warned of more to come, posting to Minnesota on Truth Social on January 13, “THE DAY OF RECKONING & RETRIBUTION IS COMING.”
While the streets of Minneapolis fill with grieving and defiant residents, Congress is preparing to pour billions more into the very agencies responsible for the chaos.
There are only a few people with the power to stop the brutalizing of our communities being carried out by ICE. Congress has the power of the purse, and Congress can stop this. We taxpayers fund ICE, the Border Patrol, and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem’s salary (and her two jets). Without congressional action by the end of January, funding for ICE will lapse.
There is support among some in Congress for reining in ICE. Others will have to join these courageous leaders if we are to rein in the federal brutality.
In the Senate, where 60 votes are required to move a funding bill forward, just 41 senators can block any bill that expands the ICE budget. Senate Democrats, including two Independents who caucus with Democrats, number 47. Senate Democrats alone can halt funding for ICE.
So far, the Democratic leadership has not stepped up. Only enormous pressure from their constituents will force them to show any backbone.
There is support among some in Congress for reining in ICE. Others will have to join these courageous leaders if we are to rein in the federal brutality.
“It’s hard to imagine how Democrats are going to vote for a DHS bill that funds this level of illegality and violence without constraints,” Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) told Axios last week.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said on X he would not support any funding for Trump’s ICE operations without safeguards.
Members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus have been speaking out.
“Our caucus members will oppose all funding for immigration enforcement in any appropriation bills until meaningful reforms are enacted to end militarized policing practices,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) told a press conference at the US Capitol. According to a report in the Guardian, Omar, who is the caucus’s deputy chair, went on to say, “We cannot and we should not continue to fund agencies that operate with impunity, that escalate violence, and that undermine the very freedoms this country claims to uphold.”
“They’ve gone rogue under Donald Trump; they should be disbanded,” Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) said, according to The Hill. “You’re still going to have immigration enforcement, but ICE shouldn’t have any part of it.”
The Price of Retribution: Following the Money
The massive funding that is supercharging ICE is coming from taxpayers. Trump’s signature legislation, the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill,” earmarks $170 billion over four years for immigration enforcement. The ICE budget alone would nearly triple compared to its 2024 budget, reaching $28.7 billion per year. The bill included $30 billion over four years to hire 10,000 additional ICE officers, according to the Brennan Center for Justice.
This massive influx of cash would also triple the budget for immigrant detention, eventually becoming 62% larger than the funding for the entire federal prison system. Detention of undocumented immigrants has grown to the highest level in US history, according to the Migration Policy Institute, with more than 8 in 10 held in private detention centers. Contrary to the Trump regime’s promise to go after the “worst of the worst,” 71% of ICE detainees have no criminal conviction.
This year’s appropriation for ICE has yet to be approved. And Congress can just say no.
With Kristi Noem and others in the Trump regime calling protesters “domestic terrorists,” these growing detention facilities could be used to hold any who express disagreement with the Trump agenda.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is also using its massive war chest to pressure state and local law enforcement to enter into 287(g) partnerships with ICE, in which they receive generous federal funding for collaborating with federal agents.
This federal “campaign of terror” relies entirely on congressional approval, says Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) of Chicago. “We need to cut and claw back ICE’s funding as natural consequences for DHS’ disregard for the rule of law and violations of our rights,” the Guardian quoted her as saying.
This year’s appropriation for ICE has yet to be approved. And Congress can just say no.
A Popular Uprising
The people affected by the bloated ICE budget are our friends and neighbors. They are hospital and home-health workers. They harvest the crops and process meat, and many own small businesses. They are mothers and fathers and neighbors who contribute to the fabric of our communities. They pay taxes and contribute to social security, although they are not eligible to receive social security benefits. Many of those targeted are in the US legally, including refugees, those applying for citizenship, and even US citizens.
Public support for the ICE roundups has plummeted since President Trump took office. More Americans now believe ICE is making the country less safe (47%) than more safe (34%), according to an Economist/YouGov poll taken after the shooting of Renee Good. A plurality of Americans (46%) support the abolition of ICE, a figure that jumps to 80% among Democrats or those who lean Democratic. Indivisible has made the ICE funding fight a major priority.
The Trump regime wants us to believe we are powerless to stop this massive buildup of armed, masked federal forces in our cities and towns. They’re wrong.
People are making their opinions known through extraordinary acts of courage:
Ordinary people are showing up, as Renee Good did, to literally blow the whistle on ICE outside workplaces, in neighborhoods, and at detention centers. Around the country, people are supporting parents trying to get their kids to school—and those whose loved ones have been detained. Rapid response teams have formed, with members filming detentions, challenging federal agents to show warrants, and staging late-night parties outside hotels housing ICE agents.
People power is having an impact. Spotify recently stopped accepting ICE recruitment ads following a widespread consumer boycott, and Avelo Airlines ended its contract for deportation flights.
