SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The head of the voter commission, Kris Kobach--photographed here with U.S. President Donald Trump--is notorious for his efforts to restrict access to the ballot in a way that helps the GOP, writes John Light. (Photo: Carolyn Kaster/AP)
Earlier this week, the ACLU and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law each filed separate lawsuits against the Trump administration, alleging that its Commission on Election Integrity is violating federal law.
The lawsuits challenge the commission on the basis of transparency. "This process is cloaked in secrecy, raising serious concerns about its credibility and intent. What are they trying to hide?" said Theresa Lee, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, in a statement.
In truth, voting-rights advocates have a pretty good idea of what the commission might be trying to hide. The effort is widely seen as an attempt to scrounge up justification for Donald Trump's purported belief that millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton, causing Trump to lose the popular vote while still winning the electoral college.
The head of the voter commission, Kris Kobach, is notorious for his efforts to restrict access to the ballot in a way that helps the GOP. He's joined on the commission by a rogues' gallery of voter fraud conspiracy theorists who have found employment with the GOP in recent years. Unfortunately for them, their initial efforts through Trump's commission seem to be backfiring.
Last month, the commission requested states provide voter-roll information including the names, addresses, birth dates, partial Social Security numbers, party affiliation, felon status and other data for every registered voter in the country, but nearly every state in the US is resisting supplying at least some of the information the voter commission requested, and a handful are refusing to comply outright. "They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great state to launch from," said Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman, a Republican from one of the states that is refusing to comply. Even Kobach, acting in his capacity as Kansas' secretary of state, told himself, acting in his capacity as the head of the Commission on Election Integrity, that Kansas would not be able to fully comply with the commission's request.
At a meeting of secretaries of state last weekend, the election officials passed a resolution affirming that "states are responsible for protecting the integrity of their elections including the secrecy of the ballot, security of their election infrastructures and sensitive personal information included in the states' voter rolls" and reaffirming the secretaries' "commitment to strengthening election cyber security, improving processes, and increasing voter participation." It was a clear response to Trump's Election Integrity Commission. (Kobach was conspicuously absent from the meeting.)
But on the same day last month that the Commission on Election Integrity sent out its ill-fated requests to states for voters' personal information, something else happened--something that could be far more threatening to states than Kobach inquiry.
On that day, the Sessions Department of Justice also sent a letter to 44 states demanding to know state procedures for maintaining voter registration lists under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or the "motor voter" law, which sought to encourage Americans to vote but also detailed when voters should be kicked off voting rolls. The NVRA requires states to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists." Voters can only be removed from voting rolls after the state tries and fails to contact them to confirm their address--and, if after the state reaches out and doesn't receive a response, the person in question then does not show up to vote in the next two federal elections.
But voting rights advocates worry that the Trump administration's ultimate goal may be to pressure states to purge their voter rolls under the excuse of eliminating voters who have become inactive or moved away. The timing of the two efforts--with both the Election Integrity Commission and the Department of Justice sending out letters to the majority of states on the same day--seems more than coincidental.
"When states initiate large-scale removals without the appropriate protections, eligible voters could be kicked off the rolls and disenfranchised on Election Day," writes Jonathan Brater of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "Unfortunately, we have lots of examples of bad purges. Most notorious were those in Florida in 2000, when eligible voters were confused with ineligible individuals."
Pushing state voter purges has been a longtime priority for some within the Republican Party, Brater writes. After the 2000 Florida recount debacle and the subsequent need for the Supreme Court to pick a president, the Bush administration recognized the difference a handful of votes could make, and pushed state officials to scrutinize their voter rolls. The Bush Department of Justice even sued Missouri to force it to conduct a voter purge and lost. Many of the same people who played a role in that effort have now been given jobs with the Trump administration.
The upshot is that when some voters who have not cast a ballot in a while show up at the polls for their next election, they may find that they are no longer registered. Given that voter purges tend to affect poor and minority voters, and that Republicans are concerned about a groundswell of support for Democrats in coming elections, efforts to purge voter rolls would likely end up disenfranchising those who would vote against the president's agenda.
