Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Nevilledog
Nevilledog's Journal
Nevilledog's Journal
May 9, 2025
*snip*
I know there’s a lot going on, and that Miller says lots of incendiary (and blatantly false) stuff. But this strikes me as raising the temperature to a whole new level—and thus meriting a brief explanation of all of the ways in which this statement is both (1) wrong; and (2) profoundly dangerous. Specifically, it seems worth making five basic points:
First, the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 is meant to limit the circumstances in which habeas can be foreclosed (Article I, Section 9 includes limits on Congress’s powers)—thereby ensuring that judicial review of detentions are otherwise available. (Note that it’s in the original Constitution—adopted before even the Bill of Rights.) I spent a good chunk of the first half of my career writing about habeas and its history, but the short version is that the Founders were hell-bent on limiting, to the most egregious emergencies, the circumstances in which courts could be cut out of the loop. To casually suggest that habeas might be suspended because courts have ruled against the courts in a handful of immigration cases is to turn the Suspension Clause entirely on its head.
Second, Miller is being slippery about the actual text of the Constitution (notwithstanding his claim that it is “clear”). The Suspension Clause does not say habeas can be suspended during any invasion; it says “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This last part, with my emphasis, is not just window-dressing; again, the whole point is that the default is for judicial review except when there is a specific national security emergency in which judicial review could itself exacerbate the emergency. The emergency itself isn’t enough. Releasing someone like Rümeysa Öztürk from immigration detention poses no threat to public safety—all the more so when the release is predicated on a judicial determination that Ozturk … poses no threat to public safety.
Third, even if the textual triggers for suspending habeas corpus were satisfied, Miller also doesn’t deign to mention that the near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus—and that unilateral suspensions by the President are per se unconstitutional. I’ve written before about the Merryman case at the outset of the Civil War, which provides perhaps the strongest possible counterexample: that the President might be able to claim a unilateral suspension power if Congress is out of session (as it was from the outset of the Civil War in 1861 until July 4). Whatever the merits of that argument, it clearly has no applicability at this moment.
Fourth, Miller is wrong, as a matter of fact, about the relationship between Article III courts (our usual federal courts) and immigration cases. It’s true that the Immigration and Nationality Act (especially as amended in 1996 and 2005) includes a series of “jurisdiction-stripping” provisions. But most of those provisions simply channel judicial review in immigration cases into immigration courts (which are part of the executive branch) in the first instance, with appeals to Article III courts. And as the district courts (and Second Circuit) have explained in cases like Khalil and Öztürk, even those provisions don’t categorically preclude any review by Article III courts prior to those appeals.
*snip*
Steve Vladeck: Suspending Habeas Corpus
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/148-suspending-habeas-corpus*snip*
I know there’s a lot going on, and that Miller says lots of incendiary (and blatantly false) stuff. But this strikes me as raising the temperature to a whole new level—and thus meriting a brief explanation of all of the ways in which this statement is both (1) wrong; and (2) profoundly dangerous. Specifically, it seems worth making five basic points:
First, the Suspension Clause of the Constitution, which is in Article I, Section 9, Clause 2 is meant to limit the circumstances in which habeas can be foreclosed (Article I, Section 9 includes limits on Congress’s powers)—thereby ensuring that judicial review of detentions are otherwise available. (Note that it’s in the original Constitution—adopted before even the Bill of Rights.) I spent a good chunk of the first half of my career writing about habeas and its history, but the short version is that the Founders were hell-bent on limiting, to the most egregious emergencies, the circumstances in which courts could be cut out of the loop. To casually suggest that habeas might be suspended because courts have ruled against the courts in a handful of immigration cases is to turn the Suspension Clause entirely on its head.
Second, Miller is being slippery about the actual text of the Constitution (notwithstanding his claim that it is “clear”). The Suspension Clause does not say habeas can be suspended during any invasion; it says “The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.” This last part, with my emphasis, is not just window-dressing; again, the whole point is that the default is for judicial review except when there is a specific national security emergency in which judicial review could itself exacerbate the emergency. The emergency itself isn’t enough. Releasing someone like Rümeysa Öztürk from immigration detention poses no threat to public safety—all the more so when the release is predicated on a judicial determination that Ozturk … poses no threat to public safety.
