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
ted lieu
Advocates Say Last Thing That Should Be Allowed Is Letting Billionaire Tech Bros 'Regulate Themselves'
"It’s clear that these industry leaders think they are best positioned to craft AI policy for the good of all humanity. We think that’s horseshit."
Sep 14, 2026
Several Big Tech CEOs over the weekend called for a slowdown in the development of artificial intelligence, but some advocates are warning that these Silicon Valley oligarchs are not to be trusted.
Evan Greer, director of digital rights group Fight for the Future, on Monday dismissed the recent statements made by Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei, X CEO Elon Musk, and OpenAI CEO Sam Altman calling for more guardrails to be placed on AI development.
"We can’t trust the AI industry to regulate itself," said Greer. "We can't really trust anything these self-interested billionaires say."
Greer conceded that the CEOs' warnings about the potential dangers of AI deserved to be heeded, but argued that allowing them to craft their own safeguards would be a grave mistake.
"It’s clear that these industry leaders think they are best positioned to craft AI policy for the good of all humanity," said Greer. "We think that’s horseshit. Lawmakers should be listening to independent experts, researchers, civil society, and the communities most impacted."
"Congress should act," Greer added, "but they shouldn’t just do whatever the AI bros tell them to."
Greer's sentiment was echoed by Colorado Democratic congressional candidate Melat Kiros, who wrote in a Sunday social media post that "we need to regulate AI for all of the existential threats it poses," before adding that "we cannot expect the very people who got us into this mess to self-regulate their way out."
"Congress needs to act now," Kiros emphasized, "and guard against ANY corporate influence."
However, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) on Sunday indicated that he was perfectly content to allow the AI industry to regulate itself.
During an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Johnson said that "Congress is obviously less qualified" to write rules for AI development "than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it." Johnson then insisted that any effort to regulate AI needs to be "a partnership with the industry itself, with the corporations that are doing this."
Mike Johnson punts on oversight of AI companies: "Congress is obviously less qualified than the people who are pushing this frontier to know the ins and outs of it" pic.twitter.com/EXU1raDExB
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) September 13, 2026
This drew an incredulous reaction from Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), who said the speaker appeared to be making excuses for congressional inaction.
"Based on the speaker’s excuse, Congress could never pass laws or do oversight on medicine, energy, airplanes, etc.," wrote Lieu in a Sunday social media post. "Members of Congress don’t need to be [computer science] majors to understand it’s a good idea to require AI companies to be able to turn off AI models/agents if they go rogue."
Johnson isn't the only Republican to oppose AI regulation, as President Donald Trump on Monday suggested that his own intellect was singlehandedly capable of regulating the technology, which is so complicated that even its own creators have acknowledged difficulties in understanding it.
“The only control or ‘guardrails’ that AI needs is a STRONG AND SMART (High IQ!) PRESIDENT,” Trump wrote in a social media post, “and the USA has that, in spades!”
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.)—whose district includes multiple Silicon Valley giants—argued on Saturday that the AI industry feels emboldened to regulate itself due to a crisis of "elite impunity," in which no one in the American ruling class faces consequences for disasters such as the Iraq War or the 2008 financial crisis.
"It is time for We the People to stand up," wrote Khanna. "And demand to make the rules and hold people accountable with civil and criminal liability for their actions."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump 'Raising Prices on Americans Again' With 50% Tariff on Canadian Imports
"Americans have to pay high prices because Trump doesn’t understand how wind works," quipped one critic.
Jul 20, 2026
US President Donald Trump on Monday invoked an arcane legal provision to impose 50% tariffs on most imported goods from Canada, a move that critics said will hit US consumers already reeling from an unabated cost-of-living crisis and further strain relations with the nation's second-largest trade partner.
Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, an unprecedented move the White House said is aimed at "offsetting the burden and disadvantage on US commerce from Canada’s discriminatory treatment of US commerce" and "leveling the playing field for crucial American exports—cars, alcohol, and dairy."