Ultimately, Kobach and Sessions may be laying the groundwork for a repeal of the NVRA, writes election law expert Richard Hasen at Slate.
They will argue it is necessary to roll back the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (or "motor voter" law)--a law which folks like Kobach hate because among other things it requires states to offer voter registration at public service agencies. They'll want federal law to do what federal courts have so far forbidden Kobach to do: Require people to produce documentary proof of citizenship before registering to vote. In other words, show us your papers or you can't register.
In Trump's Election Integrity Commission, voting-rights advocates see the shadow of fights to come. But there are also plenty of fights today. As the specter of Justice Department-backed voter-roll purges loom, Republican-governed states are also taking other signals from the Trump administration's DOJ--including that voter-ID laws of the sort fought by Eric Holder's DOJ under Obama--are now more acceptable. The latest iteration of Texas's voter-ID law, for instance, is being supported by the Sessions DOJ; the Holder DOJ opposed it in court. In total, eight states are seeking to implement or strengthening voter-ID laws this year, Jane Timm reports for NBC News.
These laws can make a difference: A study by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA found that Wisconsin's voter-ID blocked as many as 200,000 people from voting in 2016. That's an order of magnitude more than the 22,000 votes that delivered the state to Trump. A Brennan Center analysis finds that as many as 21 million Americans--or 11 percent--may not have a photo ID. This group is disproportionately made up of elderly, poor, and minority Americans, and includes many city-dwellers (for whom a driver's license is less necessary). Millions more Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 do not have a photo ID that reflects their current name and address, the Brennan Center report found. In short, many Americans without IDs tend to be the sort of Americans who also vote for Democrats.
The Democratic Party is touting a new effort to fight gerrymandering, which has given as many 22 seats in the House of Representatives to Republicans. But if Democrats hope to retake Congress and rebuild their party, they'll also have to ramp up their opposition to restrictive voting practices--and any attempt by the Trump Election Integrity Commission and the Sessions DOJ to further restrict the franchise.
Donald Trump’s attacks on democracy, justice, and a free press are escalating — putting everything we stand for at risk. We believe a better world is possible, but we can’t get there without your support. Common Dreams stands apart. We answer only to you — our readers, activists, and changemakers — not to billionaires or corporations. Our independence allows us to cover the vital stories that others won’t, spotlighting movements for peace, equality, and human rights. Right now, our work faces unprecedented challenges. Misinformation is spreading, journalists are under attack, and financial pressures are mounting. As a reader-supported, nonprofit newsroom, your support is crucial to keep this journalism alive. Whatever you can give — $10, $25, or $100 — helps us stay strong and responsive when the world needs us most. Together, we’ll continue to build the independent, courageous journalism our movement relies on. Thank you for being part of this community. |
Earlier this week, the ACLU and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law each filed separate lawsuits against the Trump administration, alleging that its Commission on Election Integrity is violating federal law.
The lawsuits challenge the commission on the basis of transparency. "This process is cloaked in secrecy, raising serious concerns about its credibility and intent. What are they trying to hide?" said Theresa Lee, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, in a statement.
In truth, voting-rights advocates have a pretty good idea of what the commission might be trying to hide. The effort is widely seen as an attempt to scrounge up justification for Donald Trump's purported belief that millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton, causing Trump to lose the popular vote while still winning the electoral college.
The head of the voter commission, Kris Kobach, is notorious for his efforts to restrict access to the ballot in a way that helps the GOP. He's joined on the commission by a rogues' gallery of voter fraud conspiracy theorists who have found employment with the GOP in recent years. Unfortunately for them, their initial efforts through Trump's commission seem to be backfiring.
