Republicans

Subterms

    More stories

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration plans for militarized border in New Mexico – report

      by

      The Trump administration is working on a plan to create what conservatives have long demanded: a militarized buffer zone along the southern border in New Mexico that would be occupied by active-duty US troops, empowered to detain migrants who cross into the United States unlawfully, the Washington Post reports.According to the Post, recent internal discussions have centered on deploying troops to a section of the border in New Mexico that would be turned into a kind of military installation, which would give the soldiers a legal right to detain migrants who “trespass” on the elongated base. Unauthorized migrants would then be held until they can be turned over to immigration officers.The planning appears to focus on creating a vast military installation as a way around the Posse Comitatus Act, a federal law that bars soldiers from participating in most civilian law enforcement missions.Calls to militarize the southern border are not new, but so far they have existed more in the realm of political rhetoric than reality.In 2022, Blake Masters, an Arizona Senate candidate enthusiastically backed by Peter Thiel, the same tech billionaire who bankrolled JD Vance’s campaign that year, ran a campaign ad promising to do just that.In 2018, Trump abruptly announced during a White House meeting with then defense secretary Jim Mattis: “We are going to be guarding our border with our military. That’s a big step.”Although the US president’s announcement sparked a flurry of reports, in the Washington Post and elsewhere, that he was serious about the proposal, it was never enacted at scale.Seven months later, as Trump focused on the supposed threat of a migrant “caravan” on the eve of the 2018 midterm elections, Mattis defended the limited presence of troops at the southern border by saying: “We don’t do stunts in this department”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionMattis’s successor, Mark Esper, revealed in his memoir that Trump had apparently asked him to violate the Posse Comitatus Act in 2020. According to Esper, Trump asked him, a week after the murder of George Floyd, to deploy 10,000 active-duty troops to the streets of the nation’s capital and have them open fire on protesters. “Can’t you just shoot them?” Trump asked, in an Oval Office meeting. “Just shoot them in the legs or something?” Esper declined to do so.One big difference between 2018, 2020 and 2025, however, is that Trump will not have to convince a sober, former general like Mattis or a West Point graduate like Esper to carry out his plan to divert military resources to domestic law enforcement, since his current defense secretary is a former weekend TV host who is far less likely to object. More

    • 188 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Greenpeace says Dakota Access pipeline defamation verdict risks ‘destroying right to peaceful protest’ – live

