Donald Trump

Subterms

    More stories

    • 188 Shares63 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump apparently thinks domestic violence is not a crime. That makes sense | Moira Donegan

      by

      Speaking at a Christian museum on Monday, Donald Trump claimed, falsely, that his deployment of national guard troops to invade the nation’s capital has eliminated crime in Washington. He complained, however, that domestic violence was being counted in the crime statistics, which he claimed meant that the influence of his policy was not being seen as significant enough. “They said, ‘Crime’s down 87%,’” the president claimed, not explaining who “they” were. “I said, no, no, no. It’s more than 87%, virtually nothing. And much lesser things, things that take place in the home they call crime. You know, they’ll do anything they can to find something. If a man has a little fight with the wife, they say this was a crime. See? So now I can’t claim 100%, but we are. We are a safe city.”If Trump wanted to endorse domestic violence decriminalization, he may take some comfort in the status quo: as it is, about 24% of adult American women have been the victims of “severe physical violence” by an intimate partner, according to the National Domestic Violence Hotline; the Centers for Disease Control, meanwhile, puts the proportion of women who have experienced “contact sexual violence, physical violence, or stalking by an intimate partner” at 41%. and many of those incidents are not reported or not prosecuted – meaning that the perpetrators are free, and that their assaults have not been treated as fully “criminal”.The Trump administration, meanwhile, has been working to make sure that victims of domestic violence have even fewer resources and even scanter opportunities to escape their abusers. The Trump administration has moved to drastically cut federal grants to domestic violence non-profits, which rely heavily on the federal government for funding. The administration has further sought to freeze funding to domestic violence charities that serve trans women victims and participate in diversity, equity and inclusion programming, severely hampering the work of groups that seek to serve marginalized victims from LGBTQ+ or racial minority populations, or to frame domestic violence as a gender justice issue. The administration has also moved to condition domestic violence funding on charities’ willingness to hand over abused women to Ice, a move that would severely limit the ability of undocumented victims to seek help.Trump’s complaint that private violence enacted by men against women in the home should not be considered criminal is of a piece with old and long-abandoned misogynist legal understandings of women’s status, the nature of marriage, and men’s prerogatives in the home, which dictated that women had no rights in the private sphere that their husbands or fathers needed to respect, and that men could enforce their dominance and control over women in private with violence.This notion – that gender, family and sexual relations are private matters that the law has nothing to say about, and that the state has no duty to defend the rights and safety of its women citizens from the violence of its male ones – was dismantled over the long course of the 20th century by feminist legal activists that worked to criminalize domestic battery, establish a woman’s right to sexual refusal, and build institutions that would provide material resources and physical opportunities for women to leave the homes where they were being abused.But Trump’s interpretation of the law has a long history, too. The 17th-century English jurist Matthew Hale, who was cited approvingly by Justice Samuel Alito in the Dobbs decision, articulated the view of men’s prerogatives in the law when he wrote that the rape of a wife by her husband was not illegal, because: “The husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.” Hale’s vision of marriage as endowing a man with a right to inflict violence on his wife in private – a quasi-proprietary relationship in which a woman’s initial consent to marriage eliminated any subsequent claims she may have had to her own rights, property or body – is one of total mastery. “I do” is translated into a permanent, irrevocable and horrifyingly inclusive “he can”.It is not surprising that Trump thinks that men’s domestic violence against women should not be a crime. This is the man who once boasted that he liked to “grab ’em by the pussy”; the man who has been accused of sexual misconduct by more than two dozen women; who was accused of rape by his first wife (who later rescinded her accusation) and by the writer E Jean Carroll, whose sizable judgment against Trump was upheld by a court on the same day that he gave his remarks. This is the man who is alleged to have barged in on young beauty pageant contestants as they changed, and whose letter to the pedophile financier Jeffrey Epstein, extolling the “wonderful secret” that the two shared, was made public on Monday as well, complete with a drawing of a nude female form.What might be more surprising is how closely Trump’s view of the prerogatives and entitlements of abusive husbands towards their abused wives mirror his own sense of his prerogatives and entitlements as president towards his abused country. Throughout his second term, Trump has spoken of the 2024 election in terms similar to the way that Hale spoke of the marriage vow: as an irrevocable grant of total power. He believes, he says, that because he won the 2024 election, that there are now no more rights that Americans have that he must respect: that he can discard the will of Congress, fire civil servants at will, kidnap our neighbors and invade our cities.These are not the gestures of a leader who respects his people and seeks to serve them, just as Hale’s vision of marriage is not one in which a husband respects his wife as an equal and seeks to love her. The model is not of partnership, but of domination. This time, it is America herself who is taking the beating.

      Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist More

    • 150 Shares63 Views

      in World Politics

      Project 2025 and Donald Trump’s Dangerous Dismantling of the US Federal Government

      by

      Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh, or the Rajput, and retired CIA officer Glenn Carle, or the WASP, examine US President Donald Trump’s cuts to the US federal government. Their wide-ranging discussion blends sharp historical insight with ideological critique, seeking to make sense of today’s Volatile, Uncertain, Complex and Ambiguous (VUCA) world.

      LISTEN ON:
      ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

      They emphasize that this topic has global resonance, since the world still depends on the stability and leadership of the United States. The discussion, therefore, becomes both an internal American debate and an international concern.

      Trump’s attack on federal agencies

      Atul and Glenn begin by cataloging specific Trump-era actions they view as evidence of a systematic weakening of the federal apparatus. These include the removal of officials such as Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, Center for Disease Control and Prevention Director Susan Monarez and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Billy Long. They argue that such moves, combined with a broader hollowing out of institutions like the Federal Reserve, the State Department, the CIA, US Agency for International Development and NASA, represent an intentional “gutting” of agencies crucial to governance and public welfare.

      Atul and Glenn insist that these institutions exist not only for technical governance but also for maintaining the credibility of the American democratic model. If the credibility of these institutions collapses, it erodes public trust and damages the US’s global standing.

      Norquist’s philosophy and Ronald Reagan’s agenda

      Glenn situates Trump’s efforts within a longer ideological arc. He traces them back to US President Ronald Reagan’s “revolution,” which reduced faith in government and elevated conservative economic philosophy. Reagan’s agenda, amplified by figures such as Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist — who is famous for wanting to shrink government so small he could “drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub” — and bolstered by conservative think tanks, paved the way for what Glenn calls today’s “Trumpian revolution.”