Third, even if the textual triggers for suspending habeas corpus were satisfied, Miller also doesn’t deign to mention that the near-universal consensus is that only Congress can suspend habeas corpus—and that unilateral suspensions by the President are per se unconstitutional. I’ve written before about the Merryman case at the outset of the Civil War, which provides perhaps the strongest possible counterexample: that the President might be able to claim a unilateral suspension power if Congress is out of session (as it was from the outset of the Civil War in 1861 until July 4). Whatever the merits of that argument, it clearly has no applicability at this moment.
Fourth, Miller is wrong, as a matter of fact, about the relationship between Article III courts (our usual federal courts) and immigration cases. It’s true that the Immigration and Nationality Act (especially as amended in 1996 and 2005) includes a series of “jurisdiction-stripping” provisions. But most of those provisions simply channel judicial review in immigration cases into immigration courts (which are part of the executive branch) in the first instance, with appeals to Article III courts. And as the district courts (and Second Circuit) have explained in cases like Khalil and Öztürk, even those provisions don’t categorically preclude any review by Article III courts prior to those appeals.
*snip*
May 2, 2025
No paywall link
https://archive.li/5eKW0
President Donald Trump‘s new budget proposal would give SpaceX, Elon Musk‘s rocket company, a huge payday—despite making steep cuts to many areas of government spending.
Trump said in the proposal, sent to Congress Friday, that he wants to make “a down-payment on the development and deployment of a Golden Dome for America, a next-generation missile defense shield” that SpaceX will help build, The New York Times reported.
That project alone could generate billions in federal contracts for the company, the Times observed.
The spending plan also makes Musk’s ambitions to reach Mars a top priority for the government, arguing that “U.S. space dominance” will “strengthen U.S. national security and strategic advantage.”
While slashing NASA’s budget by nearly 25 percent ($6 billion), Trump’s plan would re-center the space agency around two primary goals: sending astronauts to the Moon and to Mars.
*snip*
Elon Musk's SpaceX Hits Jackpot Under New Trump Budget Plan
https://www.thedailybeast.com/elon-musks-spacex-hits-jackpot-under-new-trump-budget-plan/No paywall link
https://archive.li/5eKW0
President Donald Trump‘s new budget proposal would give SpaceX, Elon Musk‘s rocket company, a huge payday—despite making steep cuts to many areas of government spending.
Trump said in the proposal, sent to Congress Friday, that he wants to make “a down-payment on the development and deployment of a Golden Dome for America, a next-generation missile defense shield” that SpaceX will help build, The New York Times reported.
That project alone could generate billions in federal contracts for the company, the Times observed.
The spending plan also makes Musk’s ambitions to reach Mars a top priority for the government, arguing that “U.S. space dominance” will “strengthen U.S. national security and strategic advantage.”
While slashing NASA’s budget by nearly 25 percent ($6 billion), Trump’s plan would re-center the space agency around two primary goals: sending astronauts to the Moon and to Mars.
*snip*
May 2, 2025
As U.S. elections have come increasingly under threat in recent years— including from misinformation, unlawful certification refusals, and legislation that disenfranchises groups of voters—it is more vital than ever that state elections are able to run fairly and without interference. While much attention is paid to federal elections, less is given to the administration of so-called down-ballot races, such as state gubernatorial, legislative, and judicial elections. However, these and other state-level elections (including for other down-ballot offices such as attorneys general and secretaries of state) have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans.
Safe, free, and fair elections, including at the state level, are a critical pillar of a functioning American democracy.
In this article, we focus specifically on the down-ballot races for state legislature, governor, and supreme court that have taken and will take place in 2025, selecting those that are most critical to monitor for potential election subversion and for voter suppression. We limited the dataset to these most high-profile statewide elections because of their relative importance and therefore relatively increased susceptibility to subversion and suppression. We also included three other discrete races that met that threshold for the sake of completeness: the Lieutenant Governor races in New Jersey and Virginia, and the attorney general race in Virginia. With respect to election subversion, we selected races that could change the balance of power. With respect to voter suppression, we selected states that have passed new and suppressive legislation between 2021 and 2025 that remains in effect. We here follow Professor Lisa Marshall Manheim’s definition of election subversion as “the exploitation of a breakdown in the rule of law to install a candidate into elected office.” Voter suppression (creating access challenges to voting) is often considered the other side of the coin of election subversion, and we therefore separate the two here to highlight both complementary challenges.
