Lefty Stacks

Hi, all, and happy Sunday.

Here’s your weekly list of the good things that happened this week. Enjoy it, because wow, the last seven days were rough! Still, we did have our victories, and it’s important to acknowledge and celebrate them. We’re even holding on with Trump’s horrific bill, although it’s definitely touch and go. I’m not sure we can stop it, but at least we haven’t lost the fight yet, and every day that goes by makes our chances a bit better.

On that note, the Parliamentarian has been doing the Lord’s work stripping bad stuff out of the bill. I listed some of the most notable wins below, but there are far too many to catalogue. You can find a live document with all of them listed here.

Anyway. I’m sending you all so much love. This is an insanely difficult moment in history, but even on the worst days our fight still bears fruit. So enjoy reading about it!

Tomorrow we’ll go back to work. ❤️❤️

Celebrate This! 🎉

Zohran Mamdani won the NYC mayoral primary!!

A successful policy for community solar in Minnesota has survived a political fight to end it.

A federal judge in Massachusetts said he plans to deny a motion by the Trump administration to dismiss a lawsuit over its blocking of wind energy projects, siding with a coalition of state attorneys general.

Public lands are safe from being sold off in the reconciliation bill.

Gavin Newsom sued Fox News, accusing the network of defaming him in its coverage of a phone call he had with President Trump this month. The suit seeks damages of at least $787 million.

Nearly 8,000 acres of forest in Alabama’s Mobile-Tensaw Delta, one of the most biodiverse places in North America, is now protected as the E.O. Wilson Land Between the Rivers Preserve — named after a pioneering biologist from the state.

A new Pine Tree State poll in Maine finds Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) at just 14% favorability and with an unfavorability of 57 percent.

A court in Costa Rica ordered the government to release about 200 people, including 80 children, who were flown to a detention center there from the U.S. by the Trump administration in February.

Ireland has joined a small but growing group of European countries that have completely ended coal power generation.

Massachusetts enacted a revamped version of its solar incentive program that developers and advocates say should keep the state’s solar industry moving forward even as the Trump administration pushes to undermine federal support for clean energy.

A solar project in Knox County, Ohio that fossil fuel interests tried hard to block has finally received approval from the Ohio Power Siting Board, which oversees the development of energy projects in the state.

After a nearly seven-week pause, World Central Kitchen resumed its operations in Gaza, serving 10,000 meals on its first day from its first food shipment in 12 weeks.

Since Robert F. Kennedy Jr. fired the members of the CDC’s vaccine advisory panel, outside medical groups are organizing to form their own unbiased, independent vaccine panel.

The Supreme Court sided with a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers and upheld the constitutionality of a federal program that promotes universal broadband access.

The Senate parliamentarian ruled to reject Republican language in the Senate megabill that would prohibit federal subsidies under the Affordable Care Act from going to qualified health plans that cover abortion services.

A new law in Colorado has established Black history education standards for public schools.

Rhode Island Gov. Dan McKee signed a bill into law banning the sale and transfer of assault weapons in Rhode Island.

Kenneth Chesebro, the alleged architect behind the fake electors scheme to keep Donald Trump in the White House following his 2020 election loss, has been disbarred in New York.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court delivered a victory for environmentalists in the fight over “forever chemicals” known as PFAS, issuing a ruling that advocates said will hold polluters accountable.

The Senate parliamentarian rejected language in the GOP megabill authorizing states to conduct border security and immigration enforcement, which traditionally have been duties of the federal government.

Shealso ruled against language in the bill that would increase the Federal Employees Retirement Systems contribution rate for new civil servants if they do not agree to give up civil service protections to become at-will employees.

She also advised against a section of the bill that would allow the executive branch to reorganize federal government agencies — or eliminate whole agencies — without congressional oversight.

And she ruled against language in the bill mandating the sale of all U.S. Postal Service electric vehicles and charging infrastructure! (Phew.)

She also ruled against a controversial provision that would have made it significantly more difficult for courts to enforce contempt findings against the Trump administration.

She also ruled against provisions in the GOP megabill that would dramatically accelerate the approval of offshore oil and gas projects.

The parliamentarian also struck down provisions meant to block the use of Medicaid funds for gender-affirming care and to prevent unauthorized immigrants from receiving Medicaid or CHIP coverage.

The Governor of Delaware Matt Meyer signed an executive order declaring the entire state a sanctuary for gender affirming care.

Jeff Bezos was forced to relocate his Venice wedding reception due to protesters. These protests included a life-size Jeff Bezos mannequin gripping onto an Amazon box being set afloat in the canals.

Protesters—some in wheelchairs—were arrested in the halls of Congress while rallying against GOP cuts to Medicaid. I hate that they were zip-tied, but I love that they were fighting for our healthcare.

Jerry Nadler has endorsed Zohran Mamdani! So has Elizabeth Warren!

Sen. Lisa Murkowski says there are certain situations in which she'd consider becoming an independent and caucusing with Democrats.

Since Zohran Mamdani won on Tuesday night, almost 5000 young people have reached out to Run For Something to explore a run for local office -- their biggest spike of the year yet!

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has contacted Tesla to express concern just one day after its Robotaxi launch after videos surfaced showing the company’s autonomous vehicles acting erratic.

Europeans still aren’t buying Teslas.

The L.A. Dodgers pledged $1 million for families of immigrants “impacted by recent events in the region.” It’s not nearly enough, but it’s a start.

The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of upholding key provisions of the Affordable Care Act—a WIN for health care access.

Senator Thom Tillis announced his retirement after asserting that he was a NO on Trump’s awful bill.

Elon Musk is tweeting against the Trump bill again. (The enemy of my enemy, and all that.)

In Twin Lakes, CO, the community has officially revived an iconic Colorado mountain pond, restoring water flow that was diverted by a developer.

​Youth in Oregon between the ages of 1 and 18 are getting free meals this summer at nearly 700 sites across the state.

Nestle said it will eliminate artificial colors from its U.S. food and beverages by the middle of 2026.

Maryland Governor Wes Moore granted 7,000 more pardons for cannabis-related offenses.

The Charlotte City Council voted 6-3 to remove Tesla from a list of pre-approved electric vehicles the city can purchase.

A student-led group in LA is delivering groceries to people sheltering at home amidst ongoing immigration raids. In fact the Los Angeles community is standing with the immigrant community in all kinds of ways.

More than 100 former gang members celebrated getting their diplomas thanks to Homeboy Industries, the largest gang intervention program in the world.

The Democracy Defenders Fund has filed a class action lawsuit to protect birthright citizenship for everyone in America.

A federal judge permanently blocked a White House executive order against law firm Susman Godfrey.

In Nevada, landlords who collect an application fee to rent an apartment must now return the fee to the prospective tenant if they do not get the apartment, thanks to a new law which prohibits junk fees from landlords when paying rent.

CA Governor Newsom announced $135 million in new wildfire prevention grants.

Media Matters for America filed suit to block the FTC’s investigation into them.

Nebraska Republican Rep. Don Bacon announced he will not seek reelection. This presents a major pickup opportunity for Democrats.

A federal judge has granted a preliminary injunction after ruling that the Trump administration likely violated the law by stripping nearly a million federal government employees of their union rights.

Governor Kathy Hochul signed legislation allowing refreshments to be provided to voters as they wait in line to exercise their civic duty. Georgia, you’re next!

Sen. Bernie Sanders continued his Fighting Oligarchy tour in Shreveport, LA —the home of Speaker Mike Johnson—then Tulsa, OK, then McAllen, TX.

Meta tried to ban the Tennessee Holler account (which everyone should be following if they’re on those platforms) and the outcry was so massive that they unbanned them.

Workers at a Texas-based beef processing plant just voted by a 98 percent margin to authorize a strike at the facility amid ongoing negotiations.

A protester was heard just now on the Senate floor yelling: “How do you sleep at night Republicans?! Listen to the Democrats! You people are awful! You’re awful! These Medicaid cuts! You’re horrible!” Bravo.

Watch This! 👀

I don’t love that this was made with AI, but sheesh. It’s amazing. If you haven’t yet seen clips of the Tucker Carlson/Ted Cruz debate it’s taken from you might want to search for those first. (Posted by this Threads account.)

Chop Wood, Carry Water is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Leave a comment

Thank you for reading Chop Wood, Carry Water. This post is public so feel free to share it.

Share

---

From Chop Wood, Carry Water via this RSS feed

There are four political stories people should know about tonight.

First, President Donald Trump’s tariff war and weaker consumer spending translated to a contraction of 0.5% in the U.S. economy in the first quarter, even more of a drop than the 0.2% economists expected. The economy Trump inherited from President Joe Biden led the world in productivity.

Second, John Hudson and Warren P. Strobel of the Washington Post reported today that intercepted communications showed that senior Iranian officials said the U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities caused less damage than they had expected and that they wondered why the strikes were so restrained.

Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo also called out that at a press conference in the Netherlands last Wednesday, Trump said he had given Iran permission to bomb a U.S. air base in Qatar in retaliation for the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons program sites. “They said, ‘We’re going to shoot them. Is one o’clock OK?’ I said it’s fine,” Trump said. “And everybody was emptied off the base so they couldn’t get hurt, except for the gunners.”

Marshall expressed astonishment that this admission has attracted very little attention. He suggested that, if it is true, it represents “the most shocking dereliction of duty one could imagine for the commander-in-chief,” and he wondered how Republicans would have reacted if a Democratic president had said he had let “a foreign adversary fire on an American military installation.”

Third, Jeff Stein of the Washington Post reported today that the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill makes the biggest cut ever to programs for low-income Americans. Those cuts have made many Republicans skittish about supporting the measure.

After Trump attacked him yesterday for not supporting the budget reconciliation bill, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) has announced he will not run for reelection next year, indicating his unwillingness to face a primary challenger backed by Trump. This puts the seat in play for a Democratic pickup.

In a statement, Tillis said: “In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.” He wrote: “I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit and representing the great people of North Carolina to the best of my ability.”

Tonight, Tillis told the Senate: “What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding’s not there anymore, guys?... [T]he effect of this bill is to break a promise.”

Fourth, the Senate parliamentarian has told senators that several of the provisions added to the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill violate the rules for budget reconciliation bills. Those provisions include the ones added to the bill to win the support of Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.

Today, Trump pushed Republican senators to ignore the Senate parliamentarian, who judges whether proposed measures adhere to Senate rules. Trump posted on social media: “An unelected Senate Staffer (Parliamentarian), should not be allowed to hurt the Republicans Bill. Wants many fantastic things out. NO! DJT.”

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office today said the tax cuts in the budget reconciliation bill the Republican senators are trying to pass will increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion over the next ten years despite the $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other programs over the same period. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) called the measure “Robin Hood in reverse…stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich, this massive transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top…. This is socialism for the rich.”

Trump has demanded the measure’s passage by July 4, in part because the Department of Homeland Security has blown through its budget and needs the supplemental funding the bill will provide. That funding adds an astonishing $45 billion for migrant detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the current budget of $3.4 billion over the next five years, and $14.4 billion for transportation and removal on top of the current annual budget of $750 million.

After Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tried to slow the passage of the measure by forcing a reading of the entire 940-page bill in the Senate, senators will begin voting tomorrow on amendments in a procedure known as a “vote-a-rama” in which Democratic senators will put Republicans on the record on controversial issues.

—

Notes:

https://www.usnews.com/news/economy/articles/2025-06-26/economy-shrank-in-first-quarter-worse-than-expected

https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-handed-over-a-strong-economy/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/29/trump-iran-nuclear-damage-intercepted-call/

https://apnews.com/article/tillis-senate-north-carolina-trump-reelection-republicans-382f72ff5228d864b38009904cbc4e6b

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/29/megabill-byrd-alaska-megabill-parliamentarian-00431730

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/29/trump-tax-medicaid-snap/

https://www.nbcnews.com/lo politics/congress/senate-republican-bill-trump-agenda-vote-rcna215713

https://politizoom.com/trump-guns-for-the-parliamentarian-after-murkowskis-ploy-flops/

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/morning-memo/trump-says-he-gave-iran-permission-to-bomb-u-s-base-in-qatar-andwell-mostly-crickets

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-debate-trump-one-big-beautiful-bill/

Bluesky:

acyn.bsky.social/post/3lsrzv5n74n2x

gerardomarti.bsky.social/post/3lsqvlks5ac24

atrupar.com/post/3lssbc5k6id2j

Share

---

From Letters from an American via this RSS feed

Friends,

One of my objectives in this daily letter is to equip you with the facts you need. As the Senate approaches a vote on Trump’s giant “big beautiful” tax and budget bill, I want to be as clear as possible about it.

First, it will cost a budget-busting $3.3 trillion. According to new estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the Senate bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to the already out-of-control national debt over a decade. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the House-passed version.

Second, it will cause 11.8 million Americans to lose their health coverage. The Senate version would result in even deeper cuts in federal support for health insurance, and more Americans losing coverage, than the House version. Federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare would be reduced by more than $1.1 trillion over that period — with more than $1 trillion of those cuts coming from Medicaid alone.

All told, this will leave 11.8 million more Americans uninsured by 2034.

Third, it will cut food stamps and other nutrition assistance for lower-income Americans. According to the CBO, the legislation will not only cut Medicaid by about 18 percent, it will cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) by roughly 20 percent. These cuts will constitute the most dramatic reductions in safety net spending in modern U.S. history.

Fourth, it will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and big corporations. The CBO projects that those in the bottom tenth of the income distribution will end up poorer, while the top tenth will be substantially richer.

The bill also makes permanent the business tax cuts from the 2017 legislation, further benefiting the largest corporations.

Finally, it will not help the economy. Trickle-down economics has proven to be a cruel hoax. Over the last 50 years, Congress has passed four major bills that cut taxes: the 1981 Reagan tax cuts; the 2001 and 2003 George W. Bush tax cuts; and the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Each time, the same three arguments were made in favor of the tax cuts: (1) They’d pay for themselves. (2) They’d supercharge economic growth. (3) They’d benefit everyone.

All have been proven wrong. Here’s what in fact happened:

(1) Did the tax cuts pay for themselves?

No. Rather than paying for themselves, the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts each significantly increased the federal deficit. In total, those tax cuts have added over $10.4 trillion to the federal deficit since 1981 compared to the Congressional Budget Office’s baseline projections.

(2) Did the tax cuts supercharge economic growth, create millions of jobs, and raise wages?

Absolutely not. Rather than growing, the economy shrank after passage of the Reagan tax cuts. And unemployment surged to over 10 percent. Following the enactment of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, the economy did grow a bit, but at rates much lower than their supporters predicted.

(3) Did the tax cuts benefit everyone?

Heavens, no. Rather than benefiting everyone, the savings from the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts flowed mainly to the richest Americans. The average tax cut for households in the top 1 percent under the Reagan tax cut ($47,147) was 68 times larger than the average tax cut for middle-class households ($695). The Bush tax cut for households in the top 1 percent was 16 times larger than the average tax cut for the middle class. The 2017 Trump tax cut for households in the top 1 percent was 36 times larger than for middle-class households.

Summary: If the bill now being considered by the Senate is enacted, 11.8 million Americans will lose their health insurance, millions will fall into poverty, and the national debt will increase by $3.3 trillion, all to provide a major tax cut mainly to the rich and big corporations. There is no justification for this.

Never before in the history of this nation has such a large redistribution of income been directed upward, for no reason at all. It comes at a time of near-record inequalities of income and wealth.

What you can do: Call your senators and tell them to vote “no” on this calamitous tax and budget bill. Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121.

Beyond this, help ensure that senators who vote in favor of this monstrosity are booted out of the Senate as soon as they’re up for reelection.