      Atul adds that the Reagan years were not just an American turning point, but part of a broader global shift toward neoliberalism, deregulation and privatization. The ideological groundwork laid in that era, they contend, continues to shape political agendas today.

      Trump and Project 2025

      Central to the conversation is Project 2025, a Heritage Foundation initiative Atul and Glenn describe as a radical blueprint. Its goals include cutting the federal workforce by half and dramatically expanding presidential powers. They stress that these proposals would not only disrupt government efficiency and accountability but also tilt the balance of power sharply toward the executive branch.

      Atul and Glenn emphasize that the size of the workforce reflects the government’s ability to deliver services, regulate markets and provide stability in times of crisis. Reducing this by half would, in their view, leave the country dangerously exposed.

      Federal layoffs under Trump 2.0

      Atul and Glenn note that Trump’s current plans echo his first term, but with greater intensity. They state that proposals to eliminate 50% of the federal workforce are unprecedented in scope. They interpret these layoffs as more than cost-cutting; they are an ideological purge designed to weaken federal institutions and concentrate loyalty directly under presidential control. Such measures would ripple outward beyond Washington to ordinary citizens who depend on federal programs, grants and regulatory oversight for health, education and economic stability.

      Presidential control: a threat to US democracy?

      Glenn links Trump’s approach to the legal philosophy of Carl Schmitt, “[Adolf] Hitler’s legal theorist,” who defended the primacy of unchecked executive authority in Nazi Germany. Schmitt’s concept of the unitary executive resonates with Trump’s own political movement, Glenn argues, by undermining checks and balances and normalizing near-absolute presidential power. This strikes at the heart of democratic governance.

      Atul points out that the American system was designed around the separation of powers. If that foundation is eroded, the US risks losing what has long been its distinctive democratic safeguard.

      The Republican Party’s evolution

      The conversation also turns to the broader Republican Party. Atul and Glenn argue that decades of conservative activism, think tank influence and shifting party priorities have steered the Grand Old Party toward radical centralization of power. They suggest that what once seemed like outlandish ideas are now mainstream within the Republican platform, particularly under Trump’s leadership. This shift is both political and cultural, representing a redefinition of what conservatism means in the US.

      Fascism, strongmen and the future

      Atul and Glenn conclude with a sober warning: Left unchecked, the United States risks sliding from liberal democracy into what they call a “conservative autocracy.” They point to echoes of strongman politics and fascist ideology, stressing the long-term danger of normalizing authoritarian principles. At the same time, they note Trump’s diverse support base — including many immigrants who align with cultural conservatism and share a disdain for bureaucracy — as evidence that these dynamics are both complex and deeply embedded in American society.

      They highlight that this contradiction of immigrants supporting an anti-immigrant politician reveals how cultural and ideological affinities can often outweigh personal experience. The episode ends as a call to reflect on the fragility of democratic institutions and the vigilance required to protect them.

      [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

      The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More

    • 188 Shares52 Views

      in US Politics

      House committee releases image of ‘sickening’ Trump birthday note to Epstein – US politics live

      by

      US immigration officers are ramping up immigration sweeps in Los Angeles again after the supreme court reversed a temporary restraining order that banned the Trump administration from stopping people solely based on their race, language or job.In a post on Twitter/X, Greg Bovino, the head of US border patrol in Los Angeles, called the temporary restraining order “very poorly” written and “the worst” he’s ever seen. He also said that border patrol would be starting operations back up again today.“We are going hard in Los Angeles today and are hitting a location as I write this,” Bovino wrote.Immigration officers were forced to pause their sweeping immigration raids after advocacy groups sued the Trump administration for systemically racially profiling brown-skinned people. US district judge in Los Angeles Maame E Frimpong granted the groups a temporary restraining order after finding a “mountain of evidence” that the immigration enforcement tactics were violating the constitution.But the supreme court ruled 6-3 to lift those restrictions on Monday. Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who voted to approve the stay on the order, wrote that the Immigration and Nationality Act allows immigration officers to “interrogate any alien or person believed to be an alien as to his right to be or to remain in the United States”. While “ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” it can be used as a “relevant” factor, he wrote.Hello and welcome to the US politics live blog. I’m Tom Ambrose and I will be bringing you all the latest news lines over the next few hours.We start with news that House Democrats on Monday released an image of a sexually suggestive letter and drawing that appears to bear the signature of Donald Trump, the very same note the president had denied writing after reports of its existence were published earlier this year in the Wall Street Journal.The letter, described as “sickening” by one representative, was turned over by lawyers for disgraced financier and sex offender Jeffrey Epstein’s estate in response to a subpoena from the House oversight committee, and was included in a set of notes sent to the convicted sex offender for his 50th birthday.The image showed a letter that in effect comported with a description in the Journal’s report from July. Inside the sketch of a woman’s torso, the note depicts an imagined conversation between Trump and Epstein, with what appeared to be Trump’s signature below.“The oversight committee has secured the infamous ‘Birthday Book’ that contains a note from President Trump that he has said does not exist,” Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the panel, said in a statement. “It’s time for the president to tell us the truth about what he knew and release all the Epstein files.”The White House did not immediately comment on the letter, but officials sought to discredit the note. Deputy chief of staff for communications, Taylor Budowich, suggested in an X post carrying a different version of Trump’s signature that the letter or the signature had been falsified.“Time for news corp to open that check book, it’s not his signature. DEFAMATION!” Budowich wrote, referencing the defamation suit that Trump filed against News Corp, the parent company of the Journal, over its original story.Maryland representative Jamie Raskin called the letter “sickening” and called for the full Epstein files to be released. Posting on X, he said:
      House Democrats fought to bring this sickening letter into the light while Trump and MAGA mouthpieces assured us it did not exist. Trump even sued the Wall Street Journal for reporting on it!
      We can’t trust a word MAGA says. Release the full Epstein file NOW!
      Read the full story here:In other developments:

      US immigration officers are ramping up immigration sweeps in Los Angeles again after the supreme court reversed a temporary restraining order that banned the Trump administration from stopping people solely based on their race, language or job. In a post on Twitter/X, Greg Bovino, the head of US border patrol in Los Angeles, called the temporary restraining order “very poorly” written and “the worst” he’s ever seen.