The Trump regime wants us to believe we are powerless to stop this massive buildup of armed, masked federal forces in our cities and towns. They’re wrong. Our tax dollars are the fuel for this machine. The American people are stepping up, risking injury and arrest to defend their rights and their neighbors. Now we will see if elected lawmakers have as much courage as the people they represent. It’s time for Congress to use the budgeting powers vested in them by the founders, and turn off the spigot.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Aren’t Any Senate Democrats Calling On Schumer to Step Down?
Despite outcry from progressives, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer as leader.
Nov 11, 2025
With many Democratic base voters up in arms over Senate Democrats caving on the federal government shutdown fight, there have been calls for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to step down from his leadership role.
None of those calls, however, have come from senators currently serving in the Democratic Caucus, including progressive stalwarts such as Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).
As reported by The American Prospect on Tuesday, no Democrats in the Senate have yet expressed support for replacing Schumer (D-NY) as leader, despite the fact that "every single one of them has the power to force a vote on Schumer’s continued control of the caucus" if they chose to do so.
According to the Prospect, any senator in the Democratic Caucus "could bring forward a motion to amend the Democratic Caucus Rules to say that he should lose his leadership position if a set number of members disapprove of him." What's more, the Prospect explained, "the motion would be 'self-executing,' resulting in Schumer’s removal at the same time that it’s approved."
As noted in a Politico report, Senate Democrats who were opposed to the shutdown cave did not directly criticize Schumer for his handling of the issue, and some, like Warren, tried to direct voters' anger toward Republicans.
"I want Republicans to actually grow a backbone and say, regardless of what [President] Donald Trump says, we’re actually going to restore these cuts on healthcare," she said on Sunday. "But it looks like I’ve lost that fight, so I don’t want to post more pain on people who are hungry and on people who haven’t been paid."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) was more directly critical of the deal that Democrats cut on reopening the government, but he nonetheless stopped short of calling for Schumer's removal.
“This bill doesn’t do anything to arrest the healthcare catastrophe, nor does it constrain in any meaningful way President Trump’s illegality,” he said. “I think the voters were pretty clear on Tuesday night what they wanted Congress to do, and more specifically, what they wanted Democrats to do, and I am really saddened that we didn’t listen to them.”
The appetite for ditching Schumer appears much stronger among Democrats serving in the US House of Representatives, however.
Axios on Monday reported that House Democrats' anger at their Senate counterparts erupted during a private phone call among members, as Rep. Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) told her colleagues that "people are fucking pissed" at seeing Democrats once again cave in a fight with Trump.
One anonymous Democrat also told Axios that almost "everyone [was] strongly against" the deal Senate Democrats cut to reopen the government without an agreement to extend enhanced tax credits for Americans who buy their health insurance through Affordable Care Act (ACA) exchanges.
Rep. Seth Moulton (D-Mass.), who is running a primary challenge against Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), called on Schumer to step down as minority leader, and challenged his opponent to do the same.
"If Chuck Schumer were an effective leader, he would have united his caucus to vote ‘No’ tonight and hold the line on healthcare," Moulton wrote in a social media post earlier this week. "Maybe now Ed Markey will finally join me in pledging not to vote for Schumer?”
Progressive advocacy organization Indivisible on Monday started ramping up pressure on Democrats to push for Schumer to step down as minority leader, and the group explicitly said that it would "not back any Senate primary candidate unless they call for Schumer to step down as Minority Leader."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Schumer Has Betrayed Us for the Last Time; We Need New Leadership
If Democrats are going to really confront Trump’s authoritarianism and the corporate corruption that fuels it—which is absolutely necessary now to rescue and sustain American democracy—we need a Senate leader with a spine, not a strategist for surrender.
Nov 11, 2025
What we witnessed this weekend in the United States Senate wasn’t “compromise.” It was surrender: the kind of gutless, morally bankrupt capitulation that betrays American families and feeds the billionaires devouring our democracy.
Eight Senators who caucus with the Democrats joined Republicans to end the government shutdown, not in victory, not to secure healthcare for millions, but to hand President Donald Trump and his morbidly rich cronies a gift-wrapped political win.
And standing at the center of this disgrace is Chuck Schumer, the so-called “leader” of the Senate Democrats, who orchestrated—or at least approved or failed to stop—the entire debacle from behind the curtain, then had the gall to vote “no” at the last minute to wash his hands of it.
Let’s be clear: This was Schumer’s deal. He built it, he pushed it, and he enabled it. His fingerprints are all over this betrayal.
Americans are sick of being sold out. We’re done watching our supposed champions cave while billionaires pop champagne.
And what did Democrats get in exchange for reopening the government? What did the American people get? Nothing.
Not a penny restored to Medicaid (or the hit Medicare will take in a year under Trump’s Big Ugly Bill). Not a rollback of Trump’s rescissions that gutted essential agencies. Not even a meaningful vote to protect Affordable Care Act subsidies or food stamps.