Share

---

From Robert Reich via this RSS feed

Thought bubble?

Leave a comment

Last week’s winner:

“Am I supposed to send this tank to Iran or LA??”

(Congratulations, Adam Laurie.)

Runners-up:

“What is it good for? ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!”

(Congratulations, Anna LaFrom.)

“Don’t blame the Army. It’s Trump’s new version of camouflage.”

(Congratulations, Donna Maurillo.)

“Nothing like mass destruction to create mass distraction.”

(Congratulations, Elizabeth Upchurch.)

“His birthday parade bombed, so he is bombing Iran.”

(Congratulations, Rose (WNY via OH/OR/MA/FL/CO).)

“War: No tank you!”

(Congratulations, CharleyHa.)

“Another Republican president; another Middle East war.”

(Congratulations, Isabel Rigney.)

“Who’s going to drive? Donnie doesn’t know how and Pete’s drunk.”

(Congratulations, George Licina.)

Share

---

From Robert Reich via this RSS feed

From Fark.com RSS via this RSS feed

Friends,

The hardest part of my nights usually occurs around 3 am when my brain starts obsessing about upsetting things, such as what Trump is doing to America.

I’m sure many of you are like me. Our days are filled with all sorts of distractions, but in the wee hours of the morning, we tend to drift back to big and often terrifying realities.

Last night I couldn’t get out of my head that Trump is intent on abolishing the two branches of the government with the constitutional duty to constrain him.

As every American school kid learns, the U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government that are supposed to check and balance each other.

Every school kid, that is, except Donald Trump and the people around him who have been usurping congressional authority and going to war against the judiciary.

Trump and his lackeys want there to be only one branch of government — the executive branch, under Trump.

Congress has now all but disappeared because it’s controlled by Republican zombies who will say and do whatever Trump wants.

This leaves the federal judiciary as the only remaining check on Trump. So far, federal courts have paused about 80 of Trump’s executive orders until judges have an opportunity to hear arguments and sift through evidence at full trials.

But even this is too much for the dictator-in-chief.

On Friday, a majority of the Supreme Court — at the prodding of Trump’s Justice Department — decided that federal judges could pause executive actions only for the specific plaintiffs that bring a case. (Previously, any of the nation’s more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halted government policies across all 50 states.)

On Tuesday, Trump and his lackeys filed a lawsuit against 15 federal judges who serve on the bench in Maryland, seeking a court order that would block them from making any ruling that might “interfere” in “the president’s powers to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.”

Beyond these are Trump’s personal attacks against federal judges who rule against him, calling them “monsters” who want America to “go to hell,” and “radical left lunatics” or worse — even demanding their impeachment.

These attacks have incited some Trump followers to threaten the lives of federal judges and their families. Threats have surged in recent months, including bomb threats and swatting incidents.

For Trump and his lackeys, all who push back against what they want to do — including federal judges — are considered the “opposition.” Attorney General Pam Bondi even accuses federal judges of “meddling in our government.”

But the federal judiciary is not an opposing party. It’s an inherent part of the government. Federal court rulings don’t “interfere” in a president’s powers. They determine what those powers are. Federal judges don’t “meddle” in government. They are a vital part of government.

We were supposed to have learned this in school. Apparently Trump and his coterie — including Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court — never learned it. Or now that they’re in power, have erased it from their minds.

If all of this makes you pessimistic, I understand. The immediate future does look bleak.

But please do not become cynical. Don’t lose hope. Don’t give up the fight.

Pessimism is different from cynicism. Pessimists believe an outcome will be bad. But cynics don’t even try for a different outcome because they’ve lost all hope.

Trump and his lackeys want us to be cynical because then we’ll stop fighting. If we stop fighting, they win everything — not just the entire government but our entire society.

It looks dark today, but it will not remain dark. The Caligula on the Potomac is getting nowhere on tariffs. Inflation threatens. The vast majority of Americans oppose his plan to cut Medicaid and give the rich a huge tax cut. His popularity continues to plummet. He is facing mounting opposition from the rest of the world.

Do not succumb to cynicism. We must keep fighting. Too much is at stake. We will prevail.

Share

---

From Robert Reich via this RSS feed

Russia is making another attempt to expand its liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports after US sanctions halted such efforts last year.

Source: Bloomberg, as reported by European Pravda

Details: Bloomberg and satellite imagery indicate an LNG carrier has docked at the Arctic LNG 2 export terminal for the first time since October. The facility had been inactive for several months due to a lack of buyers willing to violate Western restrictions.

At least 13 vessels – including ice-class ships – have been mobilised to potentially service Arctic LNG 2. Some of them have changed management companies multiple times to conceal their true ownership.

Bloomberg’s vessel tracking data shows the following:

Four ice-class LNG carriers capable of navigating frozen waters near Arctic LNG 2. Three are currently idle in the Barents Sea, and one is docked at the terminal;Three conventional LNG carriers are also in the Barents Sea;Two vessels are undergoing repairs in China;One ship is reportedly en route to Arctic LNG 2;One vessel is near a floating storage unit in Russia’s Far East;Two tankers are idle in the Gulf of Finland. These had previously serviced another Russian project, Portovaya, which came under US sanctions in January.

"Russia does have more vessels at its disposal compared to the summer/fall of 2024. If it can find buyers, this small fleet should be sufficient to lift cargoes," said Malte Humpert, founder of the Arctic Institute, a Washington-based think tank.

Between August and October 2024, eight cargoes were exported from Arctic LNG 2, but none made landfall abroad. Instead, the gas was offloaded into two Russian storage sites – one in the Barents Sea and another in the Far East.

In October, large-scale production was halted due to ice build-up around the terminal, which made transport by conventional tankers impossible.

The market is now closely watching whether Arctic LNG 2 can secure buyers. An increase in Russian LNG exports would place downward pressure on global gas prices, benefiting consumers.

The Biden administration applied sanctions aggressively last year to vessels and companies linked to Arctic LNG 2 exports. It remains unclear whether a Trump administration would act as strictly, or if it might impose restrictions on ports that accept the fuel.

Traders familiar with the matter revealed that representatives of the Arctic LNG 2 joint venture have continued their attempts to sell fuel, visiting potential buyers in India and China over the past year. However, it is unknown whether any sales have been secured.

Support Ukrainska Pravda on Patreon!

---

From Ukrainska Pravda via this RSS feed

Last night just before midnight, Republicans released their new version of the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. It is a sign of just how unpopular this bill is that they released the new version just before midnight on a Friday night, a time that is the graveyard of news stories.

Over the course of today, the contours of the revised measure have become clearer. Democratic challenges and the Senate parliamentarian convinced Republican senators to remove policy provisions from the bill that either were especially incendiary or did not meet the rules for budget reconciliation bills. Those challenges preserved the Consumer Finance Protection Board, limited a rule that prevented states from regulating artificial intelligence, prevented the selling off of public lands, eliminated vouchers for religious schools, and so on.

Despite these changes, the final measure retains its original structure.

That structure tells us a lot about the world today’s Republican lawmakers envision. The centerpiece of the bill remains its extension of the 2017 tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations, making those tax cuts permanent. The tax structure in the measure funnels wealth from the poorest Americans to the top 1%.

According to Alyssa Fowers and Hannah Dormido of the Washington Post, the Senate slashed the apparent cost of the bill by using a new method to calculate the numbers. Under the traditional way of estimating the cost of a bill, the new measure would add $4.2 trillion to the national debt. But using the gimmick of ignoring the tax extensions by saying they are simply a continuation of policies already in place, the Senate claims the bill will cost $442 billion, just a tenth of what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculates.

According to immigration scholar Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, the measure also provides an additional $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain migrants, on top of the current annual budget of $3.4 billion. It adds $14.4 billion for transportation and removal on top of the current annual budget of $750 million. It also adds $8 billion for new ICE hires and retention. Reichlin-Melnick notes that this budget will give ICE more money for detention than it gives the entire U.S. Bureau of Prisons.

The Department of Homeland Security reflected the heart of this budget today, when it posted on social media an image of four alligators wearing ICE hats—an apparent reference to the construction of a migrant detention facility in the Everglades in Florida—with the comment: “Coming soon!”

To offset some of the tax cuts in the measure, the Senate bill cuts $930 billion out of Medicaid—more than the House bill cut—and, according to Ron Wyden (D-OR), makes additional cuts to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the measure will cause 11.8 million Americans to become uninsured, almost a million more than would have lost health insurance under the House version.

In Politico today, Meredith Lee Hill reported that “[e]very major health system in Louisiana is warning [House] Speaker Mike Johnson [R-LA] and the rest of the state’s congressional delegation that the Senate [Republicans’] planned Medicaid cuts ‘would be historic in their devastation.’” The Senate’s revised measure will hurt healthcare and undermine the state’s budget, they wrote. But “[t]hese economic consequences pale in comparison to the harm that will be caused to residents across the state, regardless of insurance status, who will no longer be able to get the care that they need.”

Tonight, fifty-one senators voted to advance the bill with forty-nine opposing it. Republicans Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with the Democrats to stop the bill from moving forward. Tillis has been clear that he could not support the bill’s cuts to Medicaid. Immediately, Trump said he would back a primary challenger to Tillis, saying he would be “looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina.”

After forcing changes to the measure through challenges accepted by the Senate parliamentarian, Democrats tonight called out Republicans for releasing the new bill in the middle of last night and then trying to call a vote on it in the middle of tonight. They are demanding that the entire 940-page bill be read on the Senate floor.

As the Republican attempt to hide the budget reconciliation bill suggests, it is enormously unpopular.

In 1890, the Republicans forced through Congress a similarly unpopular measure: the McKinley Tariff, the law President Donald Trump has spoken of as a model for his economic policies. Like today’s budget reconciliation bill, the McKinley Tariff skewed the country’s economy even more strongly toward the very wealthy, putting more money in the pockets of the richest Americans at the expense of the poorest.

The McKinley Tariff passed in a chaotic congressional session in May 1890, with members shouting amendments, yelling objections, and talking over one another. All Democrats voted against the measure, and when it passed in the House, Republicans cheered and clapped at their victory. “You may rejoice now,” a Democrat yelled across the aisle, “but next November you’ll mourn.”

Democrats were right. In the November 1890 midterm elections, angry voters repudiated the Republican Party, giving the Democrats a two-to-one majority in the House and preserving Republican control of the Senate only because three Republican senators had voted against the tariff.

More than creating a bad midterm for Republicans, though, the fight over the McKinley Tariff hammered home to ordinary Americans that the system was rigged against them. Since the 1880s, Americans had seen the rise of extraordinarily wealthy industrialists who built palaces on New York’s Fifth Avenue like Mrs. Alva Vanderbilt’s, which cost more than $44 million in today’s dollars. There, in 1883, she threw a famous costume ball where 1,200 guests, dressed as birds and hornets as well as knights and famous queens and kings, including Marie Antoinette, used golden spoons at their $25,000 meal.

The popular press closely followed the ball and the social competition that followed it. To workers surviving on pennies and farmers gouged by railroads, such lavish displays of wealth seemed not just outrageous but a sign that something had gone badly wrong in American society. Surely, they thought, a democratic government should not so obviously favor the wealthy.

The fight over the McKinley Tariff gave opponents proof that Congress was working for the rich. In the Alliance Summer of 1890, newspapers sprang up and speakers crisscrossed the plains reminding voters that the government was supposed to treat all interests equally. The famous farmers’ orator Mary Elizabeth Lease told audiences that “Wall Street owns the country…. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street.” She told farmers to “raise less corn and more hell.”

They did. In the 1890 elections, Alliance members backed Democrats who supported their cause, and they elected forty-four members of Congress, three senators, and four governors and gained control of eight state legislatures. Members of both parties listened to the developing anger over economic injustice and shared the fears of Alliance members that democracy was collapsing under an oligarchy of industrialists.

Their insistence that a democratic government should not favor any specific sector of society but should work for the good of all resonated with voters across parties, and lawmakers, especially younger ones eager to build a following, listened.

By 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, was leading the demand for fair government. He called for a “square deal” for everyone. The Boston Globe explained: “‘Justice for all alike—a square deal for every man, great or small, rich or poor,’ is the Roosevelt ideal to be attained by the framing and the administration of the law. And he would tell you that that means Mr. [J.P.] Morgan and Mr. [J.D.] Rockefeller as well as the poor fellow who cannot pay his rent.”

—

Notes:

https://www.finance.senate.gov/ranking-members-news/wyden-statement-on-new-cbo-numbers-showing-more-than-930-billion-in-medicaid-cuts-in-new-senate-draft

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/27/congress/senate-republicans-release-updated-text-megabill-lindsey-graham-00430647

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/parliamentarian-republican-bill.html

https://itep.org/analysis-of-tax-provisions-in-senate-reconciliation-bill/

https://www.emptywheel.net/2025/06/27/how-the-newslettification-of-news-reifies-trumps-power-rather-than-exposing-his-lies/

​​https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/28/senate-big-beautiful-bill-cost-trump/

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/28/congress/donald-trump-threatens-thom-tillis-00431472

https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61533

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/28/congress/louisiana-hospitals-warn-mike-johnson-of-devastation-from-megabill-00431385

W.A. Croffut, The Vanderbilts and the Story of Their Fortune (Chicago: Belford, Clarke & Company, 1886), pp. 190–197.

Boston Globe, March 26, 1883.

Boston Globe, August 27, 1902, p. 6.

X:

https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1939034194979455282

Bluesky:

repstansbury.bsky.social/post/3lspkhuknfc2o

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lsp64jee722u

murray.senate.gov/post/3lsoyvzdno22i

crampell.bsky.social/post/3lspsyhcuvs2c

Share

---

From Letters from an American via this RSS feed

Hello, friends.

It has been a tough week. The Sunday Comment section is open. If you can, share positive news, plans for pro-democracy rallies, small victories, and stories of inspiration and hope.

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

Get more from Robert B. Hubbell in the Substack appAvailable for iOS and AndroidGet the app

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

Hi, everyone!

I will start a Substack livestream on Saturday, June 28 at 9 am PT / Noon ET.

Join me on the Substack app on your phone or tablet.

I will post a recording of the event shortly after it ends.

Hope to see you on the live stream!

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

Friends,

Today, Heather and I come to you from Central Park in New York City, where we assess the remarkable upset victory of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, over former New York governor Andrew Cuomo, in the race for New York City mayor.

We also take a look at the bind Trump and his lackeys have gotten themselves into — with an attack on Iran that the Defense Intelligence Agency says sets back Iran’s nuclear program by only three months and that didn’t touch Iran’s stockpile of uranium, with a mammoth (“big beautiful”) budget bill that the Senate parliamentarian has shredded, and tariffs that are already hiking prices for American consumers. Wasn’t Trump elected to keep America out of foreign entanglements and to keep prices down?

Please grab a cuppa, pull up a chair, take our poll, and join the discussion.

Leave a comment

Share

---

From Robert Reich via this RSS feed

Friends,

Leave it to the Democratic Party to snatch existential crisis from the jaws of electoral victory.

The stunning success of 33-year-old Zohran Mamdani, a self-described democratic socialist, in the race for New York City mayor is causing anguish in the Democratic Party.

It’s one thing for Trump to call Mamdani “a 100% Communist Lunatic.” That’s to be expected from the vulgarian-in-chief. It’s another for Matt Bennett, co-founder of the centrist Democratic group Third Way, to warn that Mamdani’s “affiliation with the (Democratic Socialists of America) is very dangerous.”

Dangerous for whom? Bernie Sanders nearly won the Democratic primary for the 2016 presidential election after announcing he was a democratic socialist — and probably would have won had the Democratic National Committee not torpedoed him.