      Donald Trump’s second state visit to the UK will see a big policing operation led by drones in the airspace over Windsor, police have said. King Charles is to host the US president and his wife, Melania Trump, at Windsor Castle from 17 to 19 September, where they will be entertained with a ceremonial welcome and state banquet.

      Donald Trump launched a vitriolic attack against Tom Hanks for supposedly being “destructive” and “woke” after one of America’s most beloved actors was snubbed without much explanation by West Point last week. On his social media site on Monday, the US president applauded the alumni association of the US Military Academy (or West Point) for abruptly calling off a ceremony honoring Hanks, twice an Academy award winner who has played numerous military characters and also has a long history of advocating for veterans.

      Donald Trump now cannot claim presidential immunity to get off the hook from paying $83.3m in damages to the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, upholding a jury’s 2024 award against the president for defamation. Trump’s lawyers had pointed to the supreme court’s ruling last year saying the president has immunity for official acts to argue that the damages should be overturned.

      The US supreme court allowed Donald Trump on Monday to keep a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission away from her post for now, temporarily pausing a judicial order that required the reinstatement of the commissioner who the Republican president has sought to oust.

      Intent on vindication after spending four months in prison last year, Donald Trump’s White House trade adviser Peter Navarro asked a federal appeals court on Sunday night to force the justice department to explain why it would not defend his 2022 conviction for defying a January 6 committee subpoena. More

    • 175 Shares71 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: Epstein case haunts Trump as alleged birthday letter released

      by

      Questions over his friendship with convicted sex offender, Jeffery Epstein, continue to haunt Donald Trump, this time with the release of a birthday letter that Trump had previously denied writing.An image of the birthday letter, the existence of which was first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July, was released by House Democrats after the House oversight committee received the 2003 “birthday book” from Epstein’s lawyers. It is dated three years before allegations of sex abuse by Epstein became public in 2006.The letter contains text of a purported dialogue between Trump and Epstein in which Trump calls him a “pal” and says, “May every day be another wonderful secret.” The text sits within a crude sketch of a silhouette of a naked woman.Trump has previously vehemently denied having written or illustrated the note, dismissing it as “a fake thing” and insisting “these are not my words, not the way I talk”.White House deputy chief of staff Taylor Budowich denounced the release, saying the signature on the letter is not Trump’s while alluding to a defamation suit that Trump filed against News Corp, the parent company of the Wall Street Journal, over its original story.Here are the key stories:House Democrats share image of alleged Trump ‘birthday note’ for EpsteinAttorneys representing the co-executors of Epstein’s estate handed over a copy of the so-called birthday book on Monday after receiving a subpoena from House oversight committee chair James Comer of Kentucky, a Republican.Read the full storyUS immigration officers ramp up sweeps in LA after raid restrictions are liftedUS immigration officers are ramping up immigration sweeps in Los Angeles again after the supreme court reversed a temporary restraining order that banned the Trump administration from stopping people solely based on their race, language or job.Read the full storyTrump UK state visit will see police drones and airspace limits Donald Trump’s second state visit to the UK will see a big policing operation led by drones in the airspace over Windsor, police have said.King Charles is to host the US president and his wife, Melania Trump, at Windsor Castle from 17 to 19 September, where they will be entertained with a ceremonial welcome and state banquet.Read the full storyTrump attacks Tom Hanks after West Point cancels event honoring actorDonald Trump launched a vitriolic attack against Tom Hanks for supposedly being “destructive” and “woke” after one of America’s most beloved actors was snubbed without much explanation by West Point last week.Read the full storyCourt rejects Trump’s attempt to overturn E Jean Carroll’s $83m verdictDonald Trump now cannot claim presidential immunity to get off the hook from paying $83.3m in damages to the writer E Jean Carroll, a federal appeals court ruled on Monday, upholding a jury’s 2024 award against the president for defamation.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      The US supreme court allowed Donald Trump on Monday to keep a Democratic member of the Federal Trade Commission away from her post for now, temporarily pausing a judicial order that required the reinstatement of the commissioner who the Republican president has sought to oust.

      Intent on vindication after spending four months in prison last year, Donald Trump’s White House trade adviser Peter Navarro asked a federal appeals court on Sunday night to force the justice department to explain why it would not defend his 2022 conviction for defying a January 6 committee subpoena.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 7 September 2025. More

    • 213 Shares58 Views

      in US Politics

      White House hits back after Democrats share alleged Trump ‘birthday note’ to Jeffrey Epstein – live updates