The new tariffs exempt energy products, potash, fish, and critical minerals.
“While the administration continues to secure fair and reciprocal trade deals with our trading partners, Canada, unlike other partners and allies, continues to retaliate against the United States for its efforts to rebalance trade and protect US industry in national security-sensitive sectors,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said in a statement.
“Specifically, Canada has taken US alcohol products off Canadian shelves, given better market access to dairy products from the European Union, and has put a cap on US vehicle exports to Canada from companies reshoring to the United States," Greer added. "Today, President Trump took decisive action to hold Canada accountable for its retaliation and discrimination, delivering on his promise to correct trade imbalances and ensure fairness for American workers, farmers, and businesses.”
While the administration's official communications cite economic reasons for the new tariffs, Trump in recent days has repeatedly cited the Canadian wildfires as justification for the move.
“I told them. I mean, you got to stop these fires from coming in, and you know poisoning our air," Trump said of Canada on Sunday evening. "Our air has been poisoned. Maybe they should pay us some damages or something, or we should do some tariffs."
The president's linkage of the wildfires and tariffs drew widespread ridicule, with Democratic New York Gov. Kathy Hochul posting on X, "Only Donald Trump could see wildfire smoke and decide the answer is more tariffs."
Pod Save America co-host Dan Pfeiffer said on social media, "Americans have to pay high prices because Trump doesn’t understand how wind works."
According to We Pay the Tariffs, a small business coalition, Trump’s capricious tariffs have cost American businesses and consumers upward of $317 billion since March 2025.
That month, Trump imposed 25% tariffs on many Canadian goods and 10% on Canadian energy products. The administration later modified or paused some of those tariffs.
Ottawa has criticized the tariffs and rejected the US justification that Canada is unfairly restricting American products.
"I’ll never stop fighting to protect Ontario," Doug Ford, the province's right-wing premier, said in response to Trump's move. "If these tariffs proceed, Canada should respond tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar."
Some Democratic US lawmakers blasted the new tariffs.
"Trump is raising prices on Americans, again, by jacking up tariffs by 50% on Canadian goods bought by Americans," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) said on social media. "Democrats will flip the House. And on day one of next term, Democrats will introduce legislation to repeal Trump’s disastrous tariffs. And we will pass it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Among Lawmakers Saying US Troops 'Must Disobey' Trump Order to Destroy Iranian Civilization
"We can still stop this," said one think tank.
Apr 07, 2026
As US lawmakers and the international community registered President Donald Trump's threat to commit genocide in Iran on Tuesday, rights advocates demanded action from Trump's Cabinet, congressional leaders, and the country's European allies to take action—while US Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez issued a reminder that the president can be stopped by a lack of action as well, if those in the US military chain of command refuse to carry out his orders.
Trump's threat to wipe out Iran's civilization of 93 million people "merits removal from office," said Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY). "To every individual in the president’s chain of command: You have a duty to refuse illegal orders. That includes carrying out this threat."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) also addressed the Joint Chiefs of Staff, whose chairman, Dan Caine, has been joining Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth in briefings recently as Hegseth has made bellicose threats against Iran and portrayed the unprovoked US-Israeli assault as a holy war.
Lieu reminded the top military leaders that the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and federal law prohibit war crimes.
"Obviously eradicating a whole civilization constitutes a war crime. You must disobey that order," said the congressman. "If you commit war crimes, the next administration will prosecute you."
Erik Sperling, executive director of think tank Just Foreign Policy, called on Senate and House Democrats, including those on committees that oversee the armed services and foreign relations, to make Lieu's threat "absolutely clear."
"We can still stop this," said Just Foreign Policy on social media.
Journalist Ryan Grim of Drop Site News added that federal laws prohibiting war crimes "will apply in January 2029," after Trump is out of office.
Since Trump took office for his second term in January 2025, Democratic lawmakers have previously issued reminders to the US military that the UCMJ prohibits service members from carrying out illegal orders, with six House members and senators releasing a video in November—as the Pentagon was continuing its bombings of boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean and threatening to attack Venezuela—to remind them, "You must refuse illegal orders."