Lawrence Summers, treasury secretary under former Democratic President Barack Obama, says the New York City results make him “profoundly alarmed about the future of the (Democratic Party) and the country.”

Well, I’m profoundly alarmed, too — by just this kind of vacuous statement. If polls are to be believed, the current Democratic Party doesn’t have much of a future. Mamdani and other young politicians with the charisma to connect with the people and a willingness to take on corporate America and Wall Street may be the only way forward for the Democrats.

Nor has the mainstream media greeted Mamdani’s upset victory with much enthusiasm. The Associated Press writes that “the party’s more pragmatic wing cast the outcome as a serious setback in their quest to broaden Democrats’ appeal.”

Pragmatic wing? Since when has the corporate establishment of the Democratic Party distinguished itself by its pragmatism or its quest to broaden Democrats’ appeal? If it were pragmatic — in the sense of wanting to win elections and fire up the base — Democrats would not have lost the House, Senate, and presidency in 2024.

Meanwhile, Jeff Bezos’s Washington Post editorializes that “Democrats should fear that [Mamdani] will discredit their next generation of party leaders, almost all of whom are better than this democratic socialist.”

Bezos — who controls the content of the Post’s editorial page as he sucks up to Trump and is now occupying vast swaths of Venice for his wedding with Lauren Sanchez — is not the most credible source of wisdom when it comes to the identity of the Democrats’ next generation of party leaders.

Not surprisingly, the Post criticizes Mamdani’s proposals for a 2 percent annual wealth tax on the richest 1 percent of New Yorkers and for increasing the state’s corporate tax rate from 7.25 percent to 11.5 percent: “Mamdani’s tax plans would spur a corporate exodus and drive more rich people out of town, undermining the tax base and making existing services harder to maintain.”

It’s the same argument we’ve heard for 40 years: If you raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy, you’ll drive them away — from your city, your state, your nation.

Rubbish. The reality is that if you invest in your people — in their skills, education, affordable child care, affordable elder care, and the infrastructure needed to link them together — they’ll be more productive, and their higher productivity will attract corporations (and the wealthy). A major way to afford all these things is to raise taxes on corporations and the wealthy.

Mamdani is the corporate Democrat’s biggest nightmare — a young, charismatic politician winning over Democratic voters with an optimistic message centering on the cost of living. Putting together a multiethnic and multiracial coalition backed by a sprawling grassroots campaign that brings out enormous numbers of volunteers. Aiming to fund what average people need by taxing corporations and the rich.

Instead of wringing their hands over him, Democrats should follow his lead.

The largest force in American politics today is antiestablishment fury at a system rigged by big corporations and the wealthy to make them even richer and more powerful.

The corporate Democratic establishment — fat cats on Wall Street, corporate moguls in C-suites, billionaire backers of Democrats who will do their bidding, and the big-named Democrats who endorsed Andrew Cuomo — are the biggest problem for the party. They are standing in the way of it’s mounting a forceful response to Trump and providing a blueprint for the future.

Trump is killing the economy, fueling inflation with his tariffs, reducing the U.S. government to rubble, and destroying our relationships with our allies. He’s readying another giant tax cut for the wealthy and big corporations — this one to be financed by cuts in Medicaid, food stamps, and other things average people need, along with trillions more in national debt.

My old friend James Carville advises Democrats to “roll over and play dead.” With due respect to James, Democrats have been rolling over and playing dead too long. That’s one reason the nation is in the trouble we’re in.

If Democrats had had the guts years ago to condemn big money in politics, fight corporate welfare, and unrig a market that’s been rigged in favor of big corporations and the rich, Trump’s absurd bogeymen (the deep state, immigrants, socialists, trans people, diversity-equity-inclusion) wouldn’t have stood a chance.

My simple advice to congressional Democrats: Wake the hell up. According to polls, most Americans don’t want a Trump Republican budget that slashes Medicaid, food stamps, and child nutrition in order to make way for a giant tax cut mostly for the wealthy.

Most don’t want tariffs that drive up the prices they pay for food, gas, housing, and clothing. Most understand that tariffs are taxes paid by American consumers. Most don’t want a government of, by, and for billionaires. Most believe in democracy and the rule of law and don’t want Trump trampling on the Constitution, acts of Congress, and federal court orders.

Not only should Democrats be making noise about all this, they should stoprelying on so-called “moderates” to speak for them. The nation is in clear and present danger. Democrats must stand up for American ideals at a time when the Trump regime is riding roughshod over them.

Democrats need Zohran Mamdani and other young politicians with fight in their hearts and rage in their bellies who can show that Trump is bad for working people and terrible for America and the world, and who can point the way forward.

We need a new generation of leaders who are the voices of democracy, freedom, social justice, and the rule of law. A new generation that gives meaning to the “we” in *“*we the people.”

Instead of fretting over Mamdani, the Democratic Party should embrace him as the future.

Share

---

From Robert Reich via this RSS feed

After the Supreme Court today decided the case of Trump v. CASA, limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, President Donald Trump claimed the decision was a huge victory that would permit him to end birthright citizenship, that is, the principle that anyone born in the United States, with very limited exceptions, is a U.S. citizen. To reporters, he claimed: “If you look at the end of the Civil War—the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day—was it 1869? Or whatever. But you take that exact day, that’s when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter. This had to do with the babies of slaves, very obviously.”

This is a great example of a politician rooting a current policy in a made-up history. There is nothing in Trump’s statement that is true, except perhaps that the 1800s were a turbulent time. Every era is.

The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To try to remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States.”

But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws.

In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.”

When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law “comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks,” as citizens, and noted that if “all persons who are native-born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” And if they weren’t already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law “to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States” when 11 southern states were not represented in Congress.

When Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson’s admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined; it simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established their citizenship. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

In the short term, Americans recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment established that Black men were citizens.

But the question of whether the amendment recognized birthright citizenship for all immigrants quickly became an issue in the American West, where white settlers were not terribly concerned about Black Americans—there were only 4,272 Black Americans in California in 1870, while there were almost half a million white Americans—but wanted no part of allowing Chinese men to be part of American society.

Western state legislatures continued to discriminate against Asian immigrants by falling back on the country’s early naturalization laws, finalized in 1802, to exclude first Chinese immigrants and then others from citizenship. Those laws were carefully designed to clarify that Afro-Caribbeans and Africans—imported to be enslaved—would not have the same rights as Euro-Americans. Those laws permitted only “free white persons” to become citizens.

In the late nineteenth century, state and territorial legal systems kept people of color at the margins, using treaties, military actions, and territorial and state laws that limited land ownership, suffrage, and intermarriage.

As late as 1922, in the case of Takao Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Takao Ozawa, born in Japan, could not become a citizen under the 1906 Naturalization Act because that law had not overridden the 1790 naturalization law limiting citizenship to “free white persons.” The court decided that “white person” meant “persons of the Caucasian Race.” “A Japanese, born in Japan, being clearly not a Caucasian, cannot be made a citizen of the United States,” it said.

The next year, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind upheld the argument that only “free white persons” could become citizens. In that case, the court said that Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as Indo-European, could not become a U.S. citizen because he was not a “white person” under U.S. law, and only “free white persons” could become citizens. After the Thind decision, the United States stripped the citizenship of about 50 South Asian Americans who had already become American citizens.

Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.

But despite the longstanding use of laws designed to perpetuate human enslavement to prevent certain immigrants from becoming citizens, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of their children. In 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act agreeing that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens.

Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873, the child of Chinese parents who were merchants in San Francisco. In 1889 he traveled with his parents when they repatriated to China, where he married. He then returned to the U.S., leaving his wife behind, and was readmitted. After another trip to China in 1894, though, customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. in 1895, claiming he was a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese.

Wong sued, and his lawsuit was the first to climb all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to the government’s recognition that with the U.S. in the middle of an immigration boom, the question of birthright citizenship must be addressed. In the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court held by a vote of 6–2 that Wong was a citizen because he was born in the United States.

Immigration scholar Hidetaka Hirota of the University of California, Berkeley, explains that the government went even further to protect children born in the U.S. In 1889 the Treasury Department—which then oversaw immigration—decided that a native-born child could not be sent out of the country with her foreign-born mother. Nor did the government want to hurt the U.S. citizen by expelling her mother and leaving her without a guardian. So it admitted the foreign-born mother to take care of the citizen child.

The Treasury concluded that it was not “the intention of Congress to sever the sacred ties existing between parent and child, or forcibly banish and expatriate a native-born child for the reason that its parent is a pauper.”

In May 2023, then–presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released a video promising that on “Day One” of a new presidential term, he would issue an executive order that would end birthright citizenship. He claimed that the understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen is “based on a historical myth, and a willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.”

It is actually a historical myth and a willful misinterpretation of the law that the Civil War ended in 1869, that birthright citizenship came out of a case filed on that exact day, and that the “case” was “very obviously” about “the babies of slaves.” But there were indeed echoes of the past in the administration’s position on immigration today. The administration's announcement that it is terminating Temporary Protected Status for half a million Haitians, stripping them of their legal status, seems to echo the ancient laws saying only “free white persons” can become citizens.

—

Notes:

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1860

Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America during the Period of Reconstruction (Washington: Solomons & Chapman, 1875), pp. 75, 78, at https://www.google.com/books/edition/The/_Political/_History/_of/_the/_United/_Stat/x7HmnHL1OvQC

https://werehistory.org/immigrant-parents/

Bluesky:

atrupar.com/post/3lslzwd3nc22q

reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lsm3vbj6uk2d

Share

---

From Letters from an American via this RSS feed

Thursday was another big news day, with mixed results for those defending democracy.

The reconciliation bill is in trouble because Republicans “swung for the fences” in recognition that this may be their last chance in a generation to fund a billionaire tax cut by slashing benefits earned and paid for by hardworking Americans.

The Supreme Court issued a blow to Planned Parenthood that was part of a broader war on women and a long-term effort to curtail the standing to bring civil rights lawsuits under Section 1983.

And Trump and his surrogates experienced emotional meltdowns typical of two-year-olds when they realized that the global press isn’t going to accept Trump's lie that Iran’s uranium enrichment program was “obliterated” by the US bombing raids. Indeed, Republican Senators effectively admitted that Trump was lying after receiving a classified briefing on Wednesday.

I am traveling on Thursday to the NOVA Women’s Summit in Tysons Corner, Va., so I have stitched this newsletter together on a plane, in an Uber, and in my hotel room. It may be a little rougher than usual. Thanks for your understanding. (I will speak at the Summit on Saturday afternoon. If you are attending, please say hello!)

The reconciliation bill hits a roadblock with the Parliamentarian’s ruling regarding Medicaid cuts.

The Senate Parliamentarian ruled on Thursday that several key provisions relating to Medicaid cuts violated the Byrd Rule. As a consequence, those provisions must either be removed or pass on a separate vote that exceeds the filibuster threshold (60 votes). Senate leadership has said that Republicans will not overrule the Parliamentarian. See The Hill, How Medicaid ruling could blow up Senate GOP's plans on Trump 'big, beautiful bill'.

The ruling is significant because it demonstrates that Republicans grossly overplayed their hand despite holding a trifecta. The GOP is desperate to cram their “MAGA wish-list” of cruel provisions in the reconciliation bill because they know that individual provisions are wildly unpopular and will likely fail if brought to the floor in a piecemeal fashion.

The Byrd Rule is a statutory provision that codifies Senate procedure. In general, legislation in the Senate is subject to the filibuster—i.e, a 60-vote requirement to bring a bill to the floor for an “up or down” vote. But the filibuster has exceptions, most notably, reconciliation bills (because the Senate does not want the annual business of passing budgets to be subject to the onerous 60-vote threshold).

Reconciliation bills can pass with 51 votes—but only if the provisions in the bill relate directly to appropriations of funds or collecting revenue. If not, the Byrd Rule requires that “extraneous provisions” that do NOT “produce a change in outlays or revenue” are subject to the 60-vote threshold. Democrats control enough votes in the Senate to prevent Republicans from passing provisions determined to be “extraneous” by the Parliamentarian.

Republicans can overrule the Parliamentarian’s determination with (oddly) only 51 votes. But doing so would set a “precedent” that would blow a significant hole in the filibuster forever—something that Republicans are loath to do—because they know that their future is as a minority party.

As a result of the Parliamentarian’s ruling, Republicans do not have sufficient savings to pay for the billionaire tax cuts. GOP leadership has proposed eliminating an adjustment to the “state and local tax” deduction, which has led to protests from blue-state GOP House members. See Raw Story, Republican erupts at GOP leaders' offer: 'Nowhere near the realm of possibility'. Similar fights over other provisions favorable to the rich and famous will also be on the chopping block.

The GOP may still pass a reconciliation bill that devastates many social and health benefits programs. But the road just became significantly more difficult because Republicans can hear the footsteps of the 2026 elections and the No Kings Day protests gaining on them. They are desperate to pass something before more Americans wake up to the cruel and greedy bill designed to reward the top 1% for purchasing the presidency for Donald Trump.

Reactionary Majority attacks Planned Parenthood, women, and civil rights

On Thursday, the Supreme Court ruled that Planned Parenthood clinics in South Carolina could not bring a claim under Section 1983 to challenge a state law that prohibited any Medicaid funds from being spent at a clinic that provides abortions, even though the Medicaid funds were not being spent on abortions.

The decision is virulently anti-woman, anti-reproductive freedom, anti-Medicaid, and anti-civil rights. See Ian Millhiser, Vox, The Supreme Court’s disastrous new abortion decision, in Medina v. Planned Parenthood.

In Medina, Neil Gorsuch wrote the opinion for the reactionary majority by overruling a precedent that was less than a decade old. At root, the question was whether a federal statute conveyed a “right of action” to individuals affected by state laws that interfered with patient choice of healthcare providers.

It was painfully clear that South Carolina violated a federal right to choose a healthcare provider. The relevant federal statute provides,

A State plan for medical assistance must … provide that … any individual eligible for medical assistance (including drugs) may obtain such assistance from any institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service.

On its face, the statute recognizes the right of “any individual” to obtain healthcare from a provider of their choice. But the reactionary majority’s hostility to Planned Parenthood and reproductive choice caused the majority to ignore the plain language of the statute and concoct a rationale that held the statute was not for the benefit of “an individual.”

Worse, Gorsuch included an “ominous line suggesting that, in the future, his Court will read Medicaid laws very narrowly.” Gorsuch wrote,

Though it is rare enough for any statute to confer an enforceable right, “spending-power statutes like Medicaid are especially unlikely to do so.

In short, the Supreme Court has announced a special presumption against the ability of individuals to enforce their civil rights to sue for violation of federal law—effectively green-lighting the rights of states to deny Medicaid benefits with impunity. That result is particularly disingenuous because the statute in question explicitly recognizes the rights of individuals under Medicaid to select a healthcare provider of their choosing.

As Millhiser writes, “After Medina, that means that much of federal Medicaid law may effectively cease to function.”

The attack on Planned Parenthood extends the assault on the full personhood and equality of women under the Constitution. The reactionary majority isn’t content to return the question of reproductive liberty to the states; it is helping the states to dismantle Planned Parenthood clinics that are often the only source of reproductive care in many rural counties!

As explained by Planned Parenthood,

In many communities Planned Parenthood is the only clinic offering reproductive health care, including contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, abortion services, pregnancy testing, cancer screenings like Pap smears and breast exams, and other preventive services. One third of Planned Parenthood’s revenue comes from state and federal government funding, including Medicaid, to provide health care services.