      by

      The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, insists that a photograph of a sexually suggestive 2003 birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein, bearing Donald Trump’s name and signature, released by House Democrats and published by the Wall Street Journal on Monday, is evidence that the president has been framed.“The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false”, Leavitt wrote on X. “As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”The president’s spokesperson added that his legal team “will continue to aggressively pursue litigation”, against the Journal, which first reported the existence of the note and drawing.Leavitt also referred to the reporting that Trump contributed the signed drawing and note to a birthday album for the late sex offender as an effort “to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!”Leavitt’s deputy, Taylor Budowich, chimed in on X with what he presented as definitive visual evidence that “it’s not his signature”, in the form of four images of Trump’s signature on cards inserted in copies of a book about the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year.However, it appears that all four of those signatures were from 2024, more than two decades after the 2003 birthday note, and it is a documented fact that people’s handwriting and signatures commonly change as they age.Andrew Feinberg, a White House correspondent for the Independent, posted two images of Trump’s signature from the years before 2003 on X, which appear closer to the one on the note to Epstein.Several speakers at the immigrants-rights news conference in Westlake quoted from Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s dissent.“I dissent. We all dissent,” the mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, said.Bass called the ruling “enraging” and said she had already directed the city to strengthen protocols prohibiting resources from assisting with federal immigration enforcement.“We will not and we will not participate in these cruel, inhumane tactics,” Bass said.She warned that undermining the personal liberties of Angelenos would impact all Americans.“The rule of law used to mean something not just to us, but to the Supreme Court, but now, with the stroke of a pen, the Supreme Court has undermined the rights of millions,” she said.She added: “And how ironic is it that this same Supreme Court that ruled colleges cannot use race in the admissions process has now ruled that law enforcement can use race to conduct raids and detain people.”Another speaker, representing the ACLU, also quoted a part Sotomayor’s dissent that stated the situation in stark terms: “We should not have to live in a country where the Government can seize anyone who looks Latino, speaks Spanish, and appears to work a low wage job”.Outside a Home Depot in a heavily Latino neighborhood of Los Angeles, immigrant-rights advocates, joined by the city’s mayor, Karen Bass, warned that the supreme court had “effectively legalized racial profiling”.Cars honked in support as they passed signs that said “Keep Ice out of LA” and one that read simply: “fuck Trump.”“We are infuriated because the impacts will continue to show in our community”, Flor Melendez, the executive director of CLEAN Car Wash Worker Center and a plaintiff in the case. “We will continue to feel the pressure, because we could not depend on our legal system”.She said 81 car washes across the region have been raided since Trump’s crackdown began earlier this summer, some multiple times. At least 247 car wash workers were detained, she added.“The Supreme Court of the United States decided not to see this evil that has been visited on our people, not to hear the cries of all who have been victims and witnesses of these actions, and not to use the voice of the court to protect individual rights under the Constitution,” said Angelica Salas, executive director of the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights (Chirla), which was one of the organizational plaintiffs in this case.“Do the conservative justices not have eyes to see the video evidence, or are they not able to read our multiple collected declarations that we have provided”, Salas added. “Our evidence demonstrated that these are not calm and consensual engagements with individuals who voluntarily offer information about their immigration status”.The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, insists that a photograph of a sexually suggestive 2003 birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein, bearing Donald Trump’s name and signature, released by House Democrats and published by the Wall Street Journal on Monday, is evidence that the president has been framed.“The latest piece published by the Wall Street Journal PROVES this entire ‘Birthday Card’ story is false”, Leavitt wrote on X. “As I have said all along, it’s very clear President Trump did not draw this picture, and he did not sign it.”The president’s spokesperson added that his legal team “will continue to aggressively pursue litigation”, against the Journal, which first reported the existence of the note and drawing.Leavitt also referred to the reporting that Trump contributed the signed drawing and note to a birthday album for the late sex offender as an effort “to perpetuate the Democrat Epstein Hoax!”Leavitt’s deputy, Taylor Budowich, chimed in on X with what he presented as definitive visual evidence that “it’s not his signature”, in the form of four images of Trump’s signature on cards inserted in copies of a book about the attempt on his life in Butler, Pennsylvania last year.However, it appears that all four of those signatures were from 2024, more than two decades after the 2003 birthday note, and it is a documented fact that people’s handwriting and signatures commonly change as they age.Andrew Feinberg, a White House correspondent for the Independent, posted two images of Trump’s signature from the years before 2003 on X, which appear closer to the one on the note to Epstein.Gavin Newsom, California’s governor, has denounced the US supreme court ruling that permits federal immigration agents to demand proof of citizenship from anyone who appears to be of Latin American origin or is speaking a foreign language in Los Angeles, a city with a population that is 35% foreign-born and where 56% speak a language other than English at home, in a county that is nearly 50% Latino.Newsom said, of the 6-3 ruling by the Republican-nominated majority:
      Trump’s hand-picked supreme court majority just became the Grand Marshal for a parade of racial terror in Los Angeles. This isn’t about enforcing immigration laws – it’s about targeting Latinos and anyone who doesn’t look or sound like Stephen Miller’s idea of an American, including US citizens and children, to deliberately harm California’s families and small businesses. Trump’s private police force now has a green light to come after your family – and every person is now a target – but we will continue fighting these abhorrent attacks on Californians.
      Two Republican senators announced on Monday that they are opening a congressional investigation of “the preparation for and response to” the deadly Palisades fire in Los Angeles by state and local officials in California, who are Democrats.The senators, Rick Scott of Florida and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, said in a press release that the fire, which burned for 24 days in January and killed at least 12 people, “was more than just a horrific tragedy, it was an unacceptable failure of government to protect the lives and property of its citizens”.In a separate news release last week, Scott accused California Democrats of having “botched” the response to the California wildfires.However, the senate investigation appears to focus only on the fire in the affluent Palisades, where Scott was taken on a tour last month by a former reality TV star turned rightwing podcaster, Spencer Pratt, and not on the Eaton fire, which burned through Altadena, a less well-off suburb to the east.As soon as the investigation was announced, Pratt, a conservative Palisades resident, folded it into a partisan attack on California Democrats in a social media video. “Why is it that only Republicans are interested in finding out why a California city burned to the ground?” Pratt asked.The Democratic mayor of Los Angeles, Karen Bass, announced three weeks ago that the city had been asked by the justice department to wait until federal investigation is complete to release its “after action report” on the Palisades fire.I’ve been speaking with Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond, about the ruling from a federal appeals court today which upheld the defamation lawsuit by writer E Jean Carroll, and orders that Donald Trump still pay an $83m judgment.Tobias said that the ruling is significant because it affirms substantial “punitive damages” – which comprise around $65m of the total award to Carrol. These “send a message” to the president, according to Tobias, to avoid further defamation.While Tobias isn’t surprised by the ruling, characterizing Judge Lewis A Kaplan – who tried the case in the district court – as a “savvy, experienced jurist, who has resolved many high profile cases” – he fully expects the Trump administration to challenge the decision and attempt to appeal to the supreme court.Per my last post, Robert Garcia, a representative who serves as the ranking member on the House oversight committee, said that Donald Trump is lying about the existence of his birthday note to Jeffrey Epstein.In a video, posted to X, Garcia said that the president is “leading a White House cover-up”. The lawmaker from California added that committee members plan to review the documents that they received from the Epstein estate today.Democrats on the House oversight committee have released a scanned copy of a “birthday note” that Donald Trump allegedly sent to Jeffrey Epstein, that was eventually compiled into an album of messages to celebrate Epstein’s 50th birthday in 2003.The sexually suggestive note to Epstein includes a conversation between Trump and the late sex offender, with a naked female silhouette drawn around it. The president’s signature is at the bottom of the note.“Happy birthday – and may every day be another wonderful secret,” the note reads.The committee recently subpoenaed the Epstein estate for more documents as part of their investigation into the handling of the Epstein case. Trump has denied writing a letter for the birthday book, and even sued the Wall Street Journal for defamation when they first reported his contribution.Senate Democratic whip Dick Durbin, of Illinois, called the “Operation Midway Blitz” in Chicago “a waste of money” and “another failed attempt at a distraction” in a statement today.Durbin, who also serves as the ranking Member of the Senate judiciary committee, said that the surge in immigration enforcement in the city is part of Donald Trump’s “campaign to arrest hardworking immigrants with no criminal convictions”.He added:
      To the hardworking immigrant families who are now scared to send your children to school, go to the hospital, or report crimes to the police: we stand with you … While the President exhibits disdain for immigrants, Chicago embraces them as family who help make our economy thrive and our city strong.”