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) was among the lawmakers who participated in the video. On Tuesday the former CIA analyst addressed service members across the military once again, warning that "targeting civilians en masse would be a clear violation of the law of armed conflict as laid out in the Geneva Conventions, as well as the Pentagon's Law of War Manual."
"If [service members] are today or have been asked to do things that violate the law and their training, it puts them in very real legal jeopardy. I know that our service members up and down the chain of command know their duty and the law to refuse illegal orders," said Slotkin. "It’s moments like these that are why we made the video to service members last year. And I hope and believe our troops—especially those in command—will have the moral clarity to push back if they are given clearly illegal orders.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Rubio Suggests Trump Joined Israel's Planned Attack on Iran Instead of Stopping It
"This is the most insane and absurd definition of an 'imminent threat' I have ever heard in my life," said one journalist.
Mar 02, 2026
"What the fuck happened to America First?" US Sen. Ruben Gallego asked on social media Monday in response to a video of Secretary of State Marco Rubio attempting to justify President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's war on Iran.
As the death toll climbed above 550 in Iran, with at least six US service members killed, Rubio told reporters on Capitol Hill that "there absolutely was an imminent threat, and the imminent threat was that we knew that if Iran was attacked, and we believed they would be attacked, that they would immediately come after us. And we were not gonna sit there and absorb a blow before we responded."
According to Rubio, the US Department of Defense assessed that "if we waited for them to hit us first after they were attacked... by someone else—Israel attacked them, they hit us first, and we waited for them to hit us—we would suffer more casualties and more deaths. We went proactively, in a defensive way, to prevent them from inflicting higher damage. Had we not done so, there would've been hearings on Capitol Hill about how we knew that this was gonna happen, and we didn't act preemptively to prevent more casualties and more loss of life."
In a follow-up post, Gallego (D-Ariz.), an Iraq War veteran, added: "So Netanyahu now decides when we go to war? So much for America First."
The senator wasn't alone in ripping Rubio's remarks. Congresswoman Sarah Jacobs (D-Calif.) said that "Secretary Rubio says the quiet part out loud: This is an unnecessary war of choice. Israel forced our hand—there was no imminent threat to the United States. And instead of talking Israel out of going to war, President Trump went along with it and put US lives at risk."
Stanford University political science professor Michael McFaul said: "Such strange logic. We had to go to war because Israel was going to attack Iran? So Bibi gets a say as to whether the US goes to war but the US Senate and the American people do not?"
Zeteo editor-in-chief Mehdi Hasan declared: "This is the most insane and absurd definition of an 'imminent threat' I have ever heard in my life. Our ally and proxy, Israel, that we arm and fund, was about to illegally attack Iran so we joined in the attack because that illegal attack would have led to an attack on us."
Progressive organizer and attorney Aaron Regunberg also weighed in on social media: "Quite literally—and I've used that word too freely in the past, but in this case I mean literally—Rubio is saying they've made America into Netanyahu's bitch. We go where Bibi points, regardless of the American blood it will cost. Trump is an absolute cuck. Pathetic."
While critics of Trump's "Operation Epic Fury" have slammed it as illegal and clearly motivated by regime change, Rubio claimed that the Trump administration would welcome a new government in Iran, but the war—which has taken out top Iranians, including the supreme leader, Ayatollan Ali Hosseini Khamenei—is about preventing the Middle Eastern nation from developing a nuclear weapon.
A year ago, a US intelligence report said that "we continue to assess Iran is not building a nuclear weapon and that Khamenei has not reauthorized the nuclear weapons program he suspended in 2003, though pressure has probably built on him to do so." Despite that conclusion, the Trump administration bombed the country's nuclear facilities a few months later—and, as CNN's Aaron Blake pointed out last week, Trump has repeatedly said that his June airstrikes "obliterated" Iran's program.