According to Planned Parenthood’s 2022-2023 Annual Report, abortion services make up 4% of all the health services they provide, and federal funds rarely go toward abortion care (only in cases of rape, incest and life-threatening situations). The vast majority of the state and federal funding goes to reimburse reproductive and preventive services.

In short, the Supreme Court just made it significantly more difficult for women, especially poor women, to obtain contraception, treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, cancer screening, Pap smears, breast exams, and other preventive services.

The decision in Medina is nothing less than a continuation of the war on women that the Roberts Court has been waging for a decade (at least). For a review of the recent jurisprudence, I highly recommend Leah Litman’s article in Slate, The Supreme Court’s Radical Right Turn Is About Restoring Patriarchy, Plain and Simple.

Leah Litman’s closing paragraph describes the stakes:

When the Supreme Court overruled Roe v. Wade, Justice Samuel Alito’s majority opinion insisted that no other rights would fall. The statement was ridiculous at the time, and has aged even worse over the last three years. The Republican justices’ transformation of the law, and the political movement they are part of, was never just about “abortion.” They are about women’s place in the law, and the country.

But it is not just women who are the target of the opinion in Medina. Gorsuch has signaled that the Court is targeting Medicaid in general. The Court’s “anti-Medicaid” jurisprudence threatens the health insurance of one-in-five Americans.

Approximately 1 in 5 Americans obtain medical insurance through Medicaid, but many are unaware of this fact because their Medicaid insurance may be provided under a different name. For example, Medicaid is also known by these names (among many others): Denali Care (Alaska), Health Care (Arkansas), NJ Family Care (New Jersey), and Health First (Colorado).

There is a solution to the Court’s anti-woman, anti-healthcare, anti-Medicaid stance: Congress can provide that beneficiaries under Medicaid have the right to challenge state laws that violate, change, or contradict the federal laws that regulate Medicaid.

Today, we have more reason than ever to rise up and take back the government from the hands of MAGA extremism. We must do so in particular to help restore the full equality of women under the Constitution.

Senate Briefing raises more questions about Iran bombing by US

CIA Director John Ratcliffe and other US intelligence officials briefed the Senate on the US bombing raid on Iran’s nuclear processing facilities. If the administration thought that the briefing would support Trump's false claim that the raids “obliterated” the nuclear processing facilities, they were sorely disappointed by the comments of Republican Senators after the briefing. See MSN/FactCheck.org, Questions Linger About Iran’s Enriched Uranium Stockpile After U.S. Airstrikes.

Senator Lindsey Graham revealed the surprising fact that the enriched uranium “was not part of the target” in the raids—so the fact that the uranium still exists doesn’t bear on the success of the raids.

See Time Magazine, Senators Unconvinced of Effectiveness of U.S. Strikes on Iran.

Per Time, Lindsey Graham said,

“I don’t know where the 900 pounds of highly enriched uranium exists, but it wasn’t part of the target set.”

Senator Cotton also acknowledged that eliminating Iran’s uranium stockpile was not the mission’s focus. “It was not part of the mission to destroy all their enriched uranium or to cease it or anything else,” he said.

As GOP Senators were acknowledging that the enriched uranium likely escaped US bombs, The Financial Times reported on Thursday that

preliminary assessments shared with European governments “indicate that Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile remains largely intact following US strikes on its main nuclear sites,” and that Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium “was not concentrated” at the Fordo plant when the U.S. bombs hit the site.

The intelligence assessments said the stockpile “had been distributed to various other locations,” the Financial Times also reported.

When reporters asked Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth about these reports after the Senate briefing, Hegseth melted into a puddle of testosterone and tears. As Charlotte Clymer wrote on her Substack, Charlotte’s Web Thoughts,

This morning, Pete Hegseth, Trump’s Secretary of Defense, delivered what could most charitably be called a pretty bad press conference.

Less charitably, it would be fair to say Mr. Hegseth bombed his press conference more effectively than he did Iran.

Hegseth berated a female Fox News reporter, Jennifer Griffin, calling her “the worst” for asking about widespread reports that the enriched uranium was moved from Fordow before the US bombing.

Hegseth also bizarrely claimed that the bombing mission was the “most complex and secretive military operation in history.” That’s plainly not true—most everyone in the US knew that the B-2 Bombers were on their way to Iran about ten hours before the bombs fell on Fordow. As Clymer notes, Hegseth needs to brush up on his history. He appears to be unfamiliar with D-Day, the mission to kill bin-Laden, and the still-secret operations of Delta Force that have not (yet) been accidentally texted to a reporter for The Atlantic.

The childish temper tantrums of Trump and Hegseth are all the worse because every new fact undermines Trump's claim that the Iranian facilities were “obliterated.” But in making themselves objects of scorn and derision, Trump and Hegseth are undermining the credibility of the United States—an injury to an important strategic asset that will matter greatly in a future crises.

A few notes on Trump's reign of terror against immigrants

There were more disturbing stories about Trump's cruel campaign of terror against immigrants in the US who have led productive, law-abiding laws since entering the US. Although I do not have time this evening to discuss, the stories warrant your attention:

See The Austin Chronicle, Texas Man Born to U.S. Soldier on U.S. Army Base Abroad Deported: He has no citizenship to any country, despite SCOTUS case.

This is a disturbing article that highlights the illogic and gratuitous cruelty of the rush to deport millions of immigrants.

See CTV News, Canadian dies in ICE custody, Canada seeks more information.

See The New Republic, Republicans Now Want to Track Immigrants Wherever They Go.

The GOP’s new Homeland Security funding bill would require “all non-detained migrants” to wear GPS tracking devices, a demoralizing “alternative to detention” that is part of the Trump administration’s continuing immigration crackdown, according to Migrant Insider.

“Non-detained” includes asylum-seekers and even students. Tracking millions of innocent people like endangered animals will be a tall task, a challenge that will likely go to another seedy private surveillance corporation.

Concluding Thoughts.

One hundred twenty-eight Democrats voted against a resolution to impeach Trump for his unilateral and unconstitutional decision to bomb Iran. They were angry with Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) for bringing a resolution that they believed was doomed to fail, placing them in a tough spot between constituents who want Trump impeached ASAP and those who want to proceed at a more measured pace. See Axios, "Completely unserious and selfish": Democrats fume at rogue Trump-Iran impeachment vote.

Check out the Axios article above if you want to get a sense of the temporizing and rationalizations that the 128 Democrats gave for not wanting to vote on the impeachment resolution now. (Those voting against the resolution included Hakeem Jeffries and Nancy Pelosi.)

I understand that politicians don’t like being forced to take a position before they have to, especially when their constituents may be divided on an issue.

But I believe the 128 Democrats are badly out of touch with their constituents. Moreover, enforcing and defending the Constitution is not a matter of convenience or popularity. If we don’t defend it when doing so may be unpopular, we may not have the ability to defend it when the electorate finally wakes up to the peril that threatens our Constitution every day.

Democratic faithful are upset and angry with their elected representatives who don’t seem to “get it.” If they don’t want to impeach Trump for unilaterally bombing Iran, how about his refusal to spend money appropriated by Congress? Or his repeated refusal to obey court orders? Or withholding federal funds from universities because he disagrees with their political positions? Or his withholding of security clearances from law firms because they promoted diversity in hiring? Or withholding emergency funds from states with Democratic governors? Or pardoning the violent insurrectionists who attacked the Capitol on January 6? I could go on, but you get the gist.

So, if it’s too inconvenient for you, don’t vote to impeach Trump over the bombing of Iran. But there are plenty of other instances that justify impeaching Trump—and the widespread anger at “do nothing” Democratic representative and Senators who can’t be bothered to defend the Constitution.

The rising tide of concerned Americans who will inevitably sweep away MAGA extremism will not stop there. We are in this mess, in part, because many Democrats in Congress are more concerned about re-election than preserving democracy. We now have a list, and we will be checking it twice in the run-up to 2026.

Talk to you tomorrow!

PS—I plan to hold my regular Saturday morning livestream at 9 am Pacific / Noon Eastern.

Daily Dose of Perspective

It has been a while since I have included an image of the always awe-inspiring Wester Veil Nebula:

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

[I will hold a Substack livestream on Saturday, June 28 at 9 am PT / Noon ET. Open to all on the Substack App on your phone or tablet.]

On Friday, the Supreme Court released five opinions in its term-ending extravaganza, an annual tradition that is quickly becoming known as “Christmas in July for Trump.”

Four opinions were drafted by members of the reactionary majority and adhered strictly to the MAGA agenda. But two cases are egregious departures from the Constitution and the rule of law. They continue the Roberts Court's willingness to set aside the rules of logic, legal doctrine, and judicial precedent to award Trump whatever outlandish relief he is seeking.

Candidly, it is difficult not to be discouraged when the US Supreme Court has fully capitulated to Trump. Federal district courts have ruled against Trump 96% of the time, and the US Supreme Court has consistently reversed the decisions of the district courts to hold in favor of Trump.

That mismatch would be inexplicable in a system where judges were applying the law to the facts in a fair manner. The only explanation is that the Supreme Court’s reactionary majority is applying a not-so-secret judicial doctrine: Presume a Trump victory and then reason backward to support the outcome that favors Trump.

As Philip Rotner described the situation in The Bulwark, “In less polite terms, the stink of political activism is all over this Court.”

The “Trump Wins No Matter What Doctrine” leads to absurd reasoning that ignores longstanding and recent precedent alike. It also results in nearly incomprehensible remedies that create confusion for the lower courts.

Before addressing the Supreme Court’s opinions issued on Friday, I want to address a relatively common (and understandable) reaction by readers. As one long-time reader and steadfast grassroots activist wrote,

Robert—it gets worse by the day. Cruelty, cruelty, cruelty (birthright). I'll be dead before this is fixed. It's heartbreaking; sickening and so dispiriting.

The reader’s feelings are reasonable and understandable. Indeed, it would not be human not toshare in those feelings to some extent.

When faced with inevitable feelings of disappointment, it is helpful to recognize that we are not guaranteed a front-row seat to the day of democracy's redemption. I wrote the reader as follows:

If our task is to hold back the forces of darkness long enough so that others can be victorious in the future, that is a noble and sacred duty that others have performed for us.

Yes, the capitulation of the Supreme Court is disheartening, even sickening.

But whatever happens, we must not quit, we must not relent. We stand on the shoulders of those who came before us, those who fought to bring us safely to this moment, knowing that they might not enjoy the fruits of their labor.

We must repay our debt to them by refusing to surrender even when the outlook is dim and we feel beleaguered.

Friday was a tough day because the Supreme Court confirmed its complicity in Trump's attack on the rule of law. The insult stings all the more because Trump's co-conspirators are justices of the Court whose solemn duty is to protect and defend the Constitution.

Despite feelings of disappointment and cynicism, we cannot give up. Defeat is not an option. Accepting that truth, our task is to resist with every fiber of our being. The tide has turned already; the period of rehabilitation will be long and arduous. But it won’t happen unless we persist. Stay strong and keep the faith!

The Supreme Court eliminates nationwide injunctions, allowing states to decide who is entitled to birthright citizenship under the Constitution

The Constitution provides that “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

Trump signed an executive order ending birthright citizenship prospectively for children born in the United States to non-US citizens—an order that contradicts the plain language of the Constitution and a century of legal precedent.

Dozens of plaintiffs, including several states, sued, asserting that the birthright citizenship order was unconstitutional. Every court that considered the matter ruled that the executive order was unconstitutional to the extent that it limited birthright citizenship. Three district courts granted nationwide injunctions prohibiting the executive order from taking effect.

On Friday, Justice Amy Coney Barrett issued a procedurally complex, muddled opinion that raised more questions than it answered. But at bottom, Barrett’s opinion ruled that in most cases, district courts did not have the jurisdiction to issue nationwide injunctions.

As a result, Trump's executive order is now in effect in some states, while it has been enjoined in other states. [The exact number of states in each category depends on the state of residence of individual plaintiffs.] Thus, a child born to non-US citizen parents in New Jersey will be a US citizen, while a child born in Texas to non-US citizen parents will not be a US citizen.

Although the Court did not consider the merits of Trump's executive order limiting birthright citizenship, it is difficult to see how the ruling does not portend an eventual ruling that birthright citizenship can be limited by an executive order that adds words to the definition of birthright citizenship not contained in the plain text of the Constitution.

The portion of the opinion relating to the availability of nationwide injunctions—and possible workarounds, such as class actions—is complex and incomplete. District Courts are now scrambling to determine how they will implement Barrett’s shoddy opinion. For a full explication of the legal complexities, I recommend Steve Vladeck’s One First (Substack), an article entitled, What Does the Birthright Citizenship Ruling Portend?

Putting aside the procedural mess created by Barrett’s opinion, the gravamen of the opinion rewards Trump's lawlessness. He issued a blatantly unconstitutional executive order that has now been given effect in dozens of states because the Supreme Court contorted itself to give Trump another victory that undermines the rule of law.

Philip Rotner gets it right in his article in The Bulwark, Ignoring Substance, SCOTUS Permits Lawlessness. Rotner writes,

Once again, the Court chose to sidestep substance. The issue according to Justice Amy Coney Barrett, who wrote the opinion of the Court, was not whether Trump’s order was unconstitutional but whether the federal judiciary could stop him from implementing it on a nationwide basis.

Paying only lip service to the proposition that “no one disputes that the Executive has a duty to follow the law,” Justice Barrett skipped by that thorny problem with a judicial ‘never mind’: “The birthright citizenship issue is not before us” (in the birthright citizenship case), she pronounced. Maybe, she avers in a footnote, that issue will present itself some future day.

But for now, legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional, there’s just nothing the courts—or apparently anybody else because if not the courts, who?—can do about it, except on a narrow, individual-by-individual basis.

Any justice of the Supreme Court interested in defending the Constitution would (and should) say, “Whoa! Forget about the procedural question; the substance of Trump's order violates the plain language of the Constitution. We cannot permit it to take effect because to do so would inflict injury in contravention of the Constitution’s guarantees.”

See Robyn Nicole Sanders, Slate, The Supreme Court's birthright citizenship case gets history very wrong. (Noting that the Supreme Court in Brown v. Board of Education imposed a nationwide remedy rather than limiting the ruling to the plaintiffs before the Court.)

But because the Court is insistent on granting Trump victories whenever possible, the reactionary justices ignored the substantive elephant in the room and decided the case on a novel and illegitimate basis that involved truncating the jurisdiction of federal courts.

If there is a silver lining, it is this: Barrett’s “clear as mud” procedural remedy will likely lead to chaos and thousands lawsuits, class actions, and news stories about children born within miles of one another under similar circumstances, some of whom will be citizens and some of whom will not be citizens.

Americans have a strong sense of fairness. And to paraphrase Philip Rotner, the outcome in the birthright citizenship case stinks of political activism. I have little hope that the reactionary majority will change its mind. I have great hope that tens of millions of Americans will finally wake up to the fact that a president's ability to appoint Supreme Court justices can have a major impact on their lives—and is a reason to show up and vote!

Supreme Court allows parents to veto classroom content that contradicts their religious beliefs.

In an opinion by Justice Alito motivated by homophobia, the reactionary majority created a new right for parents to opt out of any public-school curriculum that contradicts their religious beliefs. See Dahlia Lithwick and Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, Samuel Alito’s “Pride Puppy” ruling is a disgrace to the Supreme Court.

Alito describes books that present stories of loving couples who happen to be same sex as follows:

The storybooks, however, are designed to present the opposite viewpoint to young, impressionable children who are likely to accept without question any moral messages conveyed by their teacher’s instruction. The storybooks present same-sex weddings as occasions for great celebration and suggest that the only rubric for determining whether a marriage is acceptable is whether the individuals concerned “love each other.”