The so-called “promise” of a vote in the Senate within 40 days is a joke, a political placebo meant to sedate the public while the insurance industry counts its profits.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was right to call Sunday evening’s vote a “very bad night.” The deal explodes healthcare premiums for over 20 million Americans and paves the way for 15 million to lose coverage altogether.
That lack of coverage, experts estimate, will cause 50,000 preventable deaths a year. These are real people and their children, their deaths sacrificed at the altar of Trump’s and the GOP’s lust for wealth and power.
And it wasn’t just cowardice: it was also cash.
The healthcare industry owns far too many Democrats, and this vote appears to prove it. The same corporations that profit from denying you care are stuffing the pockets of the very lawmakers who just “compromised” your future.
When Democrats vote with Republicans to gut healthcare, it’s not bipartisanship. It’s corruption, legalized and laundered through Citizens United campaign finance loopholes created by five bought-and-paid-for Republicans on the Supreme Court. Bribery by another name.
Chuck Schumer has presided over this kind of rot for years, protecting incumbents who serve donors instead of voters, blowing up efforts to promote genuine progressives like Bernie in 2016, while building a machine that runs on Wall Street money and insurance and banking industry cash. He was so ineffective he couldn’t even stop Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W. Va.) and Kyrsten Sinema (I-Ariz.) back in the day, even though he wields enormous power.
Schumer’s’ leadership—and, generally, the leadership of the Democratic National Committee since the 1990s Clinton years—have turned the Democratic Party from the party of FDR into a cautious club managed by well-paid consultants who tremble at their own shadows while they fill their bank accounts with blood money.
Meanwhile, on the other side of the aisle, Donald Trump is showing us exactly what real political power looks like, as well as what it fears.
The simple reality is that Trump was about to break. He was freaking out.
Before the eight Democratic-caucusing Senators caved to the GOP, Trump was so frantic that he was demanding Senate Republicans end the filibuster altogether, so he could “ram through legislation that will make sure no Democrat ever gets elected again.”
America—and Democrats—deserve statesmen and women willing to call out corruption in their own ranks; to reject the blood money of lobbyists; and to stand unflinchingly for universal healthcare, living wages, and democracy itself.
GOP leaders—including (and especially) Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.)—are terrified at the possibility of ending the filibuster, not out of principle, but out of self-preservation. They know ending it could expose just how extreme and deranged the Republican agenda really is.
As I’ve argued before, the filibuster has been a scam for a half century, a tool that since the Reagan era both Republicans and corporate Democrats alike use every year to fool their base and donors into thinking their hands are tied.
It obscures Republican radicalism, while similarly protecting the so-called “moderate” Democrats who spit shine the boots of their corporate masters.
Trump believes killing the filibuster will increase his power. In reality, it would tear his party apart and lay bare its madness for the world to see because Republicans could no longer say, “We couldn’t pass that bill to [fill in the blank] because those damn Democrats filibustered it.”
But the filibuster should be ended, and if these eight Democrats hadn’t surrendered, Trump might have forced it. That would’ve been the best thing for America.
And make no mistake: Trump’s terrified or he wouldn’t have even considered killing the filibuster. As Steve Bannon bluntly said, if Democrats ever regain full control, “a lot of Republicans are going to prison.” Presumably including Trump himself.
Compounding Trump’s freak-out, alleged horrors are leaking out about how Trump appears in the Epstein files. Reporter David Schuster noted:
A few GOP House members say they’ve heard from FBI/DOJ contacts that the Epstein files (with copies in different agencies) are worse than Michael Wolff’s description of Epstein photos showing Trump with half naked teenage girls.
Trump knows what’s in those files; he partied with Epstein for a decade and is now throwing bennies at Ghislaine Maxwell to try to keep her quiet. That’s why he’s trying to distract his supporters by hosting his Great Gatsby parties at Mar-a-Lago, making incoherent threats about cash check “rebates” to Americans and war in Venezuela, and hustling billions from foreign dictators to insulate himself and his boys before the walls close in.
If Democrats are going to really confront Trump’s authoritarianism and the corporate corruption that fuels it—which is absolutely necessary now to rescue and sustain American democracy—we need a Senate leader with a spine, not a strategist for surrender. Chuck Schumer’s brand of 90s politics, to triangulate, capitulate, and hope nobody notices, has failed us for decades.
He embodies the rot of the old guard: a generation of post-1992 Democrats who think fundraising prowess equals political courage.
It doesn’t. Times have changed, and we’re now standing in the midst of a progressive populist era. Just look at New York’s mayoral race.
Leadership means fighting for working families, not finessing deals for donors. It means standing up to Trumpism, not whispering in back rooms while pretending to resist.
We need new leadership. America—and Democrats—deserve statesmen and women willing to call out corruption in their own ranks; to reject the blood money of lobbyists; and to stand unflinchingly for universal healthcare, living wages, and democracy itself.