There are now mounting calls for the Republican-controlled Senate and House of Representatives to end Trump's assault on Iran by passing a war powers resolution. Despite the US Constitution giving Congress clear authority to declare war, several presidents have taken military action without any such declaration.
Discussing the administration's interaction with Congress about Iran, Rubio said Monday that "we notified the Gang of Eight," which is made up of the Senate and House leaders for both major parties, as well as the chairs and ranking members of each chamber's intelligence panel. Before taking on his current role, the secretary was the top Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
"There's no law that requires us to do that. The law says we have to notify them 48 hours after beginning hostilities. We've done that," Rubio said, referring to a requirement in the War Powers Act of 1973. "But we can't notify 535 members of Congress."
"If they want to take a war powers vote, they can do that. They've done that. They’ve done that a bunch of times," he added. "There's no law that requires the president to have done anything with regards to this... No presidential administration has ever accepted the War Powers Act as constitutional—not Republican presidents, not Democratic presidents."
Congressman Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) responded: "Dear Secretary Rubio: There is a law. It's called the frickin' Constitution of the United States."
Separately on Monday, the State Department urged Americans to leave a list of Middle Eastern countries.
Lieu responded: "Dear Secretary Rubio: You told Americans to depart now via commercial means when you know many airports/airspace are closed. YOU MUST IMMEDIATELY SCHEDULE US GOVERNMENT EVACUATION FLIGHTS FOR THE STRANDED AMERICANS IN DANGER. Maybe you should have thought of a frickin' plan first."
Keep ReadingShow Less
After Supreme Court Kills Tariffs, Trump Plots '15% Tax Out of YOUR Pockets to Feed HIS Deranged Ego'
"Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics," said former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer.
Feb 21, 2026
Shortly after the US Supreme Court on Friday ruled against President Donald Trump's use of emergency powers to impose sweeping tariffs, the Republican announced plans for a 10% global import tax under another law. By Saturday, he'd hiked it to 15%.
In a 6-3 decision penned by Chief Justice John Roberts, the high court found that "nothing" in the text of the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) "enables the president to unilaterally impose tariffs." Trump responded by not only lashing out at the justices but also invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 for a 10% global tariff beginning February 24.
Then, in a Saturday morning Truth Social post, Trump said:
Based on a thorough, detailed, and complete review of the ridiculous, poorly written, and extraordinarily anti-American decision on tariffs issued yesterday, after MANY months of contemplation, by the United States Supreme Court, please let this statement serve to represent that I, as President of the United States of America, will be, effective immediately, raising the 10% Worldwide Tariff on Countries, many of which have been 'ripping' the US off for decades, without retribution (until I came along!), to the fully allowed, and legally tested, 15% level. During the next short number of months, the Trump Administration will determine and issue the new and legally permissible Tariffs, which will continue our extraordinarily successful process of Making America Great Again GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!!! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Critics across the country swiftly blasted the announcement. Democratic strategist Jon Cooper argued that "Trump CANNOT legally impose a 15% global tariff because the US doesn't meet the clear emergency economic conditions envisioned by Section 122. If Trump tries to invoke it, it would certainly face immediate legal challenges, economic pushback, and potential congressional scrutiny."
Former Democratic presidential candidate Tom Steyer declared that "Donald Trump is a gangster with no respect for the rule of law and no understanding of economics. This is a 15% tax out of YOUR pockets to feed HIS deranged ego."
California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to seek the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028, similarly said that "Donald Trump just announced a NEW 15% TAX on the American people. He does not care about you."
Another California Democrat, Congressman Ted Lieu, quipped that "crybaby Trump woke up this morning and still feels hurt from the Supreme Court slapping him. So he's taking it out on the American people by increasing his 10% tax increase to 15%. These temporary tariffs will be challenged in court and Democrats will kill them when they expire."
Elected Democrats have often spoken out against Trump's legally dubious duties, but the GOP-controlled Congress hadn't forcefully countered them. As Politico detailed Friday:
Before the ruling, while congressional Republicans had occasionally grumbled about the policy, they had largely fallen in line when actually required to vote on it. Now, the Supreme Court’s decision could put more pressure on them to break with the president...