As explained by Mark Joseph Stern,

The problem, of course, is that parents don’t traditionally have an individual veto over public education. Parents do not get to dictate exactly what is and is not taught in the classroom. And one of the goals of public education is to expose children to different kinds of ideas and different kinds of people that they wouldn’t normally see.

Yet, on Friday, the Supreme Court decreed that parents have a brand-new First Amendment right to veto their children’s exposure to materials that violate their own religious beliefs. If the parents don’t like gay people, then their kids must be “opted out” from seeing a book featuring gay people in the classroom. The kids have to stand up and walk out while the teacher reads Uncle Bobby’s Wedding. . . . [¶]

That is a violently stigmatizing message, and it’s one the Supreme Court just enshrined into the First Amendment.

In the aftermath of Dobbs, the Supreme Court is intent on chipping away at LGBTQ rights and dignity.

Everyone who is related to, knows, or loves an LGBTQ person should be alarmed. The reactionary majority will not be satisfied until it has imposed conservative Christian values on all Americans, based on the Court’s (mis)interpretation of selected passages of the Bible.

The Constitution explicitly forbids that outcome. Every American should be outraged and alarmed by the creeping theocracy emerging from the Roberts Court.

Concluding Thoughts.

Friday was one of those days when we stand at the foot of a hill, staring up a steep incline, not knowing what awaits us beyond the rise.

Our future. That is what awaits us on the other side.

And “forward” is the only direction that will take us there.

Daily Dose of Perspective

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

From Al Jazeera – Breaking News, World News and Video from Al Jazeera via this RSS feed

Friends,

Despite a series of legal wins against the Trump administration, Harvard officials have concluded that those victories alone might be insufficient to protect the university. So Harvard is reentering negotiations with Trump.

Among the sticking points with the Trump White House are issues of admissions, hiring, and viewpoint diversity.

Lawrence H. Summers, a former Harvard president, suggested in an interview with The New York Times on Monday that a deal, in and of itself, should not be seen as a surrender. “I don’t hear anyone at Harvard saying Harvard doesn’t need to work at diversity of perspective,” he said.

Hello? What the hell does “diversity of perspective” mean? More professors and students who believe in authoritarianism and fewer who believe in democracy? More courses emphasizing biblical views and fewer based on science? More students who are racist and xenophobic and fewer who are tolerant?

And who’s to decide when and whether Harvard’s “perspectives” have become sufficiently “diverse” anyway? Stephen Miller? Trump?

A deal with Trump would be a surrender if Harvard agrees to even a smidgeon of government oversight over who’s hired or admitted or what’s taught. Even negotiating with Trump gives his demands a degree of legitimacy he should never have.

Responsible leaders of American institutions must deal with the tyrant in the Oval Office by saying unequivocally “no” and unambiguously refusing to do what he demands.

There’s no reason for Harvard to negotiate. So far, federal courts have backed its independence. And the courts will continue to do so — if academic freedom means anything at all and the First Amendment still holds.

In the meantime, Harvard is sufficiently wealthy and prestigious to withstand Trump’s assaults. Not so with other universities in America — which makes it even more urgent that Harvard hang tough and lead the way with a firm “no.”

The “no’s” of the brave institutional leaders who have stood up to Trump reverberate across America. They give courage to others. They enable people to see the tyrant for what and who he is. The meek “yes’s” undercut American democracy.

Besides, it’s impossible to appease a tyrant. Negotiations only encourage him to ask for more.

After ABC settled a baseless lawsuit Trump filed against it for $15 million, Trump demanded CBS pay him even more to settle an even less credible charge. Trump’s lawsuits have never been about winning. They’ve been designed to impose financial and political costs on institutions that say and do things he doesn’t like.

When some of the nation’s biggest law firms agreed to deals with Trump, the initial terms appeared straightforward. But Trump then signaled far more ambitious plans for what he will call on those firms to do, and he sees their promises of nearly $1 billion in pro bono legal services as a legal war chest that he can do with as he wishes.

Leaders of America’s great institutions — of our top universities, law firms, museums, the media — should treat Trump for what he is: a liar, bully, conman, and malignant narcissist who cares only about wreaking vengeance and accumulating more personal power and wealth.

Negotiating with him only contributes to the dangerous mythologies of omnipotence and invincibility he is seeking to cultivate.

This is not a partisan political fight between the traditional political left and right, but a struggle between democracy and dictatorship.

At this perilous time in American history, the moral leadership of great American institutions like Harvard University is desperately needed.

Harvard should not negotiate.

Share

---

From Robert Reich via this RSS feed

Download this image here.

Hi, all, and happy Friday.

This has honestly felt like one of the longest weeks of my life. I suspect I’m not alone. It’s not just the (continued) loss of my beloved cat, for me. It’s that it feels like the news—mostly bad—is accelerating at an almost impossible-to-believe rate. So much is happening, and a large majority of it is unbelievably dark. The forces of evil seem to be gaining footholds everywhere. My inbox is absolutely inundated with articles bearing alarming headlines—it’s an absolute deluge of grimness.

And yet, here all of us are. We are still showing up. We are still in this fight. Each of us is tired, each afraid, each heartbroken, and yet we wake up each day and make a conscious decision to return to battle. Why? Because we know the stakes. We love humanity, we love our children, and we love each other. And we refuse to let the forces of greed and oppression win.

Sometimes, these days, our side reminds me of the residents of Whoville. Remember how, in Dr. Seuss’s poem, they hold hands and sing Christmas carols, even after the Grinch has stolen all of their gifts? The sound of that singing, fictional though it may be, keeps ringing in my ears. For collectively, we are doing the same. We are insisting on joy. We are clinging to community. We are cleaving to a vision of unity even when powerful forces are trying to stop us from doing so.

This isn’t just beautiful—it’s how we will prevail.

So while the Supreme Court issues disastrous rulings, Fox News spews lies, and Republicans foment racism and hate, we will keep doing what we do.

We will stand steadfastly on the side of right. We will help those targeted by this regime. We will repeat the truth to whomever will listen. We will love. We will care. We will honor those who came before us in this fight. We will continue their work no matter what our chances of success.

Because that’s what patriots do.

This is harder than we expected it to be —and we knew it would be brutal. But for one day more we can return to the front, knowing that not just our country but the world is depending on our courage. It feels bleak as hell right now, but feelings aren’t what determine the future. Our actions are.

So let’s keep acting like patriots until this thing is won.

Call Your Senators (find yours here) 📲

Hi, I'm a constituent calling from [zip]. My name is ______.

First, I want the Senator to support Tim Kaine’s War Powers resolution when it comes up for a vote. Donald Trump and his administration launched an attack on Iran without Congressional approval and then lied about what they achieved. He’s out of control. The Senator must support the Resolution.

Second, I’m upset about the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday allowing states to block Medicaid recipients from using Planned Parenthood. And I’m extremely upset that Republicans are trying to defund Planned Parenthood in their vicious budget bill—which I oppose, by the way. Defunding or otherwise limiting access to Planned Parenthood would put over a million patients at risk of losing access to health care. It's chaotic, cruel, and dangerous. Congress needs to stop these attacks and support access to Planned Parenthood. [H/T]

Finally please tell the Senator to vote no on Emil Bove. He’s a fundamentally dishonest and corrupt person and cannot be confirmed as a judge. Thanks.

Call Your House Rep (find yours here) 📲

Hi, I'm a constituent calling from [zip]. My name is _______.

I understand that the Trump administration plans to deport Kilmar Abrego Garcia as soon as he’s released on bail. So let me get this straight: They wrongly deported him because of an administrative error, then refused for months to bring him back despite court orders to do so, then finally brought him back so they could criminally prosecute him on made up charges, and now that a judge has shown those charges to be nonsense they’re going to deport him—again with no due process? Why is Congress not stepping in to protect this man? And more importantly, what has happened to due process in our country? I’m appalled at the Trump administration’s abuse of Abrego Garcia and so many others. Congress needs to stand up for the Constitution and stop these abuses now. Thanks.

Extra Credit ✅

As you likely know, Rep. Al Green brought up a privileged resolution to impeach Trump over his illegal bombing of Iran. It failed to pass, partially because 128 Democrats voted to table the resolution. Please see if your rep was one of them, (again, because they were voting on whether or not to table the resolution the AYE votes are the bad ones), and if so call and say this:

I’m calling because I understand that the representative voted against impeaching Donald Trump this week. I am flabbergasted. To say that that was the wrong vote is a massive understatement. Trump has already committed at least 19 impeachable offenses. Nineteen! He’s a disgrace. I feel totally betrayed by the representative’s vote and expect him/her to make a better choice next time. Thanks.

If your rep is a Democrat and they voted AGAINST tabling —and therefore FOR impeachment—please call and say:

I’m calling to thank the representative for voting the right way on Rep. Green’s impeachment resolution. I’m horrified that more Democrats didn’t support it but I’m glad s/he did. I expect him/her to keep voting for impeachment every time it’s brought up. Trump has committed 19 impeachable offenses so far and every day it gets worse. The fact that Congress is allowing him to stay in office is an outrage. Thanks.

Get Smart! 📚

My friend wrote a great post called “How to Protect your Neighbors From ICE Raids.” Please read, please share, and please use his instructions to help make sure that if your locality has a 287g agreement, they repeal it.

Let's Address This with Qasim RashidHow To Protect Your Immigrant Neighbors From ICE RaidsThe Trump regime is doing everything in its power to target immigrants, create fear, and fabricate excuses to deploy the military on immigrants and on U.S. born citizens…Read more15 days ago · 416 likes · 28 comments · Qasim Rashid, Esq.

Give 💰!

Sister District has announced their second wave of endorsed candidates for 2025. These progressive incumbents and challengers will be critical to protecting Virginia’s Democratic Majority in the State Legislature.

Sister District is one of the best organizations out there helping great candidates win in state legislative elections. They have a stellar track record and their endorsees are always incredible. This is a really great place to give.

Support the entire wave 2 candidate slate HERE.

Win Races! 🗳

Remember, you can phone bank to help Abigail Spanberger win the governor’s race in Virginia several days a week with the Grassroots Dems HQ. We need big wins in November badly, y’all. Please take a shift! They’ll train you!

Sign up here.

Resistbot Letter (new to Resistbot? Go here! And then here.) 💻

[To: your Senators] [H/T] [Text SIGN PESGRU to 50409, or to @Resistbot on Apple Messages, Messenger, Instagram, or Telegram]

(Note that for the most effective RESISTBOT it’s best to personalize this text. More about how to do this here. But if you’re short on time just send it as is using the above code.)

As your constituent, I urge you to vote NO on the nomination of Emil Bove to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. The integrity of our judiciary rests on judges who can be trusted to honor the Constitution and faithfully administer equal justice under law. Bove falls far short of that standard.

In his brief tenure at the Deputy Attorney General’s office over the past five months, Bove has allegedly engaged in multiple unprecedented abuses of power. He reportedly led an effort to identify and purge FBI agents and federal prosecutors involved in cases regarding the January 6th insurrection. Bove allegedly pushed a “bargain” to extract public policy concessions from the Mayor of New York City in exchange for dropping a corruption prosecution that could be resumed later, leading to resignations in protest by senior DOJ attorneys in both New York and Washington. Just this week, a DOJ whistleblower wrote that Bove plotted to defy, circumvent, and lie to federal courts regarding illegal deportations.

In all three of these recent and well-documented cases, Bove’s alleged conduct demonstrates a disqualifying degree of bad faith toward the Constitution that all lawyers and all government employees swear to protect. Many honorable jurists of different ideologies and parties serve with integrity, but it is the Senate’s duty to ensure only nominees of good character are confirmed, and that those who abuse their power are not rewarded. Bove thoroughly fails this test.

For all of these reasons I beg you to vote no on Bove’s nomination. Thanks.

OK, you did it again! You’re helping to save democracy! You’re amazing.

Talk soon.

Jess

Chop Wood, Carry Water is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Share

Leave a comment

---

From Chop Wood, Carry Water via this RSS feed

This morning’s press conference with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth featured an apparently angry Hegseth yelling at the media for contradicting President Donald Trump’s claim that last weekend’s strikes against Iran had “completely obliterated” its nuclear weapons program. Hegseth seemed to be performing for an audience of one as he insisted on the made-for-television narrative the administration has been pushing. He said: “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war.”

D-Day, the June 6, 1944, Allied invasion of France, took a year of planning, involved 156,000 Allied soldiers and 195,700 naval personnel, and required cooperation of leaders from thirteen countries. It remains the largest seaborne invasion in history.

After a Senate briefing on the strikes, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) told reporters: “To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months. There’s no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don’t seem to stand up to reason…. I just do not think the president was telling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.”

Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger of the New York Times reported today that it remains unclear where Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is.

This afternoon, Zachary Cohen, Alayna Treene, Kylie Atwood, and Jennifer Hansler of CNN reported that the administration has been engaged in secret talks to ease sanctions on Iran, free up $6 billion in Iranian funds currently in foreign banks, and help Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a nuclear energy program, all in exchange for Iran freezing its nuclear enrichment program.

Trump ran his 2016 campaign in part by attacking President Barack Obama for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was a much more stringent deal than the one suggested in the CNN article.

But there is perhaps a different angle to this deal than the Obama administration’s. The idea of building nuclear power plants in the Middle East was central to Trump’s 2016 bid for office. Members of Trump’s inner circle, including Michael Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, hatched a plan for a joint U.S.-Russian project to build nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia. In June 2016 they formed a company called IP3 International, short for International Peace, Power and Prosperity.

The focus of the Trump administration on the concentration of wealth and power among the very richest people in the world is creating a backlash at home. Sahil Kapur of NBC News noted on Monday that polls show voters oppose the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill by large margins. A Fox News poll released June 13 showed that only 38% of registered voters support the budget reconciliation bill that benefits the wealthiest Americans, while 59% oppose it. Independents oppose the bill by a margin of 22% in favor to 73% against, and white men without a college degree, Trump’s base, oppose the bill by 43% to 53%. That negative polling holds across a number of polls.

The Republicans are trying to pass their entire wish list in one giant package under “budget reconciliation” because in that form it cannot be filibustered in the Senate, meaning the tiny Republican majority there would be enough to pass it. Because budget reconciliation is one of the only forms of legislation that can’t be filibustered, Republicans have thrown into this measure a wide range of things they want.

The bill contains an extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, as well as cuts to Medicaid, to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and to energy credits designed to help Americans switch to sustainable energy. It also contains a number of policies designed to shape America as MAGA Republicans wish. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the measure the House passed will increase the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years.

But the Senate has a nonpartisan officer known as the Senate parliamentarian, who interprets Senate rules and procedures and tries to keep measures within them. Senators can ignore the parliamentarian if they wish, but that is rare.

The current Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has held the office since 2012. She has judged that many of the things Republicans have crammed into the bill do not qualify for inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill. This may be a relief for some Republicans, who did not want to have to vote on unpopular provisions, but will cause trouble in the conference as MacDonough said today that some of the measures Republicans counted on to save money, including big pieces of the Medicaid cuts, do not fit in a budget reconciliation bill. Republicans had counted on those cuts to save the government $250 billion, thus helping to justify further tax cuts.

Some Republican senators have called for overruling MacDonough, but today Senate majority leader John Thune (R-SC) said the Senate would not take that approach, instead looking at ways to fix the measure so it would be within the parameters necessary for a budget reconciliation bill.

The Senate hoped to begin voting on its version of the bill tomorrow in order to pass the bill by July 4, as Trump has demanded. One of the reasons for the hurry is that the administration has significantly overspent the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency could run out of money by July, three months before the end of the fiscal year, potentially breaking the Antideficiency Act that prohibits federal agencies from spending more federal funds than Congress has appropriated.