In sections 1 and 2, we examine the 232 races for state legislature, governor, and supreme court in 2025 post-May 1 that have yet to take place across 15 states, including special elections.
*snip*
US down-ballot races in 2025 deserve close attention
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/us-down-ballot-races-in-2025-deserve-close-attention/As U.S. elections have come increasingly under threat in recent years— including from misinformation, unlawful certification refusals, and legislation that disenfranchises groups of voters—it is more vital than ever that state elections are able to run fairly and without interference. While much attention is paid to federal elections, less is given to the administration of so-called down-ballot races, such as state gubernatorial, legislative, and judicial elections. However, these and other state-level elections (including for other down-ballot offices such as attorneys general and secretaries of state) have a significant impact on the lives of everyday Americans.
Safe, free, and fair elections, including at the state level, are a critical pillar of a functioning American democracy.
In this article, we focus specifically on the down-ballot races for state legislature, governor, and supreme court that have taken and will take place in 2025, selecting those that are most critical to monitor for potential election subversion and for voter suppression. We limited the dataset to these most high-profile statewide elections because of their relative importance and therefore relatively increased susceptibility to subversion and suppression. We also included three other discrete races that met that threshold for the sake of completeness: the Lieutenant Governor races in New Jersey and Virginia, and the attorney general race in Virginia. With respect to election subversion, we selected races that could change the balance of power. With respect to voter suppression, we selected states that have passed new and suppressive legislation between 2021 and 2025 that remains in effect. We here follow Professor Lisa Marshall Manheim’s definition of election subversion as “the exploitation of a breakdown in the rule of law to install a candidate into elected office.” Voter suppression (creating access challenges to voting) is often considered the other side of the coin of election subversion, and we therefore separate the two here to highlight both complementary challenges.
In sections 1 and 2, we examine the 232 races for state legislature, governor, and supreme court in 2025 post-May 1 that have yet to take place across 15 states, including special elections.
*snip*
April 30, 2025
Disappeared in America: The Faces of Trump's Immigration Dragnet
https://theimmigrationhub.shorthandstories.com/disappeared-in-america/We just launched Disappeared in America — a living archive of the people swept up in Trump’s mass deportation dragnet in just 100 days. From cancer patients to U.S. citizens, no one is safe.
April 30, 2025
No paywall link
https://archive.li/rJQh1
Holding police officers accountable when they commit crimes or violate the constitutional rights of those they’re allegedly here to “serve and protect” is one of the most difficult things to do in law. The police are protected by powerful, well-funded, and well-lawyered unions. They are protected by the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, which prevents them from being personally sued for monetary damages when they damage or destroy property or lives. They’re protected by prosecutors and district attorneys who work alongside them and are often reluctant to charge them with crimes. And then, even when police officers are charged with crimes, they are often protected by sympathetic (white) juries who give the cops a pass when they brutalize or harass unarmed citizens. The entire system is designed to help cops get away with crime.
Now Donald Trump has issued an executive order that will make it even harder to hold cops accountable—and flirts blatantly with martial law. Named the dystopian “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals And Protect Innocent Citizens,” this new order purports to “unleash high-impact local police forces; protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials; and surge resources to officers in need.”
The aggressive language in the order could be cribbed from any military police state in the annals of history, and that’s clearly the kind of polity that Trump would like to create and lead. The order instructs the Secretary of Defense to put down the bottle long enough to “determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.” It also instructs the Department of Homeland Security to “advance the objectives of this order.”
Careful readers will note that this sounds an awful lot like the prelude to martial law, a framework where national military assets are deployed in American cities to enforce the president’s priorities. That would, of course, be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the president from using the American military as a domestic police force. But I think it’s well established that Trump has never watched The West Wing and doesn’t respect the rule of law in this country anyway.