Six House Republicans voted alongside Democrats last week to condemn Trump's tariffs on Canada, sending the measure to the Senate, which has already seen significant GOP defection in other votes on the duty measures. Senior House Democrats have vowed to bring up at least three more similar resolutions that will force GOP members to choose between their adherence to free trade principles and their MAGA base.
Last week, Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.), ranking member of the Senate Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship, released a report laying out how Trump's economic policies, particularly the tariffs, "are making life unaffordable for millions of American small businesses, their workers, and their customers."
Markey held a virtual press conference with Massachusetts small business owners celebrating the Supreme Court's Friday ruling. The senator said that "for the last year, Trump has created Pain on Main with an affordability crisis plaguing communities across the country. At the heart of it are Trump's tariff taxes."
"The Supreme Court did what was right and struck down these illegal tariffs. Trump said the small businesses who brought this case hate our country. He’s wrong. Small businesses are our country," Markey continued. "I will keep fighting until every cent illegally collected from small businesses, consumers, and families in Massachusetts and across the country has been returned."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'An Abomination': Enormous 'Dictatorship-Style' Banner With Trump Face on Side of Justice Department Decried
“It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings," said one critic.
Feb 19, 2026
Critics reacted with outrage on Thursday after a large banner featuring President Donald Trump's face was hung on the outside of the US Department of Justice.
The banner shows a large blue banner draped from the side of the department's headquarters in Washington, DC, with the slogan, "Make America Safe Again" written across the bottom.
Although the Trump administration in the past has hung up banners with the president's face on other federal buildings, including the US Department of Labor, many critics were particularly alarmed by a banner going up at the DOJ given how the department has been pursuing criminal prosecutions against his political enemies, including New York Attorney General Letitia James and former FBI Director James Comey.
"This is a stunning confirmation of the grim reality," wrote MS NOW justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian, "which is that Donald Trump has seized control of the once independent Justice Department and is using it to pursue his political objectives—including trying to punish his perceived enemies."
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-NM) marveled at "the irony of a twice-impeached, convicted felon putting his own picture on the wall of the Department of Justice," while adding that "President Trump is weaponizing the DOJ as his own personal law firm."
Sen. Andy Kim (D-NJ) objected to the banner and reminded his social media followers that "the Department of Justice is supposed to work for and represent you, not him."
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) linked the banner to the ongoing scandal of the DOJ's continued failure to release all files related to the criminal investigation of late billionaire sex offender Jeffrey Epstein.
"Want more evidence that the Justice Department is covering up the Epstein files to protect Epstein’s best friend Donald Trump?" wrote Lieu. "Look at this photo."
Attorney Brian Farnkoff, a former DOJ official, described the banner as "an abomination and an outrage," while acknowledging it was symbolic of how the president has taken over the department to use as a weapon against his enemies.
David Frum, staff writer at the Atlantic, also said that the symbolism being conveyed by the banner was apt.
"The Trump DOJ is a pure creature of presidential whim, retribution, and cover-up," he wrote, "so this banner has the virtue of candor at least."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, said that the banner showed "Trump is laughing at the idea that the Justice Department is independent of the White House."
"It is an incredible affront to our democracy to display the president’s face on one of the most sacred US judicial buildings," Gilbert added. "It’s also beyond satirical that Trump, who is at the center of numerous current court cases and was convicted of numerous felonies, is splashing his face on the exterior of the Department of Justice."
Democratic California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who's expected to run for president in 2028, called the Trump DOJ banner "beyond parody," and asked, "How many dictatorship-style monuments, building name changes, and fake awards do Americans have to endure?"
Keep ReadingShow Less
Watchdog Denounces Trump AI Order Seen as Giveaway to Big Tech Billionaire Buddies Like David Sacks
"David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them."
Dec 08, 2025
President Donald Trump is drawing swift criticism after announcing he would be signing an executive order aimed at clamping down on state governments' powers to regulate the artificial intelligence industry.