Last month, the commission requested states provide voter-roll information including the names, addresses, birth dates, partial Social Security numbers, party affiliation, felon status and other data for every registered voter in the country, but nearly every state in the US is resisting supplying at least some of the information the voter commission requested, and a handful are refusing to comply outright. "They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great state to launch from," said Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman, a Republican from one of the states that is refusing to comply. Even Kobach, acting in his capacity as Kansas' secretary of state, told himself, acting in his capacity as the head of the Commission on Election Integrity, that Kansas would not be able to fully comply with the commission's request.
At a meeting of secretaries of state last weekend, the election officials passed a resolution affirming that "states are responsible for protecting the integrity of their elections including the secrecy of the ballot, security of their election infrastructures and sensitive personal information included in the states' voter rolls" and reaffirming the secretaries' "commitment to strengthening election cyber security, improving processes, and increasing voter participation." It was a clear response to Trump's Election Integrity Commission. (Kobach was conspicuously absent from the meeting.)
But on the same day last month that the Commission on Election Integrity sent out its ill-fated requests to states for voters' personal information, something else happened--something that could be far more threatening to states than Kobach inquiry.
On that day, the Sessions Department of Justice also sent a letter to 44 states demanding to know state procedures for maintaining voter registration lists under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or the "motor voter" law, which sought to encourage Americans to vote but also detailed when voters should be kicked off voting rolls. The NVRA requires states to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists." Voters can only be removed from voting rolls after the state tries and fails to contact them to confirm their address--and, if after the state reaches out and doesn't receive a response, the person in question then does not show up to vote in the next two federal elections.
But voting rights advocates worry that the Trump administration's ultimate goal may be to pressure states to purge their voter rolls under the excuse of eliminating voters who have become inactive or moved away. The timing of the two efforts--with both the Election Integrity Commission and the Department of Justice sending out letters to the majority of states on the same day--seems more than coincidental.
"When states initiate large-scale removals without the appropriate protections, eligible voters could be kicked off the rolls and disenfranchised on Election Day," writes Jonathan Brater of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "Unfortunately, we have lots of examples of bad purges. Most notorious were those in Florida in 2000, when eligible voters were confused with ineligible individuals."
Pushing state voter purges has been a longtime priority for some within the Republican Party, Brater writes. After the 2000 Florida recount debacle and the subsequent need for the Supreme Court to pick a president, the Bush administration recognized the difference a handful of votes could make, and pushed state officials to scrutinize their voter rolls. The Bush Department of Justice even sued Missouri to force it to conduct a voter purge and lost. Many of the same people who played a role in that effort have now been given jobs with the Trump administration.
The upshot is that when some voters who have not cast a ballot in a while show up at the polls for their next election, they may find that they are no longer registered. Given that voter purges tend to affect poor and minority voters, and that Republicans are concerned about a groundswell of support for Democrats in coming elections, efforts to purge voter rolls would likely end up disenfranchising those who would vote against the president's agenda.
Ultimately, Kobach and Sessions may be laying the groundwork for a repeal of the NVRA, writes election law expert Richard Hasen at Slate.
They will argue it is necessary to roll back the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (or "motor voter" law)--a law which folks like Kobach hate because among other things it requires states to offer voter registration at public service agencies. They'll want federal law to do what federal courts have so far forbidden Kobach to do: Require people to produce documentary proof of citizenship before registering to vote. In other words, show us your papers or you can't register.
In Trump's Election Integrity Commission, voting-rights advocates see the shadow of fights to come. But there are also plenty of fights today. As the specter of Justice Department-backed voter-roll purges loom, Republican-governed states are also taking other signals from the Trump administration's DOJ--including that voter-ID laws of the sort fought by Eric Holder's DOJ under Obama--are now more acceptable. The latest iteration of Texas's voter-ID law, for instance, is being supported by the Sessions DOJ; the Holder DOJ opposed it in court. In total, eight states are seeking to implement or strengthening voter-ID laws this year, Jane Timm reports for NBC News.