*snip*
Elie Mystal: Trump's Newest Executive Order 'Unleashes' the Cops--and Flirts with Martial Law
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/trump-executive-order-police-martial-law/No paywall link
https://archive.li/rJQh1
Holding police officers accountable when they commit crimes or violate the constitutional rights of those they’re allegedly here to “serve and protect” is one of the most difficult things to do in law. The police are protected by powerful, well-funded, and well-lawyered unions. They are protected by the judicial doctrine of qualified immunity, which prevents them from being personally sued for monetary damages when they damage or destroy property or lives. They’re protected by prosecutors and district attorneys who work alongside them and are often reluctant to charge them with crimes. And then, even when police officers are charged with crimes, they are often protected by sympathetic (white) juries who give the cops a pass when they brutalize or harass unarmed citizens. The entire system is designed to help cops get away with crime.
Now Donald Trump has issued an executive order that will make it even harder to hold cops accountable—and flirts blatantly with martial law. Named the dystopian “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals And Protect Innocent Citizens,” this new order purports to “unleash high-impact local police forces; protect and defend law enforcement officers wrongly accused and abused by State or local officials; and surge resources to officers in need.”
The aggressive language in the order could be cribbed from any military police state in the annals of history, and that’s clearly the kind of polity that Trump would like to create and lead. The order instructs the Secretary of Defense to put down the bottle long enough to “determine how military and national security assets, training, non-lethal capabilities, and personnel can most effectively be utilized to prevent crime.” It also instructs the Department of Homeland Security to “advance the objectives of this order.”
Careful readers will note that this sounds an awful lot like the prelude to martial law, a framework where national military assets are deployed in American cities to enforce the president’s priorities. That would, of course, be a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act, which prevents the president from using the American military as a domestic police force. But I think it’s well established that Trump has never watched The West Wing and doesn’t respect the rule of law in this country anyway.
*snip*
April 5, 2025
It’s hard to keep up with the flood of court-related news stories these days. But I wanted to write this morning to flag a remarkable (and time-sensitive) ruling yesterday by Judge Paula Xinis (a federal judge in the District of Maryland), ordering the U.S. government to bring back to the United States Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia—a Salvadoran national whom the Trump administration wrongly removed from the United States (due to what it claims was an “administrative error”) on March 15, and who has been detained at the notorious “CECOT” mega-jail in Tecoluca, El Salvador ever since. Judge Xinis ordered the government to effectuate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States by 11:59 p.m. this Monday, April 7. The government has already appealed her ruling to the Fourth Circuit.
When asked about Judge Xinis’s ruling on Friday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded that “We suggest the Judge contact [Salvadoran] President Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.” Leaving aside the Trump administration’s refusal to take any responsibility for the consequences of its own error, that obnoxious retort is true so far as it goes. The problem is that it just doesn’t go very far. Federal courts may not have the power to compel the release of an individual from a foreign prison, but they unquestionably have the power to order the U.S. government to take whatever steps it can to effectuate the same result. And it seemed worth writing a (short) post explaining why.
The statute that authorizes the federal courts to review petitions for writs of habeas corpus has, as its jurisdictional predicate, the idea that the petitioner is in “custody” that is, in some way, in violation of U.S. law. And although the capacious view of “custody” endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1963 has been narrowed somewhat, it is still settled law that one can be in “custody” without being in the respondent’s “actual, physical custody,” either because they remain subject to conditions of release (like parole), or because they’re being held by someone other than the respondent, but at the respondent’s behest. This idea has become known in the case law as “constructive custody.” As the Sixth Circuit put it in 1979, “It is enough that the imprisoning sovereign is the respondent’s agent; that his liberty is restrained by the respondent’s parole conditions; or that he can point to some continuing collateral disability which is the result of the respondent’s action.”
Consider the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen who was being held in Saudi Arabia in 2004. Abu Ali’s parents brought a habeas petition in the D.C. federal district court (naming Attorney General Ashcroft as the respondent), alleging that, although their son was in a Saudi prison, he was being held (and interrogated) only at the behest of the U.S. government as a way of avoiding judicial review in the United States. Judge Bates ruled that, if those allegations were valid, he would have jurisdiction over the habeas petition—not because he could order the Saudi government to release one of its own prisoners, but because he could order the U.S. government to cease doing … whatever it was doing. Bates thus ordered jurisdictional discovery into the extent of the U.S. government’s involvement—at which point, the U.S. government … mooted the case (by indicting Abu Ali on criminal charges and promptly transferring him to U.S. custody in Virginia—indirectly vindicating the central allegation in his habeas petition).1
*snip*
Steve Vladeck: Abrego Garcia, Constructive Custody, and Federal Judicial Power
https://www.stevevladeck.com/p/138-abrego-garcia-constructive-custodyIt’s hard to keep up with the flood of court-related news stories these days. But I wanted to write this morning to flag a remarkable (and time-sensitive) ruling yesterday by Judge Paula Xinis (a federal judge in the District of Maryland), ordering the U.S. government to bring back to the United States Kilmar Armando Abrego Garcia—a Salvadoran national whom the Trump administration wrongly removed from the United States (due to what it claims was an “administrative error”) on March 15, and who has been detained at the notorious “CECOT” mega-jail in Tecoluca, El Salvador ever since. Judge Xinis ordered the government to effectuate Abrego Garcia’s return to the United States by 11:59 p.m. this Monday, April 7. The government has already appealed her ruling to the Fourth Circuit.