Americans are sick of being sold out. We’re done watching our supposed champions cave while billionaires pop champagne. The fight for our democracy won’t be won by appeasing bullies or bowing to donors.
It’ll be won when Democrats rediscover their courage, and when Chuck Schumer finally steps aside to be replaced by a true fighter.
Keep ReadingShow Less
The Big Ugly Cave by Senate Democrats
It's a huge mistake and I'm not sure Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer survives this.
Nov 10, 2025
Enough Senate Democrats caved last night to the Republicans that it looks likely that the shutdown will end — but without the Democrats achieving their goal of restoring Obamacare subsidies.
It was an astounding show of the Democrat’s lack of discipline in the face of total Republican discipline. It revealed Chuck Schumer’s inability to keep Senate Democrats together and Trump’s ability to keep Senate Republicans together.
I’ll be surprised if Schumer survives as Senate Minority Leader.
Overall, the Democrat’s cave is a huge mistake.
First, Democrats hold all the cards. As even Trump admitted after Tuesday’s blowout, voters chose Democrats across the board because of the shutdown. It’s clear that voters are blaming on Republicans.
Given this, why in hell should Democrats cave?
Second, Senate Democrats never voted for Trump’s Big Ugly bill that removed the Obamacare subsidies (among many other travesties) because Republicans used a process called “reconciliation” which allowed them to pass the Big Ugly with a bare Senate majority and no Democratic votes.
So now that Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage, why would they give it up?
Third, while it’s obvious that some Americans are hurting right now because of the shutdown, caving to Republicans won’t end the hurt because Trump and his lapdogs continue to assert that they have the power to slash whatever programs they don’t like.
Republican leader John Thune assured Senate Democrats that he’d give them a vote on Obamacare subsidies sometime in December, but this is a near-worthless promise. Even if the Senate voted to continue to subsidies, the Republican-controlled House is unlikely to allow a vote on them.
Even worse, there’s no guarantee that Trump’s White House will go along. In fact, it’s clear that the White House will dig in on all sorts of programs Democrats support. Do Senate Democrats really believe that Americans will hurt any less when government is reopened and Trump and his sycophants and lapdogs can hack away at whatever programs they dislike?
Finally, because of the Democrat’s cave, premiums under the Affordable Care Act are likely to soar starting in January, which is likely to cause many young and healthier people to exit from the program — forcing those who remain to pay even higher premiums or not get coverage at all. In other words, Trump and his Republicans will have found a backdoor means of eroding or ending a program they’ve been targeting since Trump first came to power in 2016.
I admire Senate Democrats’ soft hearts but not their soft heads. I hope there’s still time for them to regain their mettle.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Dems, Don't Fund the Destruction of US Democracy
Democrats need to hold a nationally televised news conference and announce as a unified group that they won’t fund the federal government if Trump is going to use those dollars to invade blue cities.
Oct 07, 2025
It seemed kind of crazy when the hit movie Civil War came out in spring 2024 and the main storyline hinged on a war against the rest of the United States waged by the combined forces of Texas and California, our two most unalike big states in real life. But it must have ignited one of the dim bulbs in the Donald Trump White House.
On Sunday, the 47th president and his raging id, Stephen Miller—blocked by federal judges and political reality from some of their schemes for flooding cities run by their Democratic enemies with armed soldiers—had a new brainstorm for igniting a constitutional crisis.
First, Trump announced on his favorite platform of Truth Social that—rebuffed by Oregon’s governor and a judge that he’d appointed in his first term—he had a new plan for deploying National Guard troops on the streets of Portland. (This is the city Trump thinks is “on fire” after watching b-roll footage of 2020 unrest on Fox News.)
The administration eventually said it would federalize and call up 200 soldiers from the California National Guard—against the will of that state’s Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom, just as the Trump regime had done earlier this year on the streets of Los Angeles. And it didn’t stop there.
How could voters celebrate a deal that claws back some dollars for healthcare yet continues to pay for state terror on the streets of Chicago or Trump’s pirates of the Caribbean?
By Sunday night, the very pro-Trump governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, sought to cement the bizarre alliance between California and the Lone Star State by announcing that, under a presidential order, he was calling up 400 National Guard troops who could also be sent to Portland, or to Chicago, or anywhere else that the White House seeks to invade.
For all the nattering nabobs in the media who still think this is about “fighting crime,” Trump flew to Norfolk, Virginia, and— before a cheering throng of sailors celebrating the Navy’s 250th anniversary—all but declared war on half of the country he was elected to serve. “We have to take care of this little gnat that’s on our shoulder called the Democrats,” he declared.
OK, we’ve already crossed the Rubicon more times than an ancient Roman ferry, but this really feels like The Big One in terms of a constitutional crisis. The idea of soldiers from a cornerstone of the old Confederacy rolling up I-55 in BearCat armored personnel carriers to occupy the streets of a northern city really did feel like another Civil War, and this time I’m not talking about the movie.