These laws can make a difference: A study by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA found that Wisconsin's voter-ID blocked as many as 200,000 people from voting in 2016. That's an order of magnitude more than the 22,000 votes that delivered the state to Trump. A Brennan Center analysis finds that as many as 21 million Americans--or 11 percent--may not have a photo ID. This group is disproportionately made up of elderly, poor, and minority Americans, and includes many city-dwellers (for whom a driver's license is less necessary). Millions more Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 do not have a photo ID that reflects their current name and address, the Brennan Center report found. In short, many Americans without IDs tend to be the sort of Americans who also vote for Democrats.
The Democratic Party is touting a new effort to fight gerrymandering, which has given as many 22 seats in the House of Representatives to Republicans. But if Democrats hope to retake Congress and rebuild their party, they'll also have to ramp up their opposition to restrictive voting practices--and any attempt by the Trump Election Integrity Commission and the Sessions DOJ to further restrict the franchise.
Earlier this week, the ACLU and the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law each filed separate lawsuits against the Trump administration, alleging that its Commission on Election Integrity is violating federal law.
The lawsuits challenge the commission on the basis of transparency. "This process is cloaked in secrecy, raising serious concerns about its credibility and intent. What are they trying to hide?" said Theresa Lee, a staff attorney with the ACLU's Voting Rights Project, in a statement.
In truth, voting-rights advocates have a pretty good idea of what the commission might be trying to hide. The effort is widely seen as an attempt to scrounge up justification for Donald Trump's purported belief that millions of people voted illegally for Hillary Clinton, causing Trump to lose the popular vote while still winning the electoral college.
The head of the voter commission, Kris Kobach, is notorious for his efforts to restrict access to the ballot in a way that helps the GOP. He's joined on the commission by a rogues' gallery of voter fraud conspiracy theorists who have found employment with the GOP in recent years. Unfortunately for them, their initial efforts through Trump's commission seem to be backfiring.
Last month, the commission requested states provide voter-roll information including the names, addresses, birth dates, partial Social Security numbers, party affiliation, felon status and other data for every registered voter in the country, but nearly every state in the US is resisting supplying at least some of the information the voter commission requested, and a handful are refusing to comply outright. "They can go jump in the Gulf of Mexico and Mississippi is a great state to launch from," said Mississippi Secretary of State Delbert Hoseman, a Republican from one of the states that is refusing to comply. Even Kobach, acting in his capacity as Kansas' secretary of state, told himself, acting in his capacity as the head of the Commission on Election Integrity, that Kansas would not be able to fully comply with the commission's request.
At a meeting of secretaries of state last weekend, the election officials passed a resolution affirming that "states are responsible for protecting the integrity of their elections including the secrecy of the ballot, security of their election infrastructures and sensitive personal information included in the states' voter rolls" and reaffirming the secretaries' "commitment to strengthening election cyber security, improving processes, and increasing voter participation." It was a clear response to Trump's Election Integrity Commission. (Kobach was conspicuously absent from the meeting.)
But on the same day last month that the Commission on Election Integrity sent out its ill-fated requests to states for voters' personal information, something else happened--something that could be far more threatening to states than Kobach inquiry.
On that day, the Sessions Department of Justice also sent a letter to 44 states demanding to know state procedures for maintaining voter registration lists under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993, or the "motor voter" law, which sought to encourage Americans to vote but also detailed when voters should be kicked off voting rolls. The NVRA requires states to "conduct a general program that makes a reasonable effort to remove the names of ineligible voters from the official lists." Voters can only be removed from voting rolls after the state tries and fails to contact them to confirm their address--and, if after the state reaches out and doesn't receive a response, the person in question then does not show up to vote in the next two federal elections.
But voting rights advocates worry that the Trump administration's ultimate goal may be to pressure states to purge their voter rolls under the excuse of eliminating voters who have become inactive or moved away. The timing of the two efforts--with both the Election Integrity Commission and the Department of Justice sending out letters to the majority of states on the same day--seems more than coincidental.