When asked about Judge Xinis’s ruling on Friday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt responded that “We suggest the Judge contact [Salvadoran] President Bukele because we are unaware of the judge having jurisdiction or authority over the country of El Salvador.” Leaving aside the Trump administration’s refusal to take any responsibility for the consequences of its own error, that obnoxious retort is true so far as it goes. The problem is that it just doesn’t go very far. Federal courts may not have the power to compel the release of an individual from a foreign prison, but they unquestionably have the power to order the U.S. government to take whatever steps it can to effectuate the same result. And it seemed worth writing a (short) post explaining why.
The statute that authorizes the federal courts to review petitions for writs of habeas corpus has, as its jurisdictional predicate, the idea that the petitioner is in “custody” that is, in some way, in violation of U.S. law. And although the capacious view of “custody” endorsed by the Supreme Court in 1963 has been narrowed somewhat, it is still settled law that one can be in “custody” without being in the respondent’s “actual, physical custody,” either because they remain subject to conditions of release (like parole), or because they’re being held by someone other than the respondent, but at the respondent’s behest. This idea has become known in the case law as “constructive custody.” As the Sixth Circuit put it in 1979, “It is enough that the imprisoning sovereign is the respondent’s agent; that his liberty is restrained by the respondent’s parole conditions; or that he can point to some continuing collateral disability which is the result of the respondent’s action.”
Consider the case of Ahmed Omar Abu Ali, a U.S. citizen who was being held in Saudi Arabia in 2004. Abu Ali’s parents brought a habeas petition in the D.C. federal district court (naming Attorney General Ashcroft as the respondent), alleging that, although their son was in a Saudi prison, he was being held (and interrogated) only at the behest of the U.S. government as a way of avoiding judicial review in the United States. Judge Bates ruled that, if those allegations were valid, he would have jurisdiction over the habeas petition—not because he could order the Saudi government to release one of its own prisoners, but because he could order the U.S. government to cease doing … whatever it was doing. Bates thus ordered jurisdictional discovery into the extent of the U.S. government’s involvement—at which point, the U.S. government … mooted the case (by indicting Abu Ali on criminal charges and promptly transferring him to U.S. custody in Virginia—indirectly vindicating the central allegation in his habeas petition).1
*snip*
March 26, 2025
On Friday, March 14, Arturo Suárez Trejo called his wife, Nathali Sánchez, from an immigration detention center in Texas. Suárez, a 33-year-old native of Caracas, Venezuela, explained that his deportation flight had been delayed. He told his wife he would be home soon. Suárez did not want to go back to Venezuela. Still, there was at least a silver lining: In December, Sánchez had given birth to their daughter, Nahiara. Suárez would finally have a chance to meet the three-month-old baby girl he had only ever seen on screens.
But, Sánchez told Mother Jones, she has not heard from Suárez since. Instead, last weekend, she found herself zooming in on a photo the government of El Salvador published of Venezuelan men the Trump administration had sent to President Nayib Bukele’s infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. “I realized that one of them was my husband,” she said. “I recognized him by the tattoo [on his neck], by his ear, and by his chin. Even though I couldn’t see his face, I knew it was him.” The photo Sánchez examined—and a highly produced propaganda video promoted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House—showed Venezuelans shackled in prison uniforms as they were pushed around by guards and had their heads shaved.