In a Monday morning Truth Social post, Trump said that the order was needed to prevent a fragmented regulatory landscape for AI companies.
"We are beating ALL COUNTRIES at this point in the race, but that won’t last long if we are going to have 50 States, many of them bad actors, involved in RULES and the APPROVAL PROCESS," the president wrote. "THERE CAN BE NO DOUBT ABOUT THIS! AI WILL BE DESTROYED IN ITS INFANCY! I will be doing a ONE RULE Executive Order this week. You can’t expect a company to get 50 Approvals every time they want to do something."
Although specifics on the Trump AI executive order are not yet known, a draft order that has been circulating in recent weeks would instruct the US Department of Justice to file lawsuits against states that pass AI-related regulations with the ultimate goal of overturning them.
Emily Peterson-Cassin, policy director at watchdog Demand Progress, slammed Trump over the looming AI order, which she said was a giveaway to big tech industry billionaire backers such as David Sacks, a major Trump donor who currently serves as the administration's czar on AI and cryptocurrency.
"David Sacks and Big Tech want free rein to use our children as lab rats for AI experiments and President Trump keeps trying to give it to them," she said. "Right now, state laws are our best defense against AI chatbots that have sexual conversations with kids and even encourage them to harm themselves, deepfake revenge porn, and half-baked algorithms that make decisions about our employment and health care."
Peterson-Cassin went on to say that blocking state-level regulations of AI "only makes sense if the president’s goal is to please the Big Tech elites who helped pay for his campaign, his inauguration and his ballroom."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) also accused Trump of selling out Americans to do the bidding of Silicon Valley oligarchs.
"This is a direct ask from Big Tech lobbyists (who also donated millions to Trump’s campaign and ballroom) who only care about their own profits, not our safety," Jayapal wrote in a social media post. "States must be able to regulate AI to protect Americans."
Some critics of the Trump AI order questioned whether it had any legal weight behind it. Travis Hall, the director for state engagement at the Center for Democracy and Technology, told the New York Times that Trump's order should not hinder state governments from passing and enforcing AI industry regulations going forward.
“The president cannot pre-empt state laws through an executive order, full stop,” Hall argued. “Pre-emption is a question for Congress, which they have considered and rejected, and should continue to reject.”
Matthew Stoller, an antitrust advocate and researcher at the American Economic Liberties Project, also expressed doubt that Trump's order would be effective at blocking state AI regulations.
"Trump can issue an executive order mandating it rain today, it doesn't really matter though," said Stoller.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) predicted the Trump order would be repeatedly struck down in courts.
"Trump’s one rule executive order on AI will fail," Lieu posted on social media. "Executive orders cannot create law. Only Congress can do so. That’s why Trump tried twice (and failed) to put AI preemption into law. Courts will rule against the EO because it will largely be based on a bill that failed."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Calls for Waltz's Resignation Grow Amid Report of At Least 20 Sensitive Signal Group Chats
"There must be accountability for this administration's dangerous disregard for our national security," said one Democratic congressman and former military prosecutor.
Apr 02, 2025
U.S. National Security Adviser Mike Waltz and members of his staff have created at least 20 group chats on the encrypted messaging app Signal to coordinate official work on sensitive policy issues around the world, four people who were added to such groups told Politico.
Waltz was already under fire for a group chat about the U.S. bombing Yemen when the report broke. Politico's Dasha Burns wrote on Wednesday that "none of the four individuals said they were aware of whether any classified information was shared, but all said that posts in group chats did include sensitive details of national security work."
The anonymous sources told Politico that the group chats involved policy issues involving China, Ukraine, Gaza, the Middle East, Europe, and Africa. One of them said, "It was commonplace to stand up chats on any given national security topic," one of the four sources told the outlet.
The Politico article comes a day after The Washington Post reported that Waltz and other members of President Donald Trump's National Security Council conducted official government business via their personal Gmail accounts, which are far less secure than Signal chats.