      There have been a flurry of rulings today, with two particularly crucial decisions from the supreme court, in response to emergency requests from the Trump administration.

      First, the court allowed federal agents to proceed with raids in southern California targeting people for deportation based on their race or language – a victory for the administration’s hardline immigration agenda. Attorney general Pam Bondi praised the decision on social media, and said that immigration enforcement officers can “continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement”.

      The supreme court also allowed Donald Trump to fire a commissioner on the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) today. It’s the latest decision in a spate of high-profile firings of Senate-confirmed officials in recent months. Chief justice John Roberts issued the ruling, which blocks a lower court’s ruling for the president to reinstate Rebecca Slaughter while the case plays out. A federal district court judge said last week that the administration had violated a federal law which prevents FTC members from removal without cause. Slaughter was one of only two Democratic appointees on the five-member board.

      Meanwhile, a federal appeals court in New York did uphold the defamation lawsuit filed by writer E Jean Carroll, and the $83.3m award, after Trump denied her claim that he raped her. The panel of judges also rejected the administration’s argument that the president is protected by the supreme court’s immunity ruling last year.

      The administration also filed an emergency request to the supreme court on Monday to block a lower court’s ruling, which stopped the administration from withholding billions of dollars in congressionally appropriated foreign aid. An appeals court ordered the administration to spend the money, upholding the federal judge’s ruling last week, which ultimately prompted the request to the supreme court.

      Beyond DC, Trump has pledged more federal force in Chicago. It comes after weeks of deriding the city’s mayor, Brandon Johnson, and Illinois governor, JB Pritzker. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) posted on social media that an operation was under way to remove “dangerous public safety threats from American communities”.

      Trump goaded Pritzker on Truth Social earlier, and said that he wanted to “straighten” Chicago out while delivering remarks at the Museum of the Bible in DC. He also used the appearance to tout that DC was now a “safe zone”, since the federal takeover of the DC police and increased federal activity, citing Muriel Bowser’s compliance with the administration.
      Attorney general Pam Bondi called the supreme court’s decision to allow federal agents to proceed with raids in southern California targeting people for deportation based on their race or language a “massive victory”.She wrote on social media that immigration enforcement officers now can “continue carrying out roving patrols in California without judicial micromanagement”.US defense secretary Pete Hegseth and air force general Dan Caine, chair of the joint chiefs of staff, arrived in Puerto Rico today as the Trump administration steps up its military operations against drug cartels in the Caribbean.The arrival comes more than a week after ships carrying hundreds of US marines deployed to Puerto Rico for a training exercise.Puerto Rico’s governor, Jenniffer González, said Hegseth and Caine visited the US territory to support those participating in the training.“We thank President Trump and his administration for recognizing the strategic importance of Puerto Rico to U.S. national security and for their fight against drug cartels and the narco-dictator Nicolás Maduro,” González said in comments reported by the Associated Press.Hegseth and Caine met with officials at the 156th Wing Muñiz Air national guard base in Carolina, a city just east of the capital, San Juan.González said Hegseth spoke to nearly 300 soldiers at the base and thanked those he described as “American warriors” for their work.The visit comes as the US prepares to deploy 10 F-35 fighter jets to Puerto Rico for operations targeting drug cartels, a person familiar with the planning told AP on Saturday.Seemingly confirming earlier reports of incoming federal activity in Chicago, Ice has posted the following on X:
      CHICAGO: a sanctuary city that attracts and protects criminal illegal aliens to the detriment of law abiding citizens. In an ICE-led operation, we are here to remove these dangerous public safety threats from American communities.
      It comes as Donald Trump has repeatedly threatened an immigration enforcement crackdown and national guard deployment in the nation’s third largest city.Democrat Chuck Schumer returned to the Senate floor last week with some urgent questions. “Will Senate Republicans continue to kowtow to a leader they know is dragging the country down?” he demanded. “That they know is a pathological liar? Or will they, as the Founding Fathers intended, stand up to him? Will they help us fight America’s slide into authoritarianism?”It was a recognition of how Donald Trump has spent eight months seeking to expand presidential power at the expense of Congress and others. He has signed 200 executive orders – more than Joe Biden in four years – unleashed squadrons of national guard troops in Washington, turned investigators on his political foes and sought to bring academic, cultural, financial and legal institutions to heel.The capitulation has moved faster and further than even many of Trump’s critics expected and has left them looking for democratic guardrails that might yet constrain him. But as members of Congress returned to Washington this week, there were only flickers of hope that they might heed Schumer and reassert their usurped authority.Trump’s Republican party holds narrow majorities in both the House of Representatives and Senate and remains overwhelmingly loyal to him. In May, during a debate on their signature tax and spending bill, the House speaker, Mike Johnson, called him “arguably the most powerful, the most successful, and the most respected president in the modern era of the United States”. Congress has in effect become his rubber stamp.Yet in recent days small fractures appeared in the edifice. Congressman Thomas Massie gained the support of fellow Republicans Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Boebert and Nancy Mace on a discharge petition to force a vote on releasing the Jeffrey Epstein files. Hours after Trump described the issue as a “Democratic hoax”, Greene shot back: “It’s not a hoax because Jeffrey Epstein is a convicted pedophile.”Some Republicans’ patience is also wearing thin with Trump’s health secretary, Robert Kennedy Jr, over his moves to undermine vaccines and purge leadership at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Senator John Barrasso, a doctor, told Kennedy that he was “deeply concerned” about his leadership on vaccines.In addition, several Republicans have faced blowback from voters during town halls in their district over the summer. Opinion polls show that Trump’s tax and spending megabill is the most unpopular major piece of legislation in a generation. And Friday’s dismal jobs reports reflected uncertainty around his economic agenda.If the trend continues, swing-state Republicans might be tempted to distance themselves from him in next year’s midterm elections and then treat him as a lame duck as the race for 2028 heats up.Thom Hartmann, a political analyst and author of the upcoming book The Last American President: A Broken Man, a Corrupt Party, and a World on the Brink, suggests that Trump’s sway over Congress might be more fragile than it appears.
      The simple reality is that five or six Republicans in the House and two or three or four Republicans in the Senate could stop Trump in his tracks. They can put an end to this insanity.
      Increasingly, as public opinion is turning against him – he’s polling very negatively in virtually every aspect of his presidency, from the economy to the troops in the streets to destroying federal agencies – at some point some of these Republicans are going to look around and say, you know, maybe the way to ensure my own political survival is to challenge this guy. That day can’t come soon enough for me.
      Donald Trump launched a vitriolic attack against Tom Hanks for supposedly being “destructive” and “woke” after one of America’s most beloved actors was snubbed without much explanation by West Point last week.On his social media site on Monday, the US president applauded the alumni association of the US Military Academy (or West Point) for abruptly calling off a ceremony honoring Hanks, twice an Academy award winner who has played numerous military characters and also has a long history of advocating for veterans.Trump wrote: “Our great West Point (getting greater all the time!) has smartly cancelled the Award Ceremony for actor Tom Hanks. Important move! We don’t need destructive, WOKE recipients getting our cherished American Awards!!! Hopefully the Academy Awards, and other Fake Award Shows, will review their Standards and Practices in the name of Fairness and Justice. Watch their DEAD RATINGS SURGE!”Hanks had been scheduled to receive the 2025 Sylvanus Thayer Award later this month for his “service and accomplishments in the national interest”.Law enforcement officials on Sunday dismantled a peace vigil that had stood in front of the White House for more than four decades, an action taken on orders issued by Donald Trump two days earlier.The vigil targeted by the president was started in 1981 by William Thomas to promote nuclear disarmament and an end to global conflicts, and it is believed to be the longest continuous anti-war protest in the United States. For decades, volunteers would man the site, just in front of the White House gates in Lafayette Square, to prevent it from being taken down.A correspondent for the conservative network Real America’s Voice, Brian Glenn, asked Trump about the vigil on Friday. “Just out front of the White House is a blue tent that originally was put there to be an anti-nuclear tent for nuclear arms – it’s kind of morphed into an anti-America sometimes, anti-Trump at many times,” he said. Trump replied that he didn’t know about the tent and then turned to staff to say: “Take it down, right now.”Will Roosien, a 24-year-old who had been volunteering at the vigil on Sunday, told the Washington Post that officers arrived at 6.30am on Sunday and told him he had 30 minutes to remove a tarp under which he had been sheltering from the rain. He refused and told the Post he was detained while the officers dismantled the tent.“This is a disgrace, and you should all feel ashamed,” Roosien told the officers, according to video obtained by the Post. “Twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, for 44 years, someone has sat here, advocating for people around the world who we don’t know. Advocating for human rights. Advocating for peace.”Concurring with the decision, conservative Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that “apparent ethnicity alone cannot furnish reasonable suspicion” but it can be a “‘relevant factor’ when considered along with other salient factors”.He added: “If the officers learn that the individual they stopped is a US citizen or otherwise lawfully in the United States, they promptly let the individual go.”Per my last post, the supreme court’s three liberal justices publicly dissented from the decision, directing pointed criticism at its conservative majority.The administration “has all but declared that all Latinos, US citizens or not, who work low-wage jobs are fair game to be seized at any time, taken away from work, and held until they provide proof of their legal status to the agents’ satisfaction”, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote in the dissenting opinion.“Rather than stand idly by while our constitutional freedoms are lost, I dissent,” Sotomayor added. More