The budget reconciliation bill provides about $75 billion in additional funding to ICE over the next five years.

The bill’s redistribution of wealth upward has made it enormously unpopular in an era when, according to the antipoverty charity Oxfam, the richest 1% of the world’s population has gained at least $6.5 trillion since 2015. And, just as extreme exhibitions of wealth drew popular anger in the late-19th-century Gilded Age, the wedding this weekend of billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and journalist Lauren Sánchez in Venice, Italy, which Reuters reports will cost between $46.5 million and $55.6 million, has drawn protests against oligarchy.

Images from that wedding party contrast sharply with video of activists in wheelchairs arrested at the Russell Senate Office Building on Wednesday, hands zip-tied, as they protested cuts to Medicaid in the budget reconciliation bill.

At the same time, the administration's overreach on migrant deportations has also galvanized opposition. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that 64% of registered voters support a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Only 31% want most of them deported. That percentage has swung 9 points toward legalization since Trump took office. Trump is also underwater on immigration more generally, with 41% approving of his stance and 57% disapproving.

Nearly half of registered voters—49%—said they do not think democracy is working in the United States, while 43% say it is. Sixty percent of those who do not think it is working told Quinnipiac pollsters they blame Republicans, while 15% blamed Democrats. Twenty percent said they blame both parties.

Voters in New York City showed their frustration with politics as usual on Tuesday when they elected 33-year-old New York state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, to be the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. Mamdani promised to address the cost of living, to raise taxes on the rich, and to “stop masked ICE agents from deporting our neighbors.”

Mamdani’s promise to change the political status quo echoes the one Trump used to win in 2016, but this time around, Trump is part of the status quo being challenged. On Wednesday, Trump called Mamdani “a 100% Communist Lunatic” who “looks TERRIBLE.”

Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN), who has falsely described himself as an economist and misrepresented his education as well as his work experience and who been under investigation for campaign finance irregularities, referred to Mamdani in a social media post as “little muhammad,” calling him “an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.”

Ogles asked the Department of Justice to denaturalize and deport Mamdani, saying a line in a rap song Mamdani performed showed “material support for terrorism.” Mamdani, who is Muslim, was born in Uganda to Indian-born Ugandan political scientist Mahmood Mamdani, who is now a professor at Columbia University, and filmmaker Mira Nair. Mamdani became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018.

The Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee called Ogles’s post “racist drivel” and noted that Ogles faked a $320,000 campaign loan, lied about being an economist, and was fired from a law enforcement job for not showing up. Former Illinois Republican congressman Joe Walsh was more direct. Over Ogles’s post, he commented: “A sitting Member of Congress calling for an American citizen to be stripped of his citizenship & deported, all because of that American citizen’s political views. This is fascism.”

—

Notes:

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/trump-hegseth-melt-down-leaked-iran-strike-intel-1235373030/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/19/white-house-saudi-arabia-nuclear-technology-house-oversight-inquiry-report

https://static.foxnews.com/foxnews.com/content/uploads/2025/06/fox_june-13-16-2025_national_cross-tabs_june-18-release.pdf

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/polls-trump-bill-unpopular-republicans-stare-deadline-passage-rcna213724

https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/26/politics/us-iran-talks-nuclear-program

https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2025/06/26/congress/senate-gop-dealt-major-blow-on-megabill-health-care-plans-00425256

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/megabill-stuck-senate-parliamentarian-00428299

https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/16/ice-cash-crisis-immigration-crackdown-trump

https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3926

https://apnews.com/article/new-york-mayor-zohran-mamdani-trump-biden-1561ca0aa1821f88b97603f00221b64f

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2025/jun/26/billionaires-wealth-oxfam-report#%3A%7E%3Atext=The+wealth+of+the+world%27s%2Cto+14.6%25+of+global+output.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2025/06/26/jeff-bezos-lauren-sanchez-wedding-guests-cost-venue/84331934007/

https://www.reuters.com/business/retail-consumer/jeff-bezos-lauren-sanchezs-celebrity-venice-wedding-facts-figures-2025-06-24/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/health-wellness/2025/06/25/jeff-bezos-lauren-sanchez-luxury-weddings/84333258007/

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/nyregion/mamdani-speech-watch-party.html

https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/ethics-troubles-gops-andy-ogles-become-even-serious-rcna186362

https://www.the-independent.com/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-zohran-mamdani-nyc-mayoral-candidate-b2777183.html

https://www.the-independent.com/voices/nyc-mayoral-candidate-zohran-mamdani-democratic-socialist-b2777213.html

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5372203-tennessee-republican-calls-for-mamdani-to-be-denaturalized-deported/

https://www.newschannel5.com/news/newschannel-5-investigates/my-body-of-work-speaks-for-itself-tennessee-andy-ogles-says-in-response-to-inflated-resume-claims

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/iran-nuclear-program-uranium.html

https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/politics/more-than-30-arrested-at-senate-building-while-protesting-medicaid-cuts/3944587/

X:

HomelandDems/status/1938337019618381988

WalshFreedom/status/1938330196517482971

YouTube:

watch?v=g5c2xdtH410

Bluesky:

acyn.bsky.social/post/3lsjuom6ahs2k

ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lsj4mekt2k2z

atrupar.com/post/3lsj3wr4itl2g

gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3lsjprsrrtc2w

mehdirhasan.bsky.social/post/3lshkavoit22t

jenrice.bsky.social/post/3lsklfvocus2i

Share

---

From Letters from an American via this RSS feed

From US news | The Guardian via this RSS feed

Monday was a huge news day, and many developments vied for the headline for today’s edition of the newsletter. But the Supreme Court's “shadow docket” ruling allowing Trump to deport immigrants to third countries (i.e., not the immigrants’ home country) is among this Supreme Court’s lowest points. (Dobbs and the presidential immunity decision round out the Hall of Shame for the Roberts Court.)

There are significant developments regarding Trump's War on Iran, but those developments are of uncertain significance and permanence. Fifty years hence, historians will look back to this day and say, “The US Supreme Court sanctioned the kidnapping of immigrants by deporting them to third countries torn by ethnic violence, and ruled by warlords.”

But before addressing any of these stories, it is vitally important to say to those participating in the resistance that you are on the right path. It may not feel like it after the developments on Monday, but grassroots resistance is literally—not figuratively, literally—the last bulwark holding back anti-democratic forces.

Every form of resistance matters, and we are making tremendous progress that is difficult to measure. Until we have the opportunity to win a significant number of state, local, and federal elections (and we will), the fruits of our efforts will be minimized, dismissed, and ignored. But if the 2024 elections were re-run today, Democrats would likely win a trifecta. You know it, Trump knows it, and MAGA knows it—which is why they are scrambling to cause as much damage as possible before losing power for a generation.

We must stay the course. We must not surrender to anxiety or doubt. Persistence is the key—not giving up even when we feel exhausted or dispirited. We live in a news environment that is enthralled with bunker buster bombs, explosions, violence, and the ravings of oligarchs and autocrats on tiny electronic screens that distort reality.

When the history of this period is written, what will matter is the massive uprising of concerned citizens who reclaimed democracy through millions of daily actions that went unnoticed, standing alone, but saved a nation in their accumulated heft and momentum.

We are on the right path. Do not doubt it. If you are able to do so, serve as an inspiration to others—by actions rather than words. Show them the path forward. Lead the way. Give them hope. Be the resistance that will save our democracy.

The Supreme Court approves federal kidnapping of immigrants by authorizing deportations to third countries.

On Monday, the Supreme Court lifted a lower court stay that prohibited the deportation of immigrants to South Sudan. If those immigrants are deported to South Sudan they will arrive in a nation described as follows:

South Sudan descended into a civil war from 2013 to 2020, enduring rampant human rights abuses, including forced displacement, ethnic massacres, and killings of journalists by various parties. It has since been governed by a coalition formed by leaders of the former warring factions, Salva Kiir Mayardit and Riek Machar. The country continues to recover from the war while experiencing ongoing and systemic ethnic violence.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres stated that the "peace agreement [between warring factions] is in shambles" and South Sudan is on "the edge of a collapse into civil war" . . . .

United States District Judge Brian Murphy described the question before him (and the Supreme Court) as follows:

This case presents a simple question: before the United States forcibly sends someone to a country other than their country of origin, must that person be told where they are going and be given a chance to tell the United States that they might be killed if sent there?

The Supreme Court’s shadow docket order—which contained no reasoning—answered that question in the negative, effectively saying, “No, the person need not be told where they are going so they can be given a chance to tell the US that they might be killed if sent to the unknown, lawless third country.”

The Court’s order is barbaric.

It is difficult to see the deportation of immigrants to a country other than their own that is on the verge of civil war as anything other than state-sanctioned kidnapping.

Even if the initial detention and deportation are legal, sending the immigrant to a country not their own is beyond the pale of civilized society. It is like lawfully arresting a shoplifter and then handing them over to the Mafia for punishment. The Constitution simply does not contemplate such outcomes—especially without notice or opportunity to object.

The reactionary majority on the Supreme Court has sunk to a new low—an ill omen for the remaining cases on its docket, which will be decided before June 30 (including the birthright citizenship case).

This is the same reactionary majority that demoted women to second-class citizens by denying them autonomy over their own bodies and reproductive decisions. Three years ago today, the reactionary majority issued an opinion that relied on ancient jurisprudence written by a judge who condemned two women to death by hanging for “witchcraft” and who ruled that rape was impossible within the confines of marriage.

Dobbs was the first Supreme Court ruling in our nation’s history that removed an existing constitutional right. It remains as a stain on the legacy, competency, and veracity of the six justices who lied their way onto the Supreme Court so they could overrule Roe v. Wade.

It was only three years ago; yet the decision and its horrific aftermath are ignored by the media, by legislators, and by most men. Women now live in fear of state bounty laws that incentivize reporting on women who skip a period or good Samaritans who transport women experiencing miscarriages to another state for medical treatment. Barbaric.

Anyone involved in the resistance movement knows this truth: The backbone of the resistance is women. More than any other group, they have risen to defend democracy, even though they have been treated with scorn, disrespect, and inhumanity under Trump.

The Roberts Court is beyond redemption. Even if the Court exhibits flashes of logic or humanity, it has inflicted too much damage to the Constitution and to the vulnerable to be forgiven. The only path forward is to enlarge the Court at the first opportunity and thereby dilute the reactionary, inhumane, indecent jurisprudence of John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, Amy Coney Barrett, and Clarence Thomas. Unless we enlarge the Court soon, we are looking at three more decades of barbaric, incomprehensible decisions.

To the women of the resistance, thank you! You are working to save democracy for all of us!

The Status of Trump's War

As I write on Monday evening (9:30 pm Pacific), Iran and Israel are exchanging missile and air strikes. The attacks continue despite the fact that Trump declared that the two nations had agreed to a permanent ceasefire. Although an Iranian spokesperson seemed to confirm the agreement, Israel has not confirmed Trump's claim. Trump's claim of a cease fire surprised his own advisers—suggesting that Trump was exaggerating or lying (again). See NYTimes, Trump’s Cease-Fire Announcement Catches His Own Top Officials by Surprise - The New York Times

Per the Times,

The announcement, made minutes after 6 p.m. Eastern time, caught even some of Mr. Trump’s own top administration officials by surprise. Israel has not yet confirmed the cease-fire, and within three hours of Mr. Trump’s announcement, there were fresh attacks from Israel against Iran, raising questions about whether all parties had agreed to it.

Adding to the confusion, over the last forty-eight hours, Trump has shifted his position from supporting regime change in Iran to thanking Iran for its limited counter-attack on US bases in Qatar, saying, “God Bless You Both”, referring to Israel and Iran.

I won’t attempt to keep up with the minute-by-minute changes. Here are the important points:

As of Monday evening, it is not clear whether the US destroyed Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium. The weight of evidence suggests that Iran loaded enriched uranium onto cargo trucks before the US bombs fell at the Fordow nuclear processing facility. If true, there are eight cargo trucks driving through the Kavir-e Markazi desert, each with enough enriched uranium to make a nuclear weapon.

The risk of moving eight truckloads of enriched uranium through a nation that may be teetering on collapse is obvious. If the current regime falls, the question of who gains control of that uranium is open. For a detailed—and sobering—discussion of the pitfalls of an unstable Iran, see Jonathan V. Last in The Bulwark, Fallout.

As Jonathan Last notes, the US airstrike may have been a limited tactical success with no strategic value. Indeed, the air strikes may have increased the risk to every country in the region. After the strikes, Iran may be motivated to accelerate the creation of at least one nuclear weapon, copying the North Korean model. See Newsweek, Iran lawmakers eye page from North Korea nuclear playbook after US strikes.

Lost in all of the back-and-forth about the “success” or “failure” of the mission is that Trump acted unilaterally—in violation of the Constitution. One reader commented that presidents have long been ordering strikes without first seeking congressional approval. That is partially correct, but many US strikes have taken place under congressional authorizations known as Authorized Use of Military Force. Most presidents cite to existing AUMF’s in justifying their use of military power. Moreover, in the case of the Iraq War and Gulf War, Presidents George W. and George H.W. Bush obtained congressional authorization.

Trump sought no authorization. Instead, he contends that, as Commander-in-Chief, he has the power to order the US military into action. That legal position flouts the plain language of the Constitution.

Although Trump has given Congress notification under the War Powers Act, that notification is deficient and does not justify the strike on Iran. The War Powers Act requires meaningful advance consultation with Congress, meaningful information regarding the details of the planned attack, and citation to legislative authority. Trump failed on all accounts. See generally, Congressional Research Service, The War Powers Resolution: Concepts and Practice.

Trump ignores and violates the Constitution every day. That is why the violation of the Constitution in this instance is all the more worrisome and egregious. Even if you agree with the result, that does not justify a violation of the Constitution. If we start ignoring the Constitution using the “The ends justify the means” argument, the Constitution is meaningless.

Trump's War is not over, and the outcome is still in doubt, particularly if the Iranian regime collapses—as Trump encouraged forty-eight hours ago. The American people do not want war, do not support Trump's actions, and know that Trump is lying about his motivations and the outcome. We must protest his unilateral violation of the Constitution as part of our effort to defend democracy.

Senate Parliamentarian strikes provision requiring plaintiffs to post a bond to ensure that preliminary injunctions are enforceable

Republicans included a provision in the reconciliation bill that would require plaintiffs seeking preliminary injunctions to post a bond in order to ensure the enforceability of an order granting a preliminary injunction. Said differently, in the absence of a costly bond, the president could simply ignore the preliminary injunction and not be held in contempt.

The proposed provision clearly violated the Byrd Rule, which requires that provisions in a reconciliation bill relate directly to raising revenue or appropriating funds. The “bond requirement” violated the Byrd Rule—and the Senate Parliamentarian said so on Monday. See Talking Points Memo,

Crucially, [the Senate Parliamentarian] determined that Republicans could not include their provision to require litigants suing the government to post bond in order to seek emergency relief. If such a provision became law, it would forever shield the Trump administration from the sorts of lawsuits that have proven to be some of the sole checks on his naked power grabs.

As a result, the provision cannot pass on a majority vote; instead, it would require 60 votes to pass. Majority Leader Thune has already said he will not seek to overrule the Parliamentarian on this matter (which would require only 51 votes, but which would spell the end of the filibuster). See Politico, Thune vows not to overrule parliamentarian on megabill.