The president—defying both laws and democratic norms meant to prevent the deployment of American troops on US soil—is sending armed troops to occupy key intersections in the cities that voted heavily for the opposing party, and that’s just the half of it.
As the calendar flipped from summer to fall, the Trump regime has amped up the authoritarianism on every front—a flash-bang dead-of-night warrantless raid on an entire Chicago apartment building, obliterating boats and their passengers off the coast of Venezuela in a campaign that the normally staid New York Bar Association just called “murder,” and pressing prosecutors to indict Trump’s political enemies.
Illinois Democratic Gov. JB Pritzker, in the crosshairs with masked federal agents already swarming his state’s largest city, has risen to the occasion—at least verbally.
“There is no reason a President should send military troops into a sovereign state without their knowledge, consent, or cooperation,” Pritzker wrote on Bluesky Sunday night, adding: “The brave men and women who serve in our national guards must not be used as political props. This is a moment where every American must speak up and help stop this madness.”
While Democrats have more often been finding the right words about America’s rising fascism, action has proved more complicated. Pritzker himself came in for criticism over the role of Illinois State Police at the Broadview Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility near Chicago, where protesters believed the troopers were curbing their protest rights. Time and time again, a repressive US policing culture seems to trump the ability of even progressive Democrats to rein it in.
American fascism is here, and the battle must be joined.
Even worse, the Democrats have powerful leverage that they’re not using. Some 1,000 miles east of the democracy crisis in Chicago, the 47 Democratic senators—thanks to the filibuster—have been using their power to keep much of the federal government shut down, after missing last week’s deadline for legislation to keep paying the bills.
Led by a duo of milquetoast New Yorkers, Sen. Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats and their omnipresent pollsters have said they won’t vote to reopen the government unless Trump and the GOP agree to undo devastating cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act.
The Dems are right to fight this battle—millions of working-class people face devastating premium hikes, or will lose coverage altogether if nothing is done—and yet it also fails to reflect the gravity of the current threat to the American way of life. How could voters celebrate a deal that claws back some dollars for healthcare yet continues to pay for state terror on the streets of Chicago or Trump’s pirates of the Caribbean?
We heard last week from one prominent Democrat who gets it. “Listen, I don’t think we’re asking for too much in that we are telling the president that if you want us to sign onto a budget, it can’t be a budget that funds the destruction of our democracy,“ Democratic Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut told the New Republic last week. ”I would be a sucker to agree to a budget that literally funds an operation to hunt me and my allies down—to imprison us, harass us, intimidate us."
A steadily rising number of everyday voters also see the rise of authoritarianism as intolerable. One of the more telling developments of 2025 has been watching regular citizens increasingly defy the government—members of grand juries or trial juries rejecting the Justice Department’s extreme prosecutions, for example—while pampered elites curry favor with the regime. The budget shutdown crisis in Washington is an opportunity for top Democrats to flip the script.
It’s time for the opposition party to take a bold, principled risk. Democrats need to hold a nationally televised news conference and announce as a unified group that they won’t fund the federal government if Trump is going to use those dollars to invade blue cities. They need to declare: No troops, now or in the future, or no deal.
American fascism is here, and the battle must be joined. Democratic leaders need to rally their own “troops”—millions of angry and anxious citizens—to take to the streets in support of the fight to save democracy and to accept the sacrifices that come with making a moral stand against autocracy. They also need to gamble that courage will enhance their political careers, even if that risks losing reelection to a job that their past cowardice has made nearly worthless anyway.
The choice is clear. We can resist Trump’s tyranny at some unknown future date—when his tin soldiers are stationed across the country, when the media has been totally neutered and other institutions like our universities have been humiliated and crushed, and when the odds for success will be extremely difficult. Or we can stage that battle now, mustering all the liberty we have left. Democrats simply cannot pass a budget that pays for the destruction of the American Experiment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
This Government Shutdown Is Not Normal
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
Oct 03, 2025
I’ve been directly involved in government shutdowns, one when I was secretary of labor. It’s hard for me to describe the fear, frustration, and chaos that ensued. I recall spending the first day consoling employees—many in tears as they headed out the door.
In some ways, this shutdown is similar to others. Agencies and departments designed to protect consumers, workers, and investors are now officially closed, as are national parks and museums.
Most federal workers are not being paid—as many as 750,000 could be furloughed—including those who are required to remain on the job, like air-traffic controllers or members of the US military.
So-called “mandatory” spending, including Social Security and Medicare payments, are continuing, although checks could be delayed. (President Donald Trump has made sure that construction of his new White House ballroom won’t be affected.)
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
There have been eight shutdowns since 1990. Trump has now presided over four.
But this shutdown—the one that began Wednesday morning—is radically different.