"When states initiate large-scale removals without the appropriate protections, eligible voters could be kicked off the rolls and disenfranchised on Election Day," writes Jonathan Brater of NYU's Brennan Center for Justice. "Unfortunately, we have lots of examples of bad purges. Most notorious were those in Florida in 2000, when eligible voters were confused with ineligible individuals."
Pushing state voter purges has been a longtime priority for some within the Republican Party, Brater writes. After the 2000 Florida recount debacle and the subsequent need for the Supreme Court to pick a president, the Bush administration recognized the difference a handful of votes could make, and pushed state officials to scrutinize their voter rolls. The Bush Department of Justice even sued Missouri to force it to conduct a voter purge and lost. Many of the same people who played a role in that effort have now been given jobs with the Trump administration.
The upshot is that when some voters who have not cast a ballot in a while show up at the polls for their next election, they may find that they are no longer registered. Given that voter purges tend to affect poor and minority voters, and that Republicans are concerned about a groundswell of support for Democrats in coming elections, efforts to purge voter rolls would likely end up disenfranchising those who would vote against the president's agenda.
Ultimately, Kobach and Sessions may be laying the groundwork for a repeal of the NVRA, writes election law expert Richard Hasen at Slate.
They will argue it is necessary to roll back the 1993 National Voter Registration Act (or "motor voter" law)--a law which folks like Kobach hate because among other things it requires states to offer voter registration at public service agencies. They'll want federal law to do what federal courts have so far forbidden Kobach to do: Require people to produce documentary proof of citizenship before registering to vote. In other words, show us your papers or you can't register.
In Trump's Election Integrity Commission, voting-rights advocates see the shadow of fights to come. But there are also plenty of fights today. As the specter of Justice Department-backed voter-roll purges loom, Republican-governed states are also taking other signals from the Trump administration's DOJ--including that voter-ID laws of the sort fought by Eric Holder's DOJ under Obama--are now more acceptable. The latest iteration of Texas's voter-ID law, for instance, is being supported by the Sessions DOJ; the Holder DOJ opposed it in court. In total, eight states are seeking to implement or strengthening voter-ID laws this year, Jane Timm reports for NBC News.
These laws can make a difference: A study by the Democratic super PAC Priorities USA found that Wisconsin's voter-ID blocked as many as 200,000 people from voting in 2016. That's an order of magnitude more than the 22,000 votes that delivered the state to Trump. A Brennan Center analysis finds that as many as 21 million Americans--or 11 percent--may not have a photo ID. This group is disproportionately made up of elderly, poor, and minority Americans, and includes many city-dwellers (for whom a driver's license is less necessary). Millions more Americans between the ages of 18 and 24 do not have a photo ID that reflects their current name and address, the Brennan Center report found. In short, many Americans without IDs tend to be the sort of Americans who also vote for Democrats.
The Democratic Party is touting a new effort to fight gerrymandering, which has given as many 22 seats in the House of Representatives to Republicans. But if Democrats hope to retake Congress and rebuild their party, they'll also have to ramp up their opposition to restrictive voting practices--and any attempt by the Trump Election Integrity Commission and the Sessions DOJ to further restrict the franchise.
"We're in a knife fight for our democracy here in Indiana," said Democratic state lawmakers. "Trump is trying to bully the Indiana GOP into tearing apart our democracy."
Amid the specter of federal agents hunting down absconding Democratic state lawmakers resisting a Republican bid to gerrymander Texas' congressional map, U.S. Vice President JD Vance on Thursday traveled to Indiana, where his pitch for rigging that state's House districts was met with raucous opposition.
Vance met with Republican Indiana Gov. Mike Braun, who was reportedly "noncommittal" about redrawing the state's congressional map. In a Thursday interview on Fox News, Braun said that Indiana has "become more Republican over time, and these maps probably need to be looked at"—even as he admitted that a mid-decade redraw not linked to the decennial census would be "unusual."
Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith, a Republican, took to social media to thank Vance for his visit and voice support for redistricting.
"Redistricting isn't just politics—it's about ensuring the voice of We the People is heard loud and clear," Beckwith said. "Indiana is proud to play a key role in shaping a stronger, freer future for our nation and as lieutenant governor I fully support this effort!"
According to the Indianapolis Star, protestors organized by the nonprofit group MADVoters booed for more than a minute after learning that Vance was in the State House. Opponents of gerrymandering, led by Democratic state lawmakers, staged an hourslong sit-in protest.
"This is clearly a power grab," state Rep. Cherrish Pryor (D-94) told the Indiana Capital Chronicle. "This is simply an attempt by the president to stay in power forever."
Julia Vaughn, executive director of the advocacy group Common Cause Indiana, said Republicans should be prepared for a legal fight over any redistricting.
"We will see you in court, Gov. Braun," she said. "Leave our congressional maps alone!"
More than 100 demonstrators also rallied outside the Indiana Governor's Mansion to protest Republican gerrymandering machinations.
Via IndyStar:Close to 100 people have gathered outside of the Indiana Governor’s Mansion to protest the state government, who floated the idea of redistricting the state in favor of Republican candidates.Indiana GOP already hold 7 of the state's 9 US. House seats. #indianapolis #hoosiersky
[image or embed]
— Noe Padilla (@noepadilla.bsky.social) August 7, 2025 at 1:42 PM
Republicans already occupy seven of Indiana's nine House seats. Any redistricting would likely target the state's 1st District, which is represented by Congressman Frank Mrvan, a Democrat.
"The Trump administration has recognized that their harmful policies to benefit wealthy elites at the expense of working families are wildly unpopular. They know that their only hope to maintain control is to pressure the Indiana General Assembly to violate the Indiana Constitution and redistrict U.S. House of Representative seats mid-decade," Mrvan said in a statement.
"My mission throughout my career as a public servant and as a member of the U.S. House is to advocate for the most vulnerable in our communities," Mrvan added. "Any attempt to redistrict now is simply an attempt to silence those very voices."
Indiana's other Democratic congressman, André Carson of the 7th District, said: "Redistricting attempts in Indiana are a power grab. It's unethical and the move of a dictator."
"We won't accept our democracy turning into a dictatorship," Carson added. "Attempts to silence our vote exist right now. We want our Republican friends to do the right thing."
Democrats in the Indiana House of Representatives also issued a statement, saying that "we're in a knife fight for our democracy here in Indiana."
"We're getting the word out that President [Donald] Trump is trying to bully the Indiana GOP into tearing apart our democracy—but we're not letting this happen without a big, public fight," the Democrats added.
Responding to the vice president's gerrymandering pitch, Brett Edkins, managing director for policy and political affairs at the pro-democracy group Stand Up America, said in a statement that "Vance didn't visit Indiana for a friendly chat—he was there on marching orders from Donald Trump to strong-arm and intimidate state leaders into rigging the electoral maps in his favor so that congressional Republicans can avoid accountability from the voters in next year's midterm elections."
"Hoosiers deserve leaders who listen to them—not bullies from Washington, D.C. doing Trump's bidding behind closed doors," Edkins added. "Gov. Braun and Indiana's leaders should reject any effort to redraw Indiana's political maps for partisan ends."
Republicans are weighing plans for congressional redistricting in other states, including Florida, Missouri, and Ohio, ahead of next year's midterm elections. Governors and lawmakers in some Democrat-controlled states have vowed to respond in kind, with New York Gov. Kathy Hochul saying earlier this week that members of her party should "fight fire with fire."
Vance's Indiana visit came amid an escalating standoff between Texas Democratic lawmakers who fled the state in a bid to stymie a vote on a GOP-grerrymandered congressional map and Republican officials who ordered their arrest and enlisted the FBI to help track them down and force them back to Austin.