    • 163 Shares67 Views

      in US Politics

      Supreme court lifts restrictions on Los Angeles immigration raids in win for Trump

      by

      Federal agents can resume sweeping immigration operations in Los Angeles after the US supreme court lifted an order barring the Donald Trump administration from stopping people solely based on their race, language or job.The court ruled in favor of Trump’s administration, granting a stay against a restraining order from another judge that found “roving patrols” of immigration agents were conducting indiscriminate arrests in LA. The ruling from the conservative majority is a win for the administration in its ongoing effort to enact mass deportations.US district judge Maame E Frimpong in Los Angeles had found a “mountain of evidence” that enforcement tactics were violating the constitution. The plaintiffs, who said the administration’s approach amounted to “blatant racial profiling”, included US citizens swept up in immigration stops. An appeals court had left Frimpong’s ruling in place.But the Trump administration argued the order wrongly restricted agents carrying out its widespread crackdown on illegal immigration.The supreme court’s 6-3 decision comes as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents also step up enforcement in Washington amid Trump’s unprecedented federal takeover of the capital city’s law enforcement and deployment of the national guard.The lawsuit will now continue to unfold in California. It was filed by immigrant advocacy groups that accused Trump’s administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people during a crackdown on illegal immigration in the Los Angeles area.The Trump administration has made California a center of its deportation campaign, sending federal agents near schools and workplaces and Home Depot stores. The large show of federal agents – along with the deployment of the military – has left southern California communities in fear.In its order granting the stay, the court majority wrote that the government sometimes makes stops to check the immigration status of people who work jobs in landscaping or construction, among others “that often do not require paperwork and are therefore attractive to illegal immigrants; and who do not speak much if any English”.“Immigration stops based on reasonable suspicion of illegal presence have been an important component of US immigration enforcement for decades, across several presidential administrations,” the decision states.In a stinging dissent joined by her two liberal colleagues, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote: “Countless people in the Los Angeles area have been grabbed, thrown to the ground, and handcuffed simply because of their looks, their accents, and the fact they make a living by doing manual labor. Today, the Court needlessly subjects countless more to these exact same indignities.”Department of Homeland Security attorneys have said immigration officers target people based on illegal presence in the US, not skin color, race or ethnicity. Even so, the justice department argued that the order wrongly restricted the factors that Ice agents can use when deciding who to stop.The Los Angeles region has been a battleground for the Trump administration after its hardline immigration strategy spurred protests and the deployment of the national guard and the marines. The number of immigration raids in the Los Angeles area appeared to slow shortly after Frimpong’s order came down in July, but recently they have become more frequent again, including an operation in which agents jumped out of the back of a rented box truck and made arrests at an LA Home Depot store.The supreme court decision was condemned by LA mayor Karen Bass, who said it “isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country.“I want the entire nation to hear me when I say this isn’t just an attack on the people of Los Angeles, this is an attack on every person in every city in this country. Today’s ruling is not only dangerous – it’s un-American and threatens the fabric of personal freedom in the United States of America.”The plaintiffs argued that her order only prevents federal agents from making stops without reasonable suspicion, something that aligns with the constitution and supreme court precedent.“Numerous US citizens and others who are lawfully present in this country have been subjected to significant intrusions on their liberty,” the plaintiffs’ attorneys wrote. “Many have been physically injured; at least two were taken to a holding facility.”The Trump administration said the order is too restrictive, “threatening agents with sanctions if the court disbelieves that they relied on additional factors in making any particular stop”.D John Sauer, the solicitor general, also argued the order can’t stand under the high court’s recent decision restricting universal injunctions, though the plaintiffs disagreed.The order from Frimpong, who was nominated by Joe Biden, barred authorities from using factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone’s occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion for detention. It’s covered a combined population of nearly 20 million people, nearly half of whom identify as Hispanic or Latino.Plaintiffs included three detained immigrants and two US citizens. One of the citizens was Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a 13 June video being seized by federal agents as he yelled: “I was born here in the States. East LA, bro!”Gavidia was released about 20 minutes later after showing agents his identification, as was another citizen stopped at a car wash, according to the lawsuit. More