The tattoo on Suárez’s neck is of a colibrí, a hummingbird. His wife said it is meant to symbolize “harmony and good energy.” She said his other tattoos, like a palm tree on his hand—an homage to Suárez’s late mother’s use of a Venezuelan expression about God being greater than a coconut tree—were similarly innocuous. Nevertheless, they may be why Suárez has been effectively disappeared by the US government into a Salvadoran mega-prison.
Mother Jones has spoken with friends, family members, and lawyers of ten men sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration based on allegations that they are members of the Venezuelan organized crime group Tren de Aragua. All of them say their relatives have tattoos and believe that is why their loved ones were targeted. But they vigorously reject the idea that their sons, brothers, and husbands have anything to do with Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration recently labeled a foreign terrorist organization. The families have substantiated those assertions to Mother Jones, including—in many cases—by providing official documents attesting to their relatives’ lack of criminal histories in Venezuela. Such evidence might have persuaded US judges that the men were not part of any criminal organization had the Trump administration not deliberately deprived them of due process.
*snip*
"You're Here Because of Your Tattoos"
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trump-el-salvador-venezulea-deportation-prison-cecot-bukele/On Friday, March 14, Arturo Suárez Trejo called his wife, Nathali Sánchez, from an immigration detention center in Texas. Suárez, a 33-year-old native of Caracas, Venezuela, explained that his deportation flight had been delayed. He told his wife he would be home soon. Suárez did not want to go back to Venezuela. Still, there was at least a silver lining: In December, Sánchez had given birth to their daughter, Nahiara. Suárez would finally have a chance to meet the three-month-old baby girl he had only ever seen on screens.
But, Sánchez told Mother Jones, she has not heard from Suárez since. Instead, last weekend, she found herself zooming in on a photo the government of El Salvador published of Venezuelan men the Trump administration had sent to President Nayib Bukele’s infamous Terrorism Confinement Center, or CECOT. “I realized that one of them was my husband,” she said. “I recognized him by the tattoo [on his neck], by his ear, and by his chin. Even though I couldn’t see his face, I knew it was him.” The photo Sánchez examined—and a highly produced propaganda video promoted by Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the White House—showed Venezuelans shackled in prison uniforms as they were pushed around by guards and had their heads shaved.
The tattoo on Suárez’s neck is of a colibrí, a hummingbird. His wife said it is meant to symbolize “harmony and good energy.” She said his other tattoos, like a palm tree on his hand—an homage to Suárez’s late mother’s use of a Venezuelan expression about God being greater than a coconut tree—were similarly innocuous. Nevertheless, they may be why Suárez has been effectively disappeared by the US government into a Salvadoran mega-prison.
Mother Jones has spoken with friends, family members, and lawyers of ten men sent to El Salvador by the Trump administration based on allegations that they are members of the Venezuelan organized crime group Tren de Aragua. All of them say their relatives have tattoos and believe that is why their loved ones were targeted. But they vigorously reject the idea that their sons, brothers, and husbands have anything to do with Tren de Aragua, which the Trump administration recently labeled a foreign terrorist organization. The families have substantiated those assertions to Mother Jones, including—in many cases—by providing official documents attesting to their relatives’ lack of criminal histories in Venezuela. Such evidence might have persuaded US judges that the men were not part of any criminal organization had the Trump administration not deliberately deprived them of due process.
*snip*
March 19, 2025
Donald Trump keeps saying he has no intention of slashing Social Security, but…he and his mini-me, Elon Musk, won’t stop making outlandish claims about the program and appear to be setting the table for cuts that they will try to call something other than “cuts.”
Just about every time they mention the program and entitlement spending, they lie. Musk recently denigrated Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” It isn’t, but if it were, shouldn’t you whack away at it? And during an interview with Fox Business, he claimed there’s $500 to $700 billion in annual waste and fraud within entitlement spending—when there is no evidence of that (as Forbes notes). Moreover, he and Trump have falsely insisted there are a gazillion dead people on the rolls, implying checks are going out to ghosts.
This duo of deceit is doing all they can to raise doubts about the most popular and arguably the most important government program. Meanwhile, Musk and his dodgy DOGErs have moved to shitcan or force out thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration, perhaps as many as 10,000. (Good luck reaching someone there on the phone.) The downsizing that has already occurred at the agency has led to “a significant loss of expertise,” according to one former employee. If things go to hell at the SSA, older voters might get truly get pissed.