The fresh revelations also come as "Signalgate"—in which Waltz, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and other top Trump administration officials added a journalist to a Signal group chat about plans to bomb Yemen—still smolders.
Calls for Waltz's resignation or firing, which were already numerous in the wake of Signalgate, mounted Wednesday.
Resign.
[image or embed]
— Senator Ed Markey ( @markey.senate.gov) April 2, 2025 at 2:26 PM
"Waltz must resign. Hegseth must resign," Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on the social media site Bluesky. "There must be accountability for this administration's dangerous disregard for our national security."
Referring to the Signal group chats, Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) asked on the social media site X, "How many more are there?"
"Even Trump allies say this doesn't pass the smell test," he added. "National Security Adviser Waltz and Pete Hegseth need to be fired."
Keep ReadingShow Less
AOC Leads Call for DOJ Probe of Clarence Thomas Over 'Blatant Disregard for Judicial Ethics'
"No one is above the law," the New York Democrat asserted. "For two decades, Justice Thomas failed to report millions in gifts."
Aug 11, 2023
A day after several House Democrats urged U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to resign following fresh reporting on undisclosed luxury vacations he accepted from wealthy Republican donors, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Friday led a letter calling on the Department of Justice to investigate the right-wing judge's failure to report "significant gifts" from billionaires "in defiance of his duty under federal law."
"For close to two decades, Justice Thomas repeatedly certified that his financial disclosures were 'accurate, true, and complete,' despite omitting millions of dollars in gifts," the office of Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said in a statement. "Justices of the Supreme Court are required to file annual reports disclosing gifts, and the failure to do so carries a legal penalty under the Ethics of Government Act of 1978."
According to the letter—which was also signed by Democratic Reps. Jerry Nadler (N.Y.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), Hank Johnson (Ga.), and Ted Lieu (Calif.)—"Justice Thomas' consistent failure to disclose gifts and benefits from industry magnates and wealthy, politically active executives highlights a blatant disregard for judicial ethics as well as apparent legal violations."
The letter continues:
No individual, regardless of their position or stature, should be exempt from legal scrutiny for lawbreaking. The integrity of our judicial system hinges on the impartiality and transparency of its members. As a Supreme Court justice and high constitutional officer, Justice Thomas should be held to the highest standard, not the lowest—and he certainly shouldn't be allowed to violate federal law. Refusing to hold him accountable would set a dangerous precedent, undermining public trust in our institutions and raising legitimate questions about the equal application of laws in our nation.
ProPublica reported Thursday that Thomas has accepted at least 38 luxury vacations funded by ultrawealthy executives and Republican donors—some with business interests before the Supreme Court. The outlet noted that "while some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises, and expensive sports tickets."
Ocasio-Cortez and other congressional Democrats have previously called for Thomas' impeachment over ethical issues including his unsigned dissent in a case involving the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by supporters of former Republican President Donald Trump, who is facing federal charges for trying to overturn his 2020 election loss. The justice's wife, GOP operative Ginni Thomas, allegedly lobbied state lawmakers in Arizona to help rig the election for Trump.
Critics have lamented that the Supreme Court—alone among the three co-equal branches of the federal government—is not subjected to a binding code of ethics. Last month, the Democrat-led Senate Judiciary Committee advanced legislation led by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) that would compel the high court to adopt an enforceable code of ethics. The measure advanced with no Republican support and is unlikely to pass the full Senate and GOP-controlled House.
ProPublica has also exposed a luxury fishing vacation in Alaska that another right-wing justice, Dobbs v. Jackson author Samuel Alito, accepted from a billionaire hedge fund manager who has repeatedly had business before the court.
Additionally, Politico's Heidi Przybyla reported earlier this year that Justice Neil Gorsuch, another member of the high court's conservative supermajority, in 2017 sold a property to the head of a law firm subsequently involved in over 20 cases before the court.