      by

      Steven Donziger is perhaps the best-known member of the trial monitoring committee that has been in court throughout the Energy Transfer v Greenpeace case.Donziger is an environmental lawyer who won a multibillion-dollar judgment in Ecuador against Chevron over contamination in the Lago Agrio region, but ended up under house arrest for years, after the oil giant countersued him seeking $60bn in damages.Here, in a video released this week before the verdict, is how Donziger explains what is at stake in this legal effort to silence dissent he compares to the government’s arrest of Mahmoud Khalil:Here is some useful background on the lawsuit against Greenpeace, from an article published last month by our colleagues Nina Lakhani and Rachel Leingang.Energy Transfer Partners, a Dallas-based oil and gas company worth almost $70bn, had accused Greenpeace of defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline (Dapl).The anti-pipeline protests in 2016 and 2017 were organised by Standing Rock and other Sioux tribes and supported by more than 300 sovereign tribal nations, inspiring an international solidarity movement after Energy Transfer’s private security unleashed attack dogs and pepper spray against nonviolent protesters.Tens of thousands of people from across the country and world participated in the Dapl protests, and Greenpeace was among scores of non-profit groups that supported the Standing Rock tribe’s opposition to the pipeline.But Energy Transfer alleges in court filings that thousands of protestors were “incited” to come to North Dakota thanks to a “misinformation campaign” by Greenpeace.The lawsuit has been widely denounced as a classic strategic lawsuit against public participation (Slapp) – a form of civil litigation increasingly deployed by corporations, politicians and wealthy individuals to deliberately wear down and silence critics including journalists, activists and watchdog groups.For more, read the whole article, here:A team of 12 independent prominent civil rights attorneys and advocates who monitored the Greenpeace trial amid concerns about judicial bias and violations of due process released the following statement deploring the verdict:
      It is our collective assessment that the jury verdict against Greenpeace in North Dakota reflects a deeply flawed trial with multiple due process violations that denied Greenpeace the ability to present anything close to a full defense. Attorneys on our team monitored every minute of the proceedings and found multiple violations of due process that denied Greenpeace its right to a fair trial. The problems included a jury that was patently biased in favor of Energy Transfer, with many members working in the fossil fuel industry; a judge who lacked the requisite experience and legal knowledge to rule properly on the complex First Amendment and other evidentiary issues at the center of the case; and incendiary and prejudicial statements by lawyers for Energy Transfer that tried to criminalize Greenpeace and by extension the entire climate movement by attacking constitutionally-protected advocacy.
      Our fear that this was an illegitimate corporate-funded SLAPP harassment case was confirmed by our observations. We will be issuing a full report documenting these violations and larger flaws in the case in the coming weeks. While the trial court verdict is in, the case is far from over. Greenpeace has a right to appeal to the North Dakota Supreme Court and ultimately to the U.S. Supreme Court. Our committee will continue its work monitoring this critically important case that raises troubling concerns for all advocates in the country.
      The monitors who released the statement include: Marty Garbus, a trial attorney who has represented Nelson Mandela, Daniel Ellsberg, Cesar Chavez, and Vaclav Havel; Natali Segovia, director of Water Protector Legal Collective; Steven Donziger, an environmental and human rights advocate (and Guardian US columnist); Jeanne Mirer, president of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers; Scott Wilson Badenoch, Jr., a fellow of the American Bar Foundation; Wade McMullen, a distinguished fellow of the Human Rights Institute at Georgetown University Law Center.As our colleagues Rachel Leingang and Nina Lakhani report, a jury in North Dakota has decided that the environmental group Greenpeace must pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the pipeline company Energy Transfer and is liable over defamation and other claims over protests in the state nearly a decade ago.Greenpeace, which had denied the claims, said in a statement after the verdict that lawsuits like this were aimed at “destroying the right to peaceful protest”; constitutional rights experts had expressed fears that case could have a wider chilling effect on free speech.Here is the complete statement on the verdict from Deepa Padmanabha, senior legal advisor, Greenpeace USA, sent to the Guardian:
      What we saw over these three weeks was Energy Transfer’s blatant disregard for the voices of the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe. And while they also tried to distort the truth about Greenpeace’s role in the protests, we instead reaffirmed our unwavering commitment to non-violence in every action we take. After almost eight years, we were proud to share our story with the people of Mandan and beyond. To be clear, Greenpeace’s story is not the story of Standing Rock; that is not ours to tell, despite the allegations in the lawsuit. Our story is how an organization like Greenpeace USA can support critical fights to protect communities most impacted by the climate crisis, as well as continued attacks on Indigenous sovereignty. We should all be concerned about the future of the First Amendment, and lawsuits like this aimed at destroying our rights to peaceful protest and free speech. Greenpeace will continue to do its part to fight for the protection of these fundamental rights for everyone.
      Kristin Casper, the general counsel for Greenpeace International said:
      The fight against Big Oil isn’t over today, and we know that the truth and the law are on our side. Greenpeace International will continue to campaign for a green and peaceful future. Energy Transfer hasn’t heard the last of us in this fight. We’re just getting started with our anti-SLAPP lawsuit against Energy Transfer’s attacks on free speech and peaceful protest. We will see Energy Transfer in court this July in the Netherlands. We will not back down, we will not be silenced.
      Read Rachel and Nina’s detailed report on the verdict, and its implications here:A North Dakota jury has found Greenpeace liable for hundreds of millions of dollars in damages to an energy company over protests against a pipeline being constructed in the state.The verdict stems from a lawsuit filed by Dallas-based Energy Transfer Partners, which sought $300m in damages from Greenpeace for defamation and orchestrating criminal behavior by protesters at the Dakota Access pipeline in 2016 and 2017. Greenpeace has warned paying such a large judgment could bankrupt their US operation.Here’s more on the verdict:Last week, the Trump administration asked the supreme court to quickly overturn lower court rulings that blocked its attempt to curtail birthright citizenship for the children of undocumented immigrants.The Associated Press reports that the request may also offer the conservative-dominated bench the opportunity to cut down on the practice of a single judge halting a policy nationwide. But, for whatever reason, the justices do not seem interested in ruling quickly on the issue.Here’s more, from the AP:
      The Supreme Court seems to be in no hurry to address an issue that has irritated Republican and Democratic administrations alike: the ability of a single judge to block a nationwide policy.
      Federal judges responding to a flurry of lawsuits have stopped or slowed one Trump administration action after another, from efforts to restrict birthright citizenship to freezes on domestic and international spending.
      While several justices have expressed concern about the use of so-called nationwide, or universal, injunctions, the high court has sidestepped multiple requests to do something about them.
      The latest plea comes in the form of an emergency appeal the Justice Department filed with the court last week, seeking to narrow orders issued by judges in Maryland, Massachusetts and Washington that prohibit the nationwide enforcement of an executive order signed by President Donald Trump to restrict birthright citizenship.
      The justices usually order the other side in an emergency appeal to respond in a few days or a week. But in this case, they have set a deadline of April 4, without offering any explanation.
      The Trump administration’s cancellation of an affordable repayment plan for student loans has prompted a lawsuit from the American Federal of Teachers, the Guardian’s Michael Sainato reports:A top teachers union has sued the US Department of Education after it stopped processing applications for affordable repayment plans of student loans last month and disabled the online application for the programs.The American Federation of Teachers, or AFT – one the country’s largest unions, representing 1.8 million workers – filed a lawsuit alleging the sweeping action violates federal law.The lawsuit, filed in federal court in Washington DC, seeks a court order to restore access to these programs.Another court order last month shut out borrowers of student loans from participating in four income-driven repayment (IDR) plans, which tie income to student loan payments, designed to keep payments affordable and avoid defaults on loans.“By effectively freezing the nation’s student loan system, the new administration seems intent on making life harder for working people, including for millions of borrowers who have taken on student debt so they can go to college,” said Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT. “The former president tried to fix the system for 45 million Americans, but the new president is breaking it again.”The Democratic Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, is standing by his vote to fund the government, even as the calls for him to step aside grow.“I believe so strongly I did the right thing for all the flack I’m getting,” Schumer said in an interview on Morning Joe.He said he understood Democrats’ desire to stand up to Trump, but warned that forcing a shutdown was not the way to do it. “Let’s stand up to him smart. Let’s not give him the keys to the kingdom.”One major activist group, Indivisible, has already called on Schumer to resign as leader and constituents are raising the issue at town halls. According to Axios, at least two House Democrats responded yes when asked at a town hall whether Senate Democrats need new leadership.Schumer this weekend cancelled several stops on a tour for his forthcoming book, citing security concerns after progressive groups announced plans to protest the New York Democrat’s decision to lend his vote to a Republican funding bill.Schumer has argued that he does not support the bill, but feared a government shutdown at the exact moment Donald Trump and Elon Musk are trying to downsize the federal workforce would have been a far worse outcome.“If we shut down the government and they started doing all these bad things, in a month, those folks would be saying, hey, save Medicaid, save our rural hospitals, save this, save that, and we’ll say we can’t, there’s a government shutdown. And then they would come to us and say, so why’d you let it happen?” Schumer argued on Morning Joe. “I prevented that from happening, and I think my caucus, no matter which way they voted, understands that.The House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, has declined to say publicly whether he continues to support Schumer. On Tuesday the former House speaker Nancy Pelosi offered a sharp critique of Schumer’s strategy: “I myself don’t give away anything for nothing. I think that’s what happened the other day,” she said, according to Politico. Unlike Jeffries, Pelosi said she still has confidence in Schumer’s leadership.Officials at the US Federal Reserve cut their US economic growth forecasts and raised their projections for price growth as they kept interest rates on hold.“Uncertainty around the economic outlook has increased,” the central bank said in a statement, as Donald Trump’s bid to overhaul the global economy with sweeping tariffs sparks concern over inflation and growth.Policymakers at the Fed expect inflation to increase by an average rate of 2.7% this year, according to projections released on Wednesday, up from a previous estimate of 2.5%.They expect US gross domestic product (GDP) – a broad measure of economic health – to rise by 1.7% this year, down from an estimate of 2.1% in December. Officials also revised down their projections for GDP growth in 2026 and 2027, to 1.8%.Uncertainty is “unusually elevated”, the Fed chair, Jerome Powell, cautioned, as the Trump administration attempts to engineer radical economic change. Some of the increase in the Fed’s inflation expectations was “clearly” due to tariffs, he said. More