For one thing, it’s the consequence of a decision made in July by Trump and Senate Republicans to pass Trump’s gigantic “big beautiful bill” (I prefer to call it “big ugly bill”) without any Democratic votes.
They could do that because of an arcane Senate procedure called “reconciliation,” which allowed the big ugly to get through the Senate with just 51 votes rather than the normal 60 votes required to overcome a filibuster.
The final tally was a squeaker. All Senate Democrats opposed the legislation. When three Senate Republicans joined them, Vice President JD Vance was called in to break a tie. Some Republicans bragged that they didn’t need a single Democrat.
The big ugly fundamentally altered the priorities of the United States government. It cut nearly $1 trillion from Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act—with the result that health insurance premiums for tens of millions of Americans will soar starting in January.
The big ugly also cut nutrition assistance and environmental protection, while bulking up immigration enforcement and cutting the taxes of wealthy Americans and big corporations.
Trump and Senate Republicans didn’t need a single Democrat then. But this time, Republicans couldn’t use the arcane reconciliation process to pass a bill to keep the governing going.
Now they needed Senate Democratic votes.
Yet keeping the government going meant keeping all the priorities included in the big ugly bill that all Senate Democrats opposed.
Which is why Senate Democrats refused to sign on unless most of the big ugly’s cuts to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act were restored, so health insurance premiums won’t soar next year.
Even if Senate Democrats had gotten that concession, the Republican bill to keep the government going would retain all the tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations contained in the big ugly, along with all the cuts in nutrition assistance, and all the increased funding for immigration enforcement.
There’s a deeper irony here.
As a practical matter, the US government has been “shut down” for over eight months, since Trump took office a second time.
Trump and the sycophants surrounding him—such as Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, and, before him, Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficnecy—have had no compunctions about shutting down parts of the government they don’t like—such as US Agency for International Development.
They’ve also fired, laid off, furloughed, or extended buyouts to hundreds of thousands of federal employees doing work they don’t value, such as at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. (The federal government is already expected to employ 300,000 fewer workers by December than it did last January.)
They’ve impounded appropriations from Congress for activities they oppose, ranging across the entire federal government.
Wednesday, on the first day of the shutdown, Vought announced that the administration was freezing some $26 billion in funds Congress had appropriated—including $18 billion for New York City infrastructure (home to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries) and $8 billion for environmental projects in 16 states, mostly led by Democrats.
All of this is illegal—it violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974—but it seems unlikely that courts will act soon enough to prevent the regime from harming vast numbers of Americans.
Vought is also initiating another round of mass layoffs targeting, in his words, “a lot” of government workers.
This is being described by Republicans as “payback” for the Democrats not voting to keep the government going, but evidently nothing stopped Vought from doing mass layoffs and freezing Congress’ appropriations before the shutdown.
In fact, the eagerness of Trump and his lapdogs over the last eight months to disregard the will of Congress and close whatever they want of the government offers another reason why Democrats shouldn’t cave in.
Were Democrats to vote to keep the government going, what guarantee do they have that Trump will in fact keep the government going?
Democrats finally have some bargaining leverage. They should use it.
If tens of millions of Americans lose their health insurance starting in January because they can no longer afford to pay sky-high premiums, Trump and his Republicans will be blamed. Months before the midterms.
It would be Trump’s and his Republicans’ fault anyway—it’s part of their big ugly bill—but this way, in the fight over whether to reopen the government, Americans will have a chance to see Democrats standing up for them.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Has Sen Schumer Learned Costly Lessons in the Federal Spending Fight?
With very few opportunities for the minority party to make a difference, Schumer and Senate Democrats now must hold strong to stand up for everyday Americans and their access to the most basic essentials.
Sep 26, 2025
In March, Food & Water Watch joined a chorus of organizations calling on New York Sen. Chuck Schumer to step aside as Democratic minority leader after his disastrous capitulation during the last federal appropriations fight. At the time, President Donald Trump and Elon Musk were running rampant, defunding and destroying critical climate, food, and water programs. But instead of fighting to mitigate the harms, Schumer led fellow Senate Democrats in ceding any leverage they had by capitulating to Republicans’ six-month spending bill without demanding any concessions or procedural backstops.
Now the opportunity has returned to leverage the significant power Senate Democrats have ahead of the latest spending deadline. For the moment it seems that Schumer has learned some lessons from the earlier debacle. He led his caucus to reject a House spending proposal and support an alternative plan to protect critical food, water, and health programs from Trump’s dangerous cuts. He must continue to demonstrate this leadership as the September 30 spending deadline draws near.
Trump and congressional Republicans are playing a dangerous game of chicken, running headfirst into a government shutdown on October 1 with no off-ramp. Trump has refused to even meet with Democratic leadership, and House Republicans are refusing to come back to work until after the funding deadline. They are following the same playbook they used in March to force the hands of Schumer and Senate Democrats. It worked then, and it will work again if Schumer doesn’t stand strong.