Unlike ideologues of the right who have long salivated at the thought of shrinking entitlements and privatizing Social Security, Trump realizes such a move could be political suicide. So he has repeatedly vowed not to reduce the program. But should his promise be believed? (That’s a rhetorical question.) After Musk uttered an inartful statement this week about eliminating purported waste and fraud within entitlement programs—which some people interpreted as an expression of his desire to kill these programs—the White House rushed out a press release declaring, “The Trump Administration will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. President Trump himself has said it (over and over and over again).” But here’s the tell that the White House cannot be trusted on this front: The statement was full of lies about entitlement spending.
*snip*
Trump and Musk Are Running a Disinformation Campaign on Social Security
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trump-musk-doge-disinformation-campaign-social-security/Donald Trump keeps saying he has no intention of slashing Social Security, but…he and his mini-me, Elon Musk, won’t stop making outlandish claims about the program and appear to be setting the table for cuts that they will try to call something other than “cuts.”
Just about every time they mention the program and entitlement spending, they lie. Musk recently denigrated Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme.” It isn’t, but if it were, shouldn’t you whack away at it? And during an interview with Fox Business, he claimed there’s $500 to $700 billion in annual waste and fraud within entitlement spending—when there is no evidence of that (as Forbes notes). Moreover, he and Trump have falsely insisted there are a gazillion dead people on the rolls, implying checks are going out to ghosts.
This duo of deceit is doing all they can to raise doubts about the most popular and arguably the most important government program. Meanwhile, Musk and his dodgy DOGErs have moved to shitcan or force out thousands of employees at the Social Security Administration, perhaps as many as 10,000. (Good luck reaching someone there on the phone.) The downsizing that has already occurred at the agency has led to “a significant loss of expertise,” according to one former employee. If things go to hell at the SSA, older voters might get truly get pissed.
Unlike ideologues of the right who have long salivated at the thought of shrinking entitlements and privatizing Social Security, Trump realizes such a move could be political suicide. So he has repeatedly vowed not to reduce the program. But should his promise be believed? (That’s a rhetorical question.) After Musk uttered an inartful statement this week about eliminating purported waste and fraud within entitlement programs—which some people interpreted as an expression of his desire to kill these programs—the White House rushed out a press release declaring, “The Trump Administration will not cut Social Security, Medicare, or Medicaid benefits. President Trump himself has said it (over and over and over again).” But here’s the tell that the White House cannot be trusted on this front: The statement was full of lies about entitlement spending.
*snip*
March 16, 2025
When President Donald Trump announced his marquee government cost-cutting initiative, he left no doubt about whom he intended to run it: Elon Musk. Still, questions about the scope of Musk’s authority have hounded the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency ever since.
As DOGE began to order massive budget cuts and layoffs, and those affected by the moves began to raise questions in the press and in court about their legality, administration officials equivocated on Musk’s exact role, asserting he was simply a senior adviser to the president and had no official position in DOGE.
Five weeks after its creation and under pressure from a growing cascade of lawsuits, the White House revealed in late February that an obscure bureaucrat named Amy Gleason had been acting as DOGE’s administrator since nearly day one.
However, ProPublica has found that she does not appear to be running the budget-slashing group, according to interviews with six current and former government officials. All spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs.
*snip*
Who's Running the DOGE Wrecking Machine: The World's Richest Man or a Little-Known Bureaucrat?
https://www.propublica.org/article/doge-leadership-elon-musk-amy-gleason-trump-ethics-conflict-of-interestWhen President Donald Trump announced his marquee government cost-cutting initiative, he left no doubt about whom he intended to run it: Elon Musk. Still, questions about the scope of Musk’s authority have hounded the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency ever since.
As DOGE began to order massive budget cuts and layoffs, and those affected by the moves began to raise questions in the press and in court about their legality, administration officials equivocated on Musk’s exact role, asserting he was simply a senior adviser to the president and had no official position in DOGE.
Five weeks after its creation and under pressure from a growing cascade of lawsuits, the White House revealed in late February that an obscure bureaucrat named Amy Gleason had been acting as DOGE’s administrator since nearly day one.
However, ProPublica has found that she does not appear to be running the budget-slashing group, according to interviews with six current and former government officials. All spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of losing their jobs.