Last month, an Associated Press investigation also revealed that liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor's staff "has often prodded public institutions that have hosted the justice to buy her memoir or children's books, works that have earned her at least $3.7 million since she joined the court in 2009."
Thomas and Alito have argued they don't have to disclose gifts they've received, even from people who have or have had cases before the Supreme Court. Critics derided Thomas for claiming that he was advised by colleagues to not report the largesse of billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow and others from whom he accepted gifts.
"Thomas must resign and Congress must pass a binding code of ethics for Supreme Court justices."
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts has rebuffed demands from congressional Democrats and others to investigate allegations of unethical and possibly illegal conduct by Thomas and Alito, while refusing an invitation to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee over the accusations.
Responding to the latest ProPublica reporting, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote Thursday on the social media site formerly known as Twitter that "Thomas' behavior is unconscionable."
"Americans deserve better from their highest court," Warren added. "We need binding ethics rules for SCOTUS now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
House Democrats Call on Clarence Thomas to Resign Over 'Stunning' Corruption
"Justice Thomas' alleged actions don't just appear corrupt, they are corrupt," said Rep. Ted Lieu.
Aug 11, 2023
Several House Democrats on Thursday pushed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas to immediately resign after the investigative outlet ProPublica revealed fresh details about the powerful judge's billionaire-funded—and undisclosed—luxury vacations.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.), a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said in a statement that Thomas' "alleged actions are not just shocking, they are illegal."
"Disclosure laws like the ones Justice Thomas allegedly violated are meant to provide transparency and prevent corruption," Lieu added. "Justice Thomas' alleged actions don't just appear corrupt, they are corrupt because of the unprecedented scale of his ethical and legal violations. Justice Thomas has brought shame upon himself and eroded the credibility of the Supreme Court. Justice Thomas should resign immediately."
ProPublica reported Thursday that Thomas has taken at least 38 luxury trips on the dime of ultrawealthy executives and Republican donors, some of whom have had business interests reach the high court.
The outlet noted that "while some of the hospitality, such as stays in personal homes, may not have required disclosure, Thomas appears to have violated the law by failing to disclose flights, yacht cruises, and expensive sports tickets."
ProPublica's detailed account of the gifts Thomas has received for decades from a group of right-wing executives renewed outrage over the Supreme Court's lack of ethical standards. Unlike every other federal court in the U.S., the Supreme Court does not have a binding code of ethics, providing an opening for justices to take dozens of private jet flights and stay at luxury resorts with the help of conservative billionaires.
"No justice should accept these types of gifts," Rep. Gerry Connolly (D-Va.) said Thursday. "Thomas has repeatedly brought dishonor and ethical malpractice to our highest court. I reiterate my call that he must resign. This is exactly why we need SCOTUS ethics reform."
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, called Thomas' conduct "unprecedented," "stunning," and "disgusting," writing that it is "the height of hypocrisy to wear the robes of a SCOTUS [justice] and take undisclosed gifts from billionaires who benefit from your decisions."
"Resign," she added.
Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) joined his colleagues in demanding Thomas' resignation, slamming the right-wing justice as "corrupt as hell."
Thomas insists that he has "always sought to comply with the disclosure guidelines," but the justice has a long history of failing to disclose key items, such as income that his wife has received from right-wing organizations.
In April, after ProPublica reported that Thomas has been taking undisclosed yacht and private jet trips funded by billionaire GOP megadonor Harlan Crow for more than two decades, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) told The Lever that she would be willing to draft articles of impeachment against Thomas if no other House member did so.
To date, no House lawmaker has unveiled articles of impeachment even as the Supreme Court's ethical crisis spirals further out of control. An impeachment vote against Thomas would stand no chance in the House, which is controlled by Republicans.
A few House Democrats nevertheless voiced support for an impeachment vote on Thursday.
Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) noted that she "called for a vote to impeach Justice Thomas if he would not resign back in April—before we even knew just how much farther his corruption goes thanks to ProPublica's reporting."
Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), for her part, wrote Thursday, "Today's a good day to impeach Clarence Thomas."
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