    • 163 Shares75 Views

      in US Politics

      John Oliver on Trump’s attack on higher education: ‘No capitulation will be enough’

      by

      On the latest Last Week Tonight, John Oliver looked into the Trump administration’s assault on higher education in the US. “Trump has long held a grudge against higher education, and now that he’s in power, he’s acting on it,” Oliver explained. Among other things, Donald Trump has targeted the billions of dollars granted to universities for scientific research “in order to bend them to his will”.Trump’s “war on higher education” continues a long tradition of conservative distrust of universities. Back in 1972, Richard Nixon said “the professors are the enemy,” and as Oliver noted, Republicans have railed for years against higher education for supposedly wasteful spending on scientific research – think the Fox News fixation on the alleged “shrimp on a treadmill” study – and for being supposed bastions of liberal indoctrination. “Conservatives have long sought to orient universities sharply to the right,” he said. “And in recent years, they’ve seized upon a new justification for doing this – specifically, to ‘combat antisemitism’ in the wake of student protests over Gaza.”Of those protests, Oliver noted: “Multiple things can be true. You can think some critics of the protests were conflating criticism of Israel with antisemitism, and that some are pointing out actual instances of antisemitism. You can also acknowledge that some Jewish students did feel unsafe because of the actions of some protesters and that some protesters were made unsafe by universities calling the police on them. You can also argue that many universities did themselves no favors by failing to figure out a coherent, consistent response.“But none of that nuance has been present in the White House’s response, which has been to suggest the wholesale destruction of certain universities.” Soon after taking office, Trump convened a “Task Force to Combat Antisemitism” backed by Stephen Miller with the goal of targeting certain schools with large protest movements and, to quote its lead Leo Terrell, “taking away their money”.“Look, if colleges were spending all of their federal money on inventing a big automatic antisemitism generator, then yeah, it would make sense to take their money away,” said Oliver. “But the thing is, they’re not doing that, partly because it seems to be Elon Musk’s project.“Instead, the money being taken away is largely going to research studies, and cutting those has nothing to do with antisemitism.”As Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, put it on Face the Nation: “The idea that you are attacking antisemitism by attacking universities, I think is a complete charade. It’s just an excuse for getting universities to conform.”“Right, it’s obviously bullshit,” Oliver confirmed. “The very idea that Trump’s actions are part of some great effort to defend the Jewish people is, as charades go, slightly less convincing than a toddler playing hide-and-seek.”Oliver considered a non-exhaustive list of “telltale signs that this isn’t really about antisemitism concerns”, including but not limited to the fact that Trump reportedly kept a book of Hitler’s speeches next to his bed, dined with Holocaust denier Nick Fuentes this summer, brought people into his administration with records of antisemitic comments, reportedly said during his first term that “Hitler did a lot of good things”, and was endorsed in his first campaign by both David Duke and the KKK. “Hearing that Trump is suddenly waging war against antisemites is like hearing that Billy Joel is waging war against dads from Long Island,” he joked.Oliver then looked into exactly what the administration is doing, such as cancelling Columbia’s grants until the school stopped considering race in admissions, paid $200m in fines and reformed their Middle Eastern studies department, among other requirements. The university “caved in about five seconds”, Oliver noted, “officially solidifying Columbia’s reputation as the Little Bitch University, rather than what it was known for before: being the place that Timothée Chalamet went to for five minutes before realizing he didn’t need it”.The capitulation didn’t change anything, either; weeks later, the administration froze all of the university’s remaining funding from the National Institutes of Health, about $700m in total, and threatened the school’s accreditation. “There’s no guarantee the administration is going to stop making demands from Columbia, and why would they when they keep getting met?” said Oliver.The situation, which has caused a chilling effect on campus, “goes much further than Harvard and Columbia”, Oliver explained, as the administration has frozen hundreds of millions in research funds at several other private institutions, and slashed studies at several public universities. Even Northwestern, a school that tried pre-capitulating to the administration by releasing public steps taken to combat antisemitism, was targeted anyway, with over $790m in grants frozen. Those funds have still not been unfrozen, even though the university’s president, Michael Schill, the Jewish descendant of Holocaust survivors, stepped down amid forced layoffs.That case, in particular, highlighted for Oliver what the government’s assault on universities was really about. He pointed to a clip of JD Vance from 2021: “We go to the universities, we use the hundreds of billions of dollars that we send to them as leverage and we say: ‘Unless you stop indoctrinating our children, unless you stop indoctrinating our entire society, you don’t get another dime of our money.’”“That is the exact same plan as now, just hastily remodeled to be about ‘fighting antisemitism’, expecting no one to notice,” said Oliver. “It’s basically the rhetorical equivalent of when a random business clearly used to be a Pizza Hut.”The end result, as one researcher put it, is that the “science in this country is going to be destroyed”, which is bad for future innovations as well as for the private sector. One study found that every dollar of medical research funded by the NIH delivered $2.56 in economic activity. “So even if you are someone who hates learning and loves money – and yes, I am talking to one guy in particular here – publicly funded research is just a no-brainer,” said Oliver. “But obviously that is not what this is really about. This is about the right being willing to sacrifice everything, up to and including a generation’s worth of scientific progress, to get what it wants.”“And it is not hard to see what that is. Because when the administration is launching investigations like ‘why aren’t there more white men teaching at Harvard?’, you know what they’re up to,” he continued. “Just like you know what the plan was when they suddenly canceled diversity grants awarded to PhD students who were members of certain racial or ethnic groups, disabled, or from disadvantaged backgrounds.”Where do things go from here? “I don’t really know, and I’m not sure this administration does either,” said Oliver. But “even if there is not a fixed destination, there is a clear direction. And that is they want to turn back a clock that, quite honestly, had taken way too long to move forward, and restore all of academia to being a training ground for those looking to uphold old systems of power instead of questioning them.”In conclusion, he added: “You can have problems with academia. You can think it’s too cloistered or too liberal. You can think it’s becoming too expensive or that its resources are misallocated. But the notion of the state suddenly executing a sweeping takeover of higher education to this degree is chilling.”Based on everything that has happened so far, “no capitulation will be enough, and they will never stop demanding more.” Given that, Oliver argued, universities should “stop yielding, stand firm and fight back” because although it is tempting to think one more capitulation will safeguard your independence, “it’s worth asking at what point have you compromised so much that the thing you’re supposed to be defending is gone.” More