*snip*
March 13, 2025
SECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH said Sunday that the DoD “does not do climate change crap,” implying the department should focus solely on training and war-fighting, and anything else is a distraction. While it may be a pithy soundbite, it reflects a dangerous blind spot—and contradicts a fundamental strategic principle.
Many people in the military, possibly even Hegseth himself, are familiar with Sun Tzu’s famous statement: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.” Many fewer remember the following lines: “if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” Perhaps Sun Tzu was speaking metaphorically, but the rest of The Art of War is supremely practical, and any good soldier knows that terrain and weather—and, yes, climate—can be key allies or stern enemies.
As a combat commander in Iraq during the 2007 “surge,” I experienced firsthand how climatic conditions can disrupt operations. I had planned a ten-day operation involving a U.S. task force, and special operations forces, and five Iraqi Army divisions in northern Iraq. As we were about to kick off, we were hit by severe dust and sandstorms—“shamals” and “haboobs”—intensified by prolonged drought. (It was just about the same time that the National Intelligence Council was working on its first ever report on climate change, which found a likelihood of “increase of heat waves and droughts (both in frequency and intensity).” These storms canceled air operations, grounded reconnaissance platforms, blinded intelligence collectors, delayed maneuvers, and severely degraded communications. It became clear to everyone in our command: climate change wasn’t background noise—it was an operational variable. The weather forced us to delay a major tactical operation against our enemy for weeks; the climate made it more likely that more such operations would be delayed or canceled in the future.
That’s just one example—there are plenty of others from every service, domain, and combatant command to illustrate why climate change is a strategic issue that demands the attention of the secretary of defense. Sea level rise, storm surges, and extreme weather events increasingly threaten mission-critical infrastructure. Naval Station Norfolk—the world’s largest naval base—now experiences frequent tidal flooding that disrupts operations and damages infrastructure. Other key installations like Pearl Harbor, San Diego, and Key West face similar vulnerabilities. In 2018, Tyndall Air Force Base suffered $4 billion in hurricane-related damage.
*snip*
Pete Hegseth's Climate Change 'Crap'
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/pete-hegseth-climate-change-crap-national-security-military-strategicSECRETARY OF DEFENSE PETE HEGSETH said Sunday that the DoD “does not do climate change crap,” implying the department should focus solely on training and war-fighting, and anything else is a distraction. While it may be a pithy soundbite, it reflects a dangerous blind spot—and contradicts a fundamental strategic principle.
Many people in the military, possibly even Hegseth himself, are familiar with Sun Tzu’s famous statement: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, your victory will not stand in doubt.” Many fewer remember the following lines: “if you know Heaven and know Earth, you may make your victory complete.” Perhaps Sun Tzu was speaking metaphorically, but the rest of The Art of War is supremely practical, and any good soldier knows that terrain and weather—and, yes, climate—can be key allies or stern enemies.
As a combat commander in Iraq during the 2007 “surge,” I experienced firsthand how climatic conditions can disrupt operations. I had planned a ten-day operation involving a U.S. task force, and special operations forces, and five Iraqi Army divisions in northern Iraq. As we were about to kick off, we were hit by severe dust and sandstorms—“shamals” and “haboobs”—intensified by prolonged drought. (It was just about the same time that the National Intelligence Council was working on its first ever report on climate change, which found a likelihood of “increase of heat waves and droughts (both in frequency and intensity).” These storms canceled air operations, grounded reconnaissance platforms, blinded intelligence collectors, delayed maneuvers, and severely degraded communications. It became clear to everyone in our command: climate change wasn’t background noise—it was an operational variable. The weather forced us to delay a major tactical operation against our enemy for weeks; the climate made it more likely that more such operations would be delayed or canceled in the future.
That’s just one example—there are plenty of others from every service, domain, and combatant command to illustrate why climate change is a strategic issue that demands the attention of the secretary of defense. Sea level rise, storm surges, and extreme weather events increasingly threaten mission-critical infrastructure. Naval Station Norfolk—the world’s largest naval base—now experiences frequent tidal flooding that disrupts operations and damages infrastructure. Other key installations like Pearl Harbor, San Diego, and Key West face similar vulnerabilities. In 2018, Tyndall Air Force Base suffered $4 billion in hurricane-related damage.
*snip*
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayMember since: Fri Jan 14, 2005, 11:36 PM
Number of posts: 54,305