Opportunity for Reader Engagement

Join BigTentUSA on Wednesday, June 25 at 7pm ET when we host a conversation with Connecticut Attorney General William Tong(D-CT) and California Attorney General Rob Bonta (D-CA), moderated by Michael Waldman, the president of The Brennan Center for Justice.

As threats to democracy grow bolder—from voter suppression laws to authoritarian legal maneuvers—state attorneys general have become the last, and often strongest, line of defense. Learn how state legal leaders are standing up to Trump-aligned extremism and building a firewall to protect civil rights, rule of law, and the will of the people. Come hear from the front-line of democracy what is happening, and how we can help defend against MAGA extremism.

Please use this link to register.

Concluding Thoughts

About two months ago, a purported Facebook post by Liz Cheney went viral on the internet. It is a screed against the Democratic Party, outlining what Democrats must do to earn the author’s support. (“What I need from Democrats is . . . .”)

The post is a hoax. Cheney did not write it. But Robert Reich received it over the weekend and published it on Monday—acknowledging that it was not an authentic statement by Liz Cheney. Although I responded to the fake post nearly two months ago, I am now being deluged with copies from readers of this newsletter who also read Robert Reich’s newsletter.

Clearly, Reich’s tardy publishing of a two-month-old internet meme is resonating with readers, so I will make another attempt to explain why the post is counterproductive and unhelpful.

First, let’s be clear about the central fact: The Democratic Party is not the problem. The Republican Party is the problem. Sure, Democrats have faults, but they are the only party in a two-party system that is seeking to defend democracy. So, please, take all of your ire directed at the Democratic Party and channel it in the appropriate direction—at the party that is actively seeking to overturn constitutional order and refusing to hold Trump accountable for his high crimes and misdemeanors.

Second, the author of the piece appears to be unfamiliar with the extensive grassroots work that takes place every day among Democrats. Some of the author’s prescriptions for what the “Democratic Party” should be doing are being done every day by millions of engaged Democrats. It is insulting and offensive to ignore those efforts while whining that “This is what I need from the Democratic Party before it can earn my support.”

Third, the author's prescriptions are laughable, simplistic, or already exist.

For example, the author suggests that the Democratic Party “Join the International Criminal Court.” Really? The International Criminal Court is an international body established by a treaty among 150 member nations. And the Democratic Party—which is not a nation— is supposed to join the International Criminal Court? The level of ignorance and naivete is so bad it hurts.

The author suggests that Democrats “Form an independent, civilian-powered investigative coalition.” I thought that institution already exists; it is called “a free press.” If Democrats are supposed to form a civilian investigative commission, what authority would the commission have? It couldn’t issue document subpoenas or compel testimony. Again, the suggestion is a pie-in-the-sky tough-guy talking point that is nonsensical.

The author suggests that Democrats “Fund state-level resistance infrastructure / Don’t just send postcards. Send resources.” This suggestion is both insulting to the millions of grassroots volunteers and is a dead giveaway that the author is a white male political consultant who is p*ssed that he isn’t making as much money on consulting as he would like. It is also a dead giveaway that the author has never lifted a finger to volunteer for any resistance efforts.

I could go on, but I have tried your patience. The “message” is an anti-Democratic screed by someone who wants the world delivered to him on a platter before he will lift a finger to help the Democratic Party save democracy.

To be clear, just like many readers, I am frustrated and angry with many aspects of the Democratic Party. But it is waste of everyone’s time to whine about what’s wrong with Democrats when Republicans are destroying our democracy, raiding Medicaid and Medicare, giving away public lands to corporate interests, using armed thugs to hunt productive members of society for the crime of being an immigrant, denying minorities equal representation at the ballot box, and demoting women to second class citizens.

So, if Robert Reich succeeded in making you mad at the Democratic Party with a hoax written by a political consultant, take that ire and direct it in the right direction—at the party seeking to destroy democracy, not the party fighting to preserve it.

Daily Dose of Perspective

Many readers sent me the image below taken by the Vera C. Rubin Observatory of the Lagoon Nebula. Thank you! It is a beautiful and important image that reveals new details of the nebula. The image was taken over seven hours and shows an astounding amount of detail, including thousands of stars and clouds of interstellar dust.

Below is my image of the Lagoon Nebula, taken from my backyard using my Celestron Origin telescope. My image is a one-hour exposure that reveals less detail but is nonetheless beautiful (in my opinion!).

The photo below of a pipe in the mud is in response to reader requests. Many readers watched the video below, which shows me digging a hole to locate a water leak alongside a private road in our cabin community. The riveting video of me digging a hole is here:

I did not fix the leak in the pipe because I exhausted my plumbing skills by digging the hole. Two neighbors fixed the leak three days later. The repair took about 3 hours with two skilled plumbers. The photo below shows the repaired pipe.

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

At The Hague, a city in the Netherlands, today for a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Trump showed that he cannot let go of the intelligence assessment that his military strikes against Iran had set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions only by a few months. He appears determined to convince Americans that he has solved the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions overnight.

"It's gone for years, years,” he said. And then, turning to the news outlets that reported the early conclusions of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence arm of the Pentagon, that the hits delayed production of a nuclear weapon by only a few months, he said: “CNN is scum. MSDNC is scum. The New York Times is scum. They're bad people. They're sick. And what they've done is they've tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less." Trump insisted that the U.S. hits caused “total obliteration.” He claimed he did not want the recognition of the effectiveness of the hits for himself, but rather for “the military.”

Trump equated the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities with the U.S. bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at the NATO summit that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into who had leaked the DIA report, complaining that “CNN and others are trying to spin it to make the president look bad, when this was an overwhelming success.” Later in the morning, Trump’s social media account posted that CNN should fire Natasha Bertrand, one of the CNN journalists who broke the story that the attacks had done less damage than Trump claimed.

Marc Caputo of Axios reported this afternoon that the Trump administration will limit the classified information it shares with Congress after the leak of the DIA assessment, even though there is currently no evidence tying that leak to Congress. A senior White House official said: “We are declaring a war on leakers.”

Stephan Neukam and Andrew Solender of Axios reported that congressional Democrats, already angry that the administration delayed briefing Congress about the strikes on Iran past the legal deadline for such a briefing, see the announcement that the White House will limit the information it provides to Congress as an attempt to hide reality in order to bolster Trump’s narrative. “A senior House Democrat told the Axios reporters: “[T]his from a group of people who used Signal about actual war plans?”

On the Senate floor, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: “The administration has no right to stonewall Congress on matters of national security. Senators deserve information, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening right now abroad.”

Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said: “The law requires the congressional intelligence committees to be kept fully and currently informed, and I expect the Intelligence Community to comply with the law.”

Tomorrow the White House will brief senators on the strikes. Notably, it is not sending Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the Intelligence Community did not think Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. Instead, it is sending Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine. Ratcliffe, not Gabbard, will represent the Intelligence Community.

Today, Ratcliffe appeared to walk back Trump’s claims that the strikes had “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, saying instead they had “severely damaged” the program.

On his social media platform tonight, Trump continued his attacks on CNN and announced that tomorrow morning, Hegseth and “Military Representatives” will hold a “Major News Conference” to “fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots.” He claimed those “Patriots” were “very upset!” when they “started reading Fake News by CNN and The Failing New York Times. They felt terribly!... The News Conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable. Enjoy!”

There is no evidence that anyone sees the correction of Trump’s extreme claims as an attack on the pilots who flew the mission, or that the pilots see that correction in that way.

Laura Rozen of Diplomatic notes that the strikes might have convinced Iran to abandon negotiations and commit to building a nuclear weapon. Rozen quotes former top European Union Iran nuclear negotiator Enrique Mora, who wrote: “This unprecedented strike has shown, for the second time, the Islamic regime that nuclear diplomacy is reversible, fragile and vulnerable to changes in leadership in Washington. There will not be a third time.” Mora continued: “If Iran now decides to move towards a bomb, it will do so following a clear strategic logic. No one bombs the capital of a nuclear-armed country. June 21, 2025 may go down in history not as the day the Iranian nuclear program was destroyed, but as the day a nuclear Iran was irreversibly born.”

Tonight, on his social media site, Trump’s account called for Israel to abandon its trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, calling it a “ridiculous Witch Hunt.” Trump claimed that Netanyahu was a partner in “something that nobody thought was possible, a complete elimination of potentially one of the biggest and most powerful Nuclear Weapons anywhere in the world, and it was going to happen, SOON!” Trump called for the trial to be “CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero.” He continued: “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu.”

—

Notes:

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5368255-trump-hegseth-iran-leak/

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/iran-bombing-intelligence-trump-congress

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/24/house-senate-briefings-iran-israel-middle-east

https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/democrats-iran-trump-classified-intelligence-leaks

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/25/iran-intelligence-sharing-gabbard/

Diplomatic, by Laura RozenTrump turns Iran strike intel into loyalty testPresident Trump on Wednesday appeared to be strong-arming the U.S. intelligence community as well as Israel to provide confirmation for his claim that U.S. strikes on Saturday had “totally obliterated” three Iran nuclear sites, even as he seemed at times to be tentatively walking back the claim to something less hyperbolic…Read more15 hours ago · 10 likes · 2 comments · Laura Rozen

https://www.politico.eu/article/us-pentagon-investigation-iran-intel-leak-pete-hegseth-donald-trump-rubio/

Donald J. Trump, Truth Social post, June 25, 2025, 6:27 p.m.

Bluesky:

atrupar.com/post/3lsgluoqpfk2p

paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3lshalntcac22

atrupar.com/post/3lshjugvszk2v

tomshafshafer.bsky.social/post/3lshqrcxrec2u

atrupar.com/post/3lsgm4e2fro2g

Share

---

From Letters from an American via this RSS feed

All Americans can agree that our president (a) should obey the Constitution and (b) tell the truth to the American people.

Without regard to the merits or success of the attack on Iran, Trump (a) violated the Constitution in circumventing Congress’s authority to declare war, and (b) lied to the American people about the nuclear capabilities (to justify the attack and about the effectiveness of the attack in disabling Iran’s nuclear enrichment program.

The success of the US bombing of Iran’s uranium enrichment facility is contested at best and insignificant at worst. Indeed, the weight of the evidence suggests that a massive attack by the US has set back Iran only by a few months in its efforts to enrich uranium. Worse, the failed attack has created a new incentive for Iran to rush headlong into the development of a nuclear weapon (as opposed to enriching uranium).

Faced with multiple sources suggesting the US raids were largely ineffective, Trump's press secretary has simply asserted that the US intelligence is “wrong” because it contradicts Trump's claim that the Iranian facilities were “obliterated.”

The military success or failure of the attack on Iran is an issue separate from the questions of whether Trump violated the Constitution and repeatedly lied to the American people about the justification and results of the attack.

America is a stronger nation, a more reliable ally, and a more effective global power when its leader obeys the Constitution and tells the truth. Trump should not be lionized by anyone—the media, Netanyahu, or the American people—for acting in a lawless, deceitful manner in carrying out the attacks on Iran.

Trump should not only not be viewed as a heroic wartime president but should instead be viewed as a lawless, deceitful president who may have destabilized the Middle East and made all Americans less secure because he cannot be trusted--by anyone.

The mission to limit Iran’s nuclear ambitions could have been (and may yet be) successful, but the mission and its aftermath are built on a house of lies. That fact has made American democracy more fragile—to the detriment of all Americans and its allies.

The relevant details are these:

Trump's Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, testified that the US intelligence community concluded that Iran was not moving toward weaponization of its enriched uranium stockpile. See PBS News (6/17/2025), America’s spies say Iran wasn’t building a nuclear weapon. Trump dismisses that assessment.

Multiple sources are now reporting that Trump's decision to attack Iran may have been precipitated by Fox “News” personalities who were praising the success of Israel’s air attacks on Iran. Per Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo,

[R]eporting by The New York Times and other publications seems to confirm my initial assumption, which was that the entire U.S. involvement in this conflict was driven by Fox News’s reporting of Israel’s onslaught against Iran’s military infrastructure and nuclear program.

Israel was “winning” and Trump wanted in on that winning. And that was really the entirety of it.

Motivated by Fox News to attack Iran, Trump had to reject the testimony of DNI Director Tulsi Gabbard to Congress—which he did. CBS News, Trump says intelligence director Tulsi Gabbard is "wrong" about Iran's nuclear program.

After the attack, Trump claimed that Iran’s nuclear processing facilities were “obliterated.” That claim is false on multiple levels.

First, Iran apparently removed most of the enriched uranium prior to the attack. JFeed, Did Iran Outsmart the U.S.? Tehran Says Uranium Was Moved Before Strike.

Second, the attack did not collapse the underground bunker housing Iran’s nuclear processing facilities.

Third, per a leaked US intelligence report, the attack set back Iran’s nuclear program only by a matter of months, not years. HuffPost, Trump's Bombing Probably Set Iran's Nuclear Program Back By Mere Months, Report Says. [But at least one international agency disagrees, saying that the attacks set back Iran’s processing capability by years. See Institute for the Study of War.]

Fourth, Iran reports that the damage at main processing facility was “limited to surface structures and can be repaired.” MSN/Voice of Ukraine, Iran says nuclear program will continue despite U.S. and Israeli strikes

Trump's press secretary has responded to the above by repeating that the facilities were “obliterated” and that the US intelligence is “wrong.” Press Secretary Karoline Levitt also said that the leak of the report was the work of a “low-level loser in the intelligence community,” a snarky attack that validated the authenticity of the leaked report. See The List, Karoline Leavitt Thought She Could Pull Off Trump's Insult Game And It Was Her Biggest Blunder Yet.

In a sign that the Trump administration is scrambling to concoct a story to support Trump's “obliteration” claim, the administration canceled a briefing for both chambers of Congress set for Tuesday. The hearings have been rescheduled for Friday, allegedly so that Sec. of State Rubio and Sec. of Defense Hegseth can testify.

Neither man has demonstrated the ability (or willingness) to testify truthfully to Congress on prior occasions. There is little reason to believe they will do so on Friday. The likelihood is that Rubio and Hegseth are being imported to replace career military officers who will tell the truth about the limited success of the US bombing mission.

The outcome of the US attack on Iran is far from clear—and may remain so for a long time to come. It is possible that the ultimate outcome could be beneficial to the security of the Middle East—which would be a welcome result. However, from an internal domestic perspective, the manner in which Trump decided to attack and report on the results continued his disregard for the Constitution and the norms of democracy.

That is the story that cannot be lost in the media’s mindless reporting that implies Trump acted with forethought and discipline. He did not. He acted because his fragile ego could not stand the thought of Bibi Netanyahu claiming credit for successful attacks on Iran. Let’s hope that Trump's rash, lawless decision works its way to a successful outcome—in spite of Trump.

Trump judicial nominee Emil Bove told DOJ to defy court orders

To the surprise of no one, when Trump's former criminal defense counsel was appointed to the DOJ, Emil Bove served Donald Trump's interests rather than the interests of justice. As reported in various outlets, Bove urged members of the DOJ to defy court orders, saying that the DOJ might have to tell courts “fuck you.”

According to the NYTimes, Bove urged an associate to lie about Kilmar Abrego Garcia to falsely claim that he was a terrorist. He urged subordinates to instruct military planes with deportees to depart the US despite a court order prohibiting them from doing so. See The Guardian, DoJ leader suggested defying courts over deportations, whistleblower says | Trump administration.

Democrats must throw their bodies on the train tracks to prevent the confirmation of Bove. The hearings must be made-for-TV, non-stop Mr. Smith Goes to Washington grandstanding in defense of the Constitution. Emil Bove deserves to be disbarred, not appointed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Legal advocacy organizations should demand bar inquiries into Bove’s fitness to continue as a member of the bar.