"Let's call this what it is: a clear attempt to rig federal elections and cheat the American people out of a voice," National Democratic Redistricting Committee president John Bisognano said Thursday of the GOP gerrymandering push in Indiana and other states.
"Republicans in the Hoosier State have a choice," he added. "They can stand up against the authoritarian regime in Washington and help stop this attempt to steal an election—just as Republicans in Georgia and Arizona did in 2020—or they can roll over to Donald Trump, sacrificing the rights and freedoms of all Americans, and see the wall of resistance Texas Republicans are seeing right now."
"Trans people have served this country with honor," said Rep. Pramila Jayapal. "They deserve dignity—not betrayal."
The families of transgender service members in the U.S. Air Force could lose hundreds of thousands of dollars in denied retirement benefits due to a memo sent by the military branch this week.
As Reuters reported Thursday, an official at the Air Force informed transgender members with 15-18 years of military service that they would no be eligible for early retirement and would instead be forced to leave the Air Force without retirement benefits. Some transgender troops had previously been told they could retire early.
"After careful consideration of the individual applications, I am disapproving all Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) exception to policy requests in Tabs 1 and 2 for members with 15-18 years of service," wrote Brian Scarlett, the acting assistant secretary of the Air Force for manpower and reserve affairs.
The memo means that many service members whose applications for early retirement had already been approved will have those approvals rescinded.
The decision follows the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in June that cleared the way for the U.S. Department of Defense to ban openly transgender Americans from serving in the military. President Donald Trump signed an executive order earlier this year to impose such a ban.
"This is just betrayal of a direct commitment made to these service members."
Last week, in a court filing related to transgender service members' lawsuit against the administration, the Department of Justice denied that the plaintiffs are transgender, instead calling them "trans-identifying individuals."
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said there would be "no more pronouns" and "no more dudes in dresses" permitted in the military at a press conference in May, and transgender service members have recently reported facing bigotry as they've departed the service.
Military.com reported last month that one 20-year transgender veteran of the Army was told by an instructor of a mandatory pre-retirement course that she and her classmates should cross out the words "pronoun, gender, diversity, and inclusion" from their workbooks.
The incident, she said, was "yet another reminder that it doesn't matter how much they say, 'Thank you for all the effort you put in and that your contributions are valuable'... because at the end of the day, they're having us manually go in and remove our own contributions from all the documentation."
The attempted "removal" of any record of transgender people's service now extends to their retirement benefits, according to the memo sent August 4, with service members who have served for close to two decades being given the option to quit or be forced out, with lump-sum payments instead of benefits.
Shannon Minter of the National Center for LGBTQ Rights told Reuters the memo was "devastating."
"This is just betrayal of a direct commitment made to these service members," said Minter.
Reuters reported that the memo included a question-and-answer section, with one question reading, "How do I tell family we're not getting retirement benefits?"
The Air Force suggested long-serving transgender members tell their loved ones to "focus on the benefits you do retain," such as Department of Veterans Affairs benefits and "experience," and to seek counseling services.
"The Air Force told transgender service members to prepare for early retirement—then changed course and is now forcing them out with no benefits at all," said U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.). "Trans people have served this country with honor. They deserve dignity—not betrayal. We must speak out and fight back, always."
"The days of shackling America's oil, gas, and coal companies are over," said spokesperson Melinda McFossilShill.
A renaming ceremony for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was held at its Washington, D.C. headquarters on Thursday to give the EPA a name that reflects its priorities under Administrator Lee Zeldin and Republican President Donald Trump.
On the heels of Zeldin's visit to New England that spotlighted a push for the Constitution gas pipeline, a small group gathered outside the EPA building on Thursday to reintroduce it as the Environmental Pollution Agency and unveil its new logo.
"The days of shackling America's oil, gas, and coal companies are over," said Environmental Pollution Agency spokesperson Melinda McFossilShill. "The Trump administration stands for freedom, and that includes the freedom to pollute."