    • 175 Shares84 Views

      in World Politics

      FO° Podcasts: Why Has Trump Deployed Thousands of National Guard Troops in Washington, DC?

      by

      Fair Observer Founder, CEO & Editor-in-Chief Atul Singh speaks with Ankit Jain, a voting rights attorney and the shadow senator of Washington, DC. Together, they discuss the city’s unusual political status, US President Donald Trump’s interventions in the capital and broader questions about crime, governance, statehood and the future of American democracy.

      LISTEN ON:
      ALSO AVAILABLE ON:

      What is a shadow senator?

      Jain begins by clarifying his unusual role as one of DC’s two elected shadow senators. Unlike other states, Washington, DC, has no voting representation in Congress. To push for statehood and defend its autonomy, the city created two non-voting senators and one non-voting representative. Jain, elected in November 2024 and sworn in this January, explains that his position is part-advocate, part-lobbyist and part-symbolic lawmaker. His chief responsibility is to fight for DC to become the 51st state and secure full representation for its 700,000 residents.

      Turmoil in Washington, DC?

      Singh turns the conversation to Trump’s controversial policy decisions in the capital. Jain describes how Trump took control of the Metropolitan Police Department for 30 days, placing it under a presidentially appointed official. Trump also sent in hundreds of federal agents and more than 2,000 National Guard troops. The stated aim was to reduce crime, but Jain argues the real goal was to reshape policing “in his own image,” encouraging brutality and overriding DC laws on cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. He points to raids that terrified the Latino community and recalls seeing federal troops idling around tourist sites like the National Mall rather than addressing real problems.

      DC’s governance structure

      Jain then explains how fragile DC’s self-government really is. While the city elects a mayor and council, the federal government controls the judiciary and prosecution of adult crimes. Judges are nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, and the US Attorney — also a presidential appointee — handles prosecutions. Right now, one in five local court seats sits vacant, slowing trials and fueling more crime. The US Attorney’s office, meanwhile, suffers from mass firings that gutted its capacity. Even when DC passes its own laws, Congress can block or repeal them within 30 to 60 days. To Jain, this makes self-rule an illusion, unlike London or other world capitals, where residents govern their own affairs.

      Crime in DC

      Trump has repeatedly claimed that crime in Washington is spiraling. Jain challenges this, citing objective data: Crime is down 25% year-on-year, violent crime is at a 30-year low and overall rates remain below pre-COVID-19 levels. He accuses Trump of spreading lies to justify costly deployments that burn “millions of [taxpayer] dollars a day” without solving problems.

      Jain acknowledges DC still faces crime and homelessness, but argues solutions require smarter police deployment, housing reform and more funding for mental health. It does not need troop surges and headline-grabbing raids. He also notes that federal restrictions like the Height Act prevent the city from building enough affordable housing, driving rents higher and fueling homelessness.

      Trump’s attacks on DC

      Jain sees Trump’s interventions as part of a larger pattern. By stripping money from DC’s budget, firing federal workers and blocking judicial nominations, Trump is deliberately weakening the city. These moves deepen DC’s “mini-recession” and leave essential services, from schools to emergency response, undermanned. In Jain’s view, Trump’s goal is not to fix urban challenges but to create crises, then claim sweeping authority to impose his preferred policies.

      Should Washington, DC, be a state?

      For Jain, it is clear that Washington, DC, should be a state. He argues that nearly every problem facing the capital — crime policy, housing shortages, budget manipulation — stems from the fact that DC is not a state. Its residents pay taxes, serve in the military and number more than Wyoming or Vermont, yet they lack voting representation. Jain calls it a modern case of “taxation without representation,” pointing out that no other democratic nation in the world denies its capital city’s residents the vote. Statehood, he insists, is the only path to justice.

      The National Guard in other cities?

      Singh raises Trump’s threats to send the National Guard into Los Angeles, California, and Chicago, Illinois. Jain warns this is no idle talk — DC is simply the test case. Because it is not a state, it was an easy target. If successful, Trump could expand the model to cities like Chicago, Detroit, Michigan, or Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, coercing them into repealing policies or cutting federal funds. Jain calls this a “dangerous precedent” and urges Senate Democrats to resist using every tool available, including the filibuster, to stop such power grabs.

      Democrats need an upgrade

      Finally, Singh raises a broader critique: Democrats have failed urban America. Jain concedes there is truth in this. Democrats, he says, often rely too much on the “old guard” and resist fresh ideas. Still, he pushes back against Republican attacks, noting that Grand Old Party-led cities often have higher crime rates, largely because of permissive gun laws. He argues that Democrats need to show a new vision while Republicans must stop blocking gun control measures and sabotaging agencies like the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

      To Jain, Trump’s actions in DC reveal a deeper threat: an authoritarian drift that undermines American democracy itself. If left unchecked, he warns, it could spread from Washington to the rest of the nation.

      [Lee Thompson-Kolar edited this piece.]

      The views expressed in this article/podcast are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Fair Observer’s editorial policy. More