The most sobering aspect of the Bove story is that it confirms what is obvious: The DOJ’s leadership has become a lawless gang of Trump enforcers for whom the law is an impediment to their campaign of vengeance and corruption.

Although we do not need any additional motivation to oppose Trump and every complicit Republican, the destruction of the once-proud DOJ is high on the list of injuries we must correct. And Democrats in Congress must help us by showing that they care enough to “make good trouble” on the Senate floor.

A comment on ICE tactics

Masked ICE agents have stepped up their use of violence and deceit in seeking to detain immigrants with no criminal history. A typical scenario involves a dozen or so masked men brandishing firearms swarming a startled immigrant, brutally forcing them to the ground with excessive force, and then justifying their use of violence by falsely claiming that the immigrant was attacking the ICE agents.

Such lawless violence is intended to intimidate the immigrant community. It seems inevitable that such tactics will result in a tragic accident—either because ICE agents fire their drawn weapons or because civilians reasonably but mistakenly fear that the masked ICE agents are terrorists or criminals.

The tactics are those of a police state and have no place in a democracy. They are all the worse because such tactics are being used against long-term immigrant residents of the US who are leading productive, law-abiding lives that help make America a prosperous nation.

The latest example of reprehensible violence by ICE agents occurred in Santa Ana (about 30 miles from Los Angeles). ICE agents targeted an immigrant who was trimming bushes at an IHOP restaurant. As he ran to his car to retrieve his identification, ICE agents followed him—one waving a pistol wildly. ICE agents then forced him to the ground and repeatedly punched him in the face. See El País in English, Outrage in California after Mexican gardener beaten by Border Patrol agents. (See embedded video.)

The immigrant, Narciso Barranco, has been in the US for over 30 years and has three sons, each of whom has served or is currently serving in the US military. Barranco has no criminal record. He remains in ICE custody and, after 72 hours, has not received medical attention for injuries suffered during the arrest.

Because the ICE agents are masked, the public has no way of knowing if the agents are regular members of ICE or vigilantes from the Proud Boys (or some such other group) hired on the spot and given badges and guns. Based on the behavior of the ICE agents, they appear to have been told that excessive force if acceptable—and encouraged.

The lawless behavior of ICE and CBP agents is undermining public trust in those agencies, Homeland Security, and the federal government. At some point, members of ICE and CBP must look at themselves in the mirror and ask if they want their legacy for their children and grandchildren to be their service in agencies that are quickly becoming indistinguishable from irregular militias and roving gangs that terrorized failed states in South America.

For those readers whose lives are enriched by first and second generation immigrants (and beyond), consider offering respectful support and an invitation to talk about their reactions and feelings in this fraught environment.

I know long-time friends born in the US who now carry their passports when they travel inside the continental United States! Their fear is palpable and debilitating. Take a moment out of your busy lives to be a source of comfort and support. And then take to the streets to demand that our government stop treating law-abiding immigrants like prey to be captured rather than as human beings entitled to the protections of the US Constitution.

Concluding Thoughts.

The attack on Iran is distracting attention from the sprawling reconciliation bill. It is challenging to keep track of all of the horrible things that will occur if the bill passes. I received a note from a reader that highlighted the real-life impacts the bill will have on millions of Americans. The reader’s email said, in part,

As a senior living on Social Security and receiving housing assistance this is a matter of great concern. Many people receiving Medicaid and housing assistance are very vulnerable at this time. Generally they are not an organized group trying to find support to push back against the budget. Hopefully you can help in this call to action.

The reader included a link to a statement by the Low Income Housing Coalition, which states in part:

As indicated in the partial request released on May 2, the full budget request proposes a historic 44% cut to HUD’s vital affordable housing, homelessness, and community development programs, and would impose changes to rental and homelessness assistance that would leave more families struggling to afford rent, and at increased risk of homelessness.

The reconciliation bill will lead to an increase in the number of unhoused Americans so that Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump can keep more of the obscene wealth. The elderly are particularly vulnerable to loss of housing assistance. Republicans are feeling the heat, but Mitch McConnell told his GOP colleagues on Monday that their constituents may be mad now, “but they will get over it.” See Newsweek, Mitch McConnell says people worried about Medicaid cuts will "get over it".

Let’s send Mitch McConnell a clear message that his legacy will be forever tarnished by his cruelty and selfishness. People understand reductions in Medicare and Medicaid—losing those benefits is personal.

We must raise the alarm in the streets and in calls and correspondence to our representatives. The volume, frequency, and size of our protests must rise to match the moment. We can do that! We are doing it! Let’s keep it up!

Daily Dose of Perspective

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed

Members of the Trump administration spent most of the day on Wednesday lying to the American people, Congress, and our NATO allies. If the major media in America had any interest in holding the Trump administration accountable, any one of the lies could have served as the lead story in dozens of major outlets. Instead, the press not only ignored the lies but repeated them uncritically, providing the lies with a misleading aura of legitimacy and credibility.

How did we get here? Can we do anything about it? Does it matter?

The control of the major media by entrenched politicians and monied interests has been the steady state in American politics for most of our nation’s history. There have been (and are now) notable exceptions of fearless journalists and crusading outlets. But for the most part, the history of the American press is as a tool of monopolists, oligarchs, families with generational wealth, and party bosses. They wielded the press as a reactionary cudgel to protect their interests—money, property, and power.

These tendencies have been exacerbated by the concentration of media properties vertically and horizontally over the last fifty years. Today, a handful of corporations control most of the daily media content consumed by Americans.

The media as a champion of democracy and public interest that holds politicians to account is largely a post-Watergate phenomenon. The mealy-mouthed complacency of the major media outlets in Trump's second term is a regression to type and mean. (Again, there are exceptions.)

However, as Trump and his surrogates lied at a blistering pace on Wednesday, none of those lies made it onto the front pages of any national outlet. (Readers: Prove me wrong, please! Send me examples that disprove my assertion!)

How do we reconcile the deliberate failure to challenge Trump's lies with the outrage that met every statement by Joe Biden that reporters suspected of being anything less than 100% accurate? (Remember the time reporters screamed at Biden’s press secretary because they did not believe her truthful statement that a Parkinson’s specialist who was regularly visiting the White House was not treating Joe Biden? The doctor was, instead, treating military veterans on the White House staff who suffered traumatic brain injury in combat.)

Here is the simple explanation: Most major media outlets are afraid of Donald Trump. More to the point, they are cowards at a moment in history when the free press matters most to the protection of the Constitution. Their cowardice is subtle: Treating the first president to attempt a coup as legitimate; granting his wild lies a patina of credibility; sane-washing incomprehensible gibberish that typifies nearly every statement spoken or written by Trump; treating risible lies with the pretense of neutrality, and applying a false equivalency to competing political parties—one of which is seeking to destroy democracy and the other of which is trying to save it.

I offer the above observation not as a complaint, but as an explanation. It explains why we feel that we are rolling a boulder uphill while our political opponents ride golf carts to the top of the hill, only to have the media report that “Republicans beat Democrats in the race to the top of the hill.” I have quit hoping that the US Supreme Court will provide meaningful support in resisting Trump's lawlessness. I have given up that hope for the media, as well.

Let’s not bemoan our fate, but let’s not pull our punches, either: Our defense of democracy is made more difficult because Trump and his surrogates lie with impunity, having been granted a Golden Ticket by the major media.

We must step into the breach. We must be tireless—no, relentless—in speaking the truth in the face of Trump's lies. The reconciliation bill is a perfect example. It is a battle between truth and lies, reality and fantasy, and integrity and mendacity. Republicans will begin voting on the bill next week, clearing the way for the largest transfer of wealth from the working class to the top 1% in our nation’s history. See The Hill, (6/9/25), Only the Senate can stop the largest wealth transfer in US history.

Check out Jessica Craven’s Chop Wood Carry Water for easy, effective ways to contact your Senators: Chop Wood, Carry Water 6/24 - by Jess Craven. Or sign up for Field Team Six Social Storm Training (on Bluesky) on how to spread the truth far and wide. (Beginner and advanced classes are available.) The principles used for effective messaging on Bluesky can be transferred to other social media platforms.

We must take control of the political narrative. We have some allies in the fight (local press, boutique national outlets, and a handful of national outlets, e.g., The Guardian). But we must be fearless in using social media, newsletters, podcasts, TikTok, YouTube, Facebook, and any other platform that is accessible and effective. It is up to us. The press isn’t going to save us; indeed, we must save the press by demonstrating fearlessness in the pursuit of truth and the defense of democracy.

With the above background, let’s take a look at some of the many lies told by Trump and his minions, and how they were ignored by the press.

Nominee for Second Circuit Court of Appeals says he can’t recall telling subordinates they would need to tell courts “f*ck you” if they ruled against Trump administration.

A whistleblower provided a detailed complaint alleging that Trump's former personal attorney, Emil Bove, told subordinates in the DOJ they might need to tell federal courts “f*ck you” if they ruled against the Trump administration. When grilled about that statement on Wednesday by Senator Adam Schiff in a Judiciary Committee meeting, Bove twice said he had “no recollection” of making such a statement. In context, the “I don’t recall” answer is the equivalent of an admission. See Crooks and Liars, Nominee Bove ‘Can’t Recall’ Telling DOJ To Say ‘FU’ To Courts.

Bove’s “I don’t recall” was a blatant lie to cover up the fact that he made the statement and fears that there are notes or a recording that will prove he did so. The Crooks and Liars article quotes the back-and-forth in which Bove twice said “I don’t’ recall,” and once attempted to evade answering the question by giving a qualified denial. When Senator Schiff drilled down to remove the quibbling qualification, Bove again retreated to “I don’t recall.”

The New York Times article on the same exchange omitted any reference to the “I don’t recall” answers and quoted only a portion of his qualified denial (leaving out the irrelevant qualification which Bove quickly abandoned). Based on the Times’s selective and partial quotation of Bove’s answer, the Times reported that Bove “denied” that he made the “f*ck you” statement about the courts—which is an inaccurate summary of what Bove said during the hearing.

Compare the Crooks and Liars article, above (with embedded video of the cross-examination by Schiff), with the NY Times article, Bove Denies Suggesting Justice Dept. Ignore Court Orders. (Accessible to all.)

The Times’s reporting on this subject seems to go out of its way to protect Bove from a statement that should disqualify him from being confirmed as a federal judge.

Attorney General Pam Bondi claims she is unaware that ICE agents are wearing masks.

In a separate hearing in the Senate, Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed that she was unaware that ICE agents are wearing masks when detaining immigrants for deportation.

See The Guardian, Pam Bondi denies knowing Ice agents wore masks during raids despite video evidence.

Per the Guardian,

Bondi reiterated her proclamation of ignorance, saying: “It sounds like you have a specific case and will be happy to talk to you about that at a later time, because I’m not aware of that happening.”

Anyone who has watched a news program, viewed news reports on the internet, or read a newspaper is aware that ICE agents are wearing masks to make arrests. Bondi is lying—transparently and blatantly. We are entitled to use inference and common sense in judging the veracity of unreasonable statements.

The use of masks by ICE is terrorizing citizens and immigrants alike. The practice poses a grave risk of a tragic accident based on the fear that masked gunmen who refuse to identify themselves are criminals or terrorists. That risk should be of a matter of utmost concern to the United States Attorney General.

Notably, the New York Times did not bother to report on Bondi’s testimony--or her lies. To the Times, an Attorney General lying to Congress is not “news that is fit to print.”

Trump lies to NATO and is setting up a misleading briefing to Congress regarding Iran

During a press availability at the NATO conference in The Hague, Trump was asked why he failed to deliver on his campaign promise that he would settle Russia’s war on Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office. Trump responded that he was “being sarcastic” when he made that statement during the campaign. See Irish Star, Humiliated Trump gives bumbling answer when asked about ending Ukraine war in 24 hours.

Trump is lying about his promise being “sarcastic.” As documented by CNN, Trump promised on fifty-three (53) occasions to end the Ukraine war in 24 hours of taking office (or earlier). See Fact check: It wasn’t ‘in jest.’ Here are 53 times Trump said he’d end Ukraine war within 24 hours or before taking office | CNN Politics.

Trump's claim that his campaign promise was sarcastic is an obvious lie which has been rightfully mocked throughout the world. Here’s the problem: When a US president tells an obvious lie while appearing at a NATO press conference, it underscores the fact that the president cannot be trusted. Lack of trust among allies can be world-changing.

Again, major US media outlets seemed not to care that Trump told many lies during a NATO press conference. Among the other lies Trump told was the repetition of the statement that Fordow nuclear processing facility in Iran was “obliterated.” An initial intelligence report contradicts Trump's claim. See US strikes only set back Iran’s nuclear program by months, report says | AP News.

The Trump administration is hastily pulling intelligence experts from a congressional briefing on Friday and replacing them with Sec. of State Marco Rubio—who has demonstrated the willingness to lie for Trump.

Senate Democrats have pushed back, demanding that the administration produce at least one member from the intelligence community. Trump will produce CIA Director John Ratcliffe, who is also a partisan loyalist to Trump. We should expect the Trump administration to walk back the initial assessment that the bombing failed to destroy the Fordow underground processing facility.

Let’s review how we got to this dispute over the extent of the damage. US intelligence officials are now saying that it will take weeks to gain confidence about the extent of the damage. And yet, in announcing that the raids took place, Trump claimed—without any reliable basis—that the Fordow site had been obliterated. That unsubstantiated claim set off the argument about the extent of damage. Trump has no one but himself to blame for the confusion and misdirection over the bombing.

DOGE engineer admits that it was difficult to find “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

Trump unleashed a team of DOGE hackers to “cut” funds previously appropriated by Congress. The basis for the illegal impoundment of funds was the claim that the funds represented “waste, fraud, and abuse.”

The “waste, fraud, and abuse” claim was a lie—as we all knew. See NPR, Former DOGE engineer says federal waste and fraud were 'relatively nonexistent'.

Per NPR,

A former employee of the Department of Government Efficiency says that he found that the federal waste, fraud and abuse that his agency was supposed to uncover were "relatively nonexistent" during his short time embedded within the Department of Veterans Affairs.

"I personally was pretty surprised, actually, at how efficient the government was," Sahil Lavingia told NPR's Juana Summers.

Of course, shortly after giving the interview, the engineer received an email stating that he had been fired.

Opportunities for Reader Engagement

Here is an interesting and timely discussion of the risks to judges and the justice system:

Speak Up For Justice is hosting an on-line seminar on “Global Risks to Judges and the Urgent Need to Protect Them and the Justice System.”

The event will be held on June 26, 2025, at 9:00 am PT / Noon ET. Sign up here: Register here for Global Risk to Judges.

Featuring retired US Supreme Court Justice Antony Kennedy as well as a justice from the Constitutional Court in South Africa, a State Circuit Court in Venezuela, a past president of the International Academy of Trial Lawyers, and a district judge from Gdansk, Poland.

Concluding Thoughts

There is more, but I will be on the road again (to Washington, D.C.), so I need to pack this evening (morning).

As Senate Republicans push to vote on the reconciliation bill, some Senators (and House members) are getting cold feet. See Talking Points Memo, Backlash Over ‘Big Beautiful’ Bill Continues In Congress. While we have seen some pushback previously, only to be disappointed by the willingness of Republicans to capitulate to Trump, we have the opportunity to stop the reconciliation bill and force Republicans to negotiate with Democrats. The chances of stopping the bill are long, but we won’t stop it if we give up before the last vote is cast.

Continue to contact congressional representatives. We will never know which call, letter, or email may be the tipping point. But there is a tipping point! We need only find it!

Stay strong! Talk to you tomorrow!

---

From Today's Edition Newsletter via this RSS feed