After all, the stakes couldn’t be higher: Access to safe, affordable food, clean water, basic healthcare, and so much more.
A Democratic counter proposal from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) includes a key protection against partisan rescissions. We are encouraged that Schumer claims to support this plan.
Though congressional Republicans tout their spending bill as a “clean” extension of current funding levels, this commitment is belied by their threatened use of partisan rescissions to enact Trump’s dangerous cuts later on. This backdoor process fast-tracks the elimination of previously agreed upon funding. While the spending bill needs the support of Senate Democrats to reach the 60-vote threshold to avoid the filibuster, with partisan rescissions Trump can later send Congress a list of programs to eliminate through a simple majority vote—without requiring any Democratic support.
Case in point: Congressional Republicans slashed funding for public television and radio—long an aim of the right—through this partisan rescission process earlier in the year. Trump has further abused this tool to illegally withhold funding through a so-called “pocket rescission,” issuing a last-minute request to freeze funds, run out the clock on the fiscal year, and unilaterally cut congressionally-approved funds. This is unconstitutional.
Further backdoor cuts threaten everything from the environment to education to healthcare. On clean water specifically, Trump and congressional Republicans have proposed slashing funding for the Environmental Protection Agency, which sets limits on contaminants in water, develops methods to test for and removes toxic substances, and establishes regulations that prevent water pollution in the first place. Slashing the EPA will imperil the ability of regulators to enforce clean water standards, making our water less safe and Americans more sick.
Republicans have also proposed slashing funding for water infrastructure. In fact, Trump’s spending proposal calls for virtually eliminating funding for the Clean Water and Drinking Water State Revolving Funds—the primary source of federal funding for water infrastructure in the country. Our water infrastructure is already dramatically underfunded. Federal cuts will make it even more difficult for municipalities to respond to acute threats to water safety, including toxic PFAS “forever chemicals,” lead, and climate change-induced storms and flooding. The result will be higher water bills for households and business, and dirtier, dangerous water.
Senate Democrats must reject the House spending bill for these and many other reasons. Fortunately, a Democratic counter proposal from Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) includes a key protection against partisan rescissions. We are encouraged that Schumer claims to support this plan.
Recently we facilitated a letter from more than 200 groups across the country that was sent to Sen. Schumer, demanding just this. The letter was signed by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), American Federation of Teachers (AFT), NAACP Legal Defense Fund, Oxfam America, Popular Democracy, and Public Citizen, among many others. It seems that Sen. Schumer is finally listening.
With very few opportunities for the minority party to make a difference, Schumer and Senate Democrats now must hold strong to stand up for everyday Americans and their access to the most basic essentials, including clean water. No budget deal that allows for future partisan rescissions can be allowed to pass.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Democratic Senators Should Refuse to Fund Trump’s Fascist Government
Keeping the US government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times.
Sep 09, 2025
The US government runs out of money September 30.
Under ordinary circumstances, I would see that as a huge problem. I was secretary of labor when the government closed down, and I vowed then that I’d do everything possible to avoid a similar calamity in the future.
Under ordinary circumstances, people like you and me—who believe that government is essential for the common good—would fight like hell to keep the government funded beyond September 30.
But we are not in ordinary circumstances. The US government has become a neofascist regime run by a sociopath.
That sociopath is using the government to punish his enemies. He’s using the government to rake in billions of dollars for himself and his family.
He’s using the government to force the leaders of every institution in our society—universities, media companies, law firms, even museums—to become fawning supplicants: pleading with him, praising him, and silencing criticism of him.
Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem.
He is using the government to disappear people from our streets without due process. He is using the government to occupy our cities, overriding the wishes of mayors and governors.
He is using the government to impose arbitrary and capricious import taxes—tariffs—on American consumers. He is using the government to worsen climate change. He is using government to reject our traditional global allies and strengthen some of the worst monsters around the globe.
Keeping the US government funded now is to participate in the most atrocious misuse of the power of the United States in modern times.
So I for one have decided that the best route is to shut the whole f*cking thing down.
Morally, Democrats must not enable what is now occurring. Politically, they cannot remain silent in the face of such mayhem.
To keep the government funded, Senate Republicans need seven Democratic senators to join them.
Last March, when the government was about to run out of money, Chuck Schumer, the leader of the Senate Democrats, voted to join Republicans and keep the government going. Schumer successfully got enough of his Democratic colleagues to follow him that the funding bill passed.
As New York Times columnist Ezra Klein has argued, even if you supported Schumer’s decision then, this time feels different.
By now, US President Donald Trump has become full fascist.
Congressional Republicans are cowed, spineless, deferential, unwilling to make even a small effort to retain Congress’ constitutional powers.
The public is losing faith that the Democratic Party has the capacity to stand up to Trump—largely because it is in the minority in both chambers of Congress.