McFossilShill is not a real representative of the agency, but rather a critic of what it's become. Thursday's "Make Pollution Great Again!" event was a protest, led by groups including Shut Down D.C. and the local arm of Extinction Rebellion.
In addition to McFossilShill, protesters took on the personas of fossil fuel executives and backers, including Joe Gasfracker, vice president for corporate capture of government (a false name and position) at the (real) American Petroleum Institute.
"I want to extend my deepest gratitude to Administrator Zeldin and President Trump for finally ending the charade of so-called 'environmental protection' and making government work for our patriotic fossil fuel corporations again," he said.
"There are hundreds of people dying in floods, thousands dying in hurricanes, and millions being sickened by particulate matter pollution, wildfire smoke, and extreme heat, but we must balance that against the billions of dollars in profit that our members make," Gasfracker continued. "Billions are more than millions, so obviously our profits must take precedence."
Another protester—dubbed Pete Pollution, executive director of Energy Villains for Increased Leakage (EVIL)—declared that "the American Dream has always been about the freedom to pour toxic chemicals into every community."
"If we don't pollute America's environment, who will?" added Pollution. Other participants held signs that called for making rivers burn, causing more asthma, and destroying human health.
Protesters renamed the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency the Environmental Pollution Agency at its Washington, D.C. headquarters on August 7, 2025. (Photo: Extinction Rebellion D.C.)
During Trump's second term, the EPA has faced intense criticism for a range of actions. Over the past month, the agency has put 144 employees on leave after they signed a letter criticizing the administration's "harmful" policies, eliminated its scientific research arm in the "ultimate Friday night purge," proposed reregistering a pesticide twice banned by federal courts, and moved to cancel $7 billion in solar grants for low- and middle-income households.
Perhaps most notably, the agency also unveiled a rule to rescind the 2009 "endangerment finding" that has enabled federal regulations aimed at the fossil fuel-driven climate emergency over the past 15 years.
Further, Trump last month signed a series of proclamations to provide what he called "regulatory relief" to over 100 coal, chemical manufacturing, iron ore processing, and sterile medical equipment facilities, with the White House claiming that rules imposed on them under former Democratic President Joe Biden's EPA were "burdensome."
At the time, John Walke, clean air director for the environmental group Natural Resources Defense Council, accused Trump of signing a "literal free pass for polluters," and warned that "if your family lives downwind of these plants, this is going to mean more toxic chemicals in the air you breathe."
Elected Democrats—who have minorities in both chambers of Congress—have joined climate, environmental, and public health advocates in calling out Trump and Zeldin for various moves.
Jay Inslee: Trump and Zeldin have turned EPA into ‘Environmental Pollution Agency’ by revoking essential climate rule www.msnbc.com/ali-velshi/w...
[image or embed]
— Ali Velshi (@velshi.com) August 4, 2025 at 11:51 AM
On Thursday, U.S. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Environment and Public Works Committee Ranking Member Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) led a letter to Zeldin about his proposal to gut power plant pollution standards.
"Climate change and toxic air pollution are serious issues," dozens of Senate Democrats wrote to the EPA administrator. "We represent millions of constituents who risk poisoning from mercury and air toxics and who are facing the rising costs of the climate crisis."
"Congress established the Clean Air Act to protect our constituents from these dangers. We urge EPA to follow its directive," they added, urging Zeldin to withdraw two proposals on fossil fuel plant emissions.
In a Thursday statement, Schumer said that "the Trump administration is saying to hell with five decades worth of protection against deadly pollution and neurotoxins that has saved thousands of lives, made communities safer, and our economy stronger. Why? To appease Big Oil and fossil fuel billionaires."
"The Trump administration's obsession with gutting clean air protections and allowing more poison into the air is reckless, dangerous, and a clear reminder: Republicans care about their donors, not you," he charged. "The EPA needs to stop ignoring the science and the facts and immediately reverse course and put the health and safety of Americans first."