    • 200 Shares139 Views

      in US Politics

      Judge rules against Musk and Doge, finding USAid shutdown ‘likely violated’ constitution – US politics live

      by

      A federal judge has ordered Elon Musk and his “department of government efficiency” (Doge) to stop their dismantling of USAid, saying their move to rapidly shut down the agency tasked with managing foreign assistance was likely illegal.“The court finds that defendants actions taken to shut down USAid on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAid headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAid Officer, likely violated the United States constitution in multiple ways, and that these actions harmed not only Plaintiffs, but also the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress,” wrote Maryland-based judge Theodore D. Chuang.He ordered Musk and Doge officials to halt any work meant to shut down USAid, reinstate email access for all USAid employees and contractors and not disclose any employees’ personal information publicly.He also said Musk and Doge have two weeks to either certify that USAid’s Washington DC headquarters has been reopened or have a top USAid official agree to close it down.The two Democratic commissioners at the US Federal Trade Commission, Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter, both said on Tuesday that they were “illegally fired” by Donald Trump on Tuesday.Trump is already being sued for firing members of other independent regulatory agencies including the National Labor Relations Board.Bedoya posted a statement on X in which he said: “This is corruption plain and simple”.“The FTC is an independent agency founded 111 years ago to fight fraudsters and monopolists”, Bedoya wrote. “Now the president wants the FTC to be a lapdog for his golfing buddies”.Slaughter said in a statement to the American Prospect that Trump’s illegal action violated “the plain language of a statute and clear Supreme Court precedent”.As Deepak Gupta, former senior counsel at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, explained recently on Slate’s Amicus podcast, in the 1935 case Humphrey’s Executor v United States, the US supreme court upheld a law that permitted FTC commissioners to be fired only for good cause