But this doesn’t mean Democrats must remain silent.
If they refuse to vote to join Republicans in keeping the government open, that act itself will make them louder and more articulate than they’ve been in eight months.
It will give them an opportunity to explain that they cannot in good conscience participate in what is occurring. They will have a chance to show America that they have chosen to become conscientious objectors to a government that is no longer functioning for the people of the United States but for one man.
They will be able to point out the devastating realities of Trump’s regime: its lawlessness, its corruption, its cruelty, its brutality.
They will be able argue that voting to fund this government would violate their oaths to uphold the Constitution of the United States.
Then what?
They can then use their newfound leverage—the only leverage they’ve mustered in eight months—to demand, in return for their votes to restart the government, that their Republican compatriots give them reason to believe that the government they restart will be responsible.
It is time for Democrats to stand up to Trump. This is the time. This is their clearest opportunity.
Keep ReadingShow Less
With the Crypto Industry War Chest Looming, Senate Democrats Help GOP Pass GENIUS Act
Democrats "need to win the next election, which means we can not afford to alienate a very vocal and wealthy group of donors," wrote one lawyer who works with crypto clients.
Jun 18, 2025
Over the objections of critics who say a landmark cryptocurrency bill lacks adequate consumer and financial system protections, among other concerns, several Senate Democrats voted with Republicans on Tuesday to pass the legislation that would establish a regulatory framework for a type of crypto called stablecoin.
The Senate voted 68-30 to pass the bill, which is backed by the crypto industry, with two Republicans senators voting no. The bill's journey to Senate passage—which at one point seemed in doubt—comes after crypto groups spent tens of millions in support of candidates for federal office in the 2024 election cycle. The bill now heads to the House of Representatives.
Among the Democrats who voted for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins, or GENIUS, Act are Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and the bill's co-sponsor Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), both of whom received support from pro-crypto entities last year.
The full list of Democrats who voted in favor of the bill is: Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.); Cory Booker (D-N.J.); Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.); John Fetterman (D-Penn.); Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.); Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.); Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.); Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.); John Hickenlooper (D-Colo.); Andy Kim (D-N.J.); Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.); Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.); Alex Padilla (D-Calif.); Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.); Adam Schiff (D-Calif.); Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.); Mark Warner (D-Va.); and Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.).
Acting CEO and president of the Crypto Council for Innovation, Ji Kim, called the Senate's passage of the bill a "historic step forward for the digital asset industry," in a prepared statement shared in advance of the vote, according to the outlet CoinDesk.
The Senate's passage of the bill came one day after the outlet The Lever reported that "a private group chat of Democratic Party operatives and crypto industry advocates has been secretly coordinating to push Democratic senators" to support the bill.
The Lever reviewed the contents of a Signal chat which contained messages from venture capitalists, lobbyists, lawyers for crypto firms, former staffers on Capitol Hill, and others. Participants in the chat expressed the need for the Democrats to pass the bill in order to avoid alienating the crypto industry.
Avichal Garg, a managing partner at a venture capital firm that focuses on digital asset technology like cryptocurrency, said in the chat that "if Dems bail on this [bill], they will get 0 dollars going forward," according to The Lever.
"It would be political suicide for them not to support it," he added.
Jason Gottlieb, a lawyer who works for the law firm Morrison Cohen and defends cryptocurrency companies, wrote in the chat that regardless of concerns about the shortcomings of the bill, Democrats "need to win the next election, which means we can not afford to alienate a very vocal and wealthy group of donors," The Lever reported.
Last year, the industry pumped more than $40 million into a successful effort to topple former Democratic Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio in favor of his Republican challenger luxury car dealer Bernie Moreno.
No one has been a bigger critic of the GENIUS Act than Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), the ranking member on the U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, who has warned that in addition to weak protections for consumers and financial stability, the bill allows tech companies to issue their own private currencies and "take control over the money supply."
She also said that the GENIUS Act mirrors the passage of the 2000 passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act (CFMA), which deregulated derivatives and helped the product proliferate in the lead-up to the financial crisis of 2008.
"It all sounds very similar. But there is one big difference between the GENIUS Act and the CFMA," said Warren on the Senate floor earlier in June, according to a copy of her remarks. "President [Bill] Clinton did not own a derivatives company. President [Donald] Trump does own a stablecoin company."
Warren told Rolling Stone ahead of key votes that the GENIUS ACT would "create a superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption."
Earlier this year, the Trump family's crypto company, World Liberty Financial, launched its own stablecoin called USD1.
In May, it was announced that USD1 would be used for a $2 billion deal between an investment firm established by the government of Abu Dhabi, MGX, and the world's largest crypto exchange, Binance.
The GENIUS Act bars executive branch officials and lawmakers from issuing stablecoins, but according to the Wall Street Journal, "it isn't clear how that would affect the Trump family's World Liberty Financial crypto firm because regulators would have to interpret the company's ownership structure."
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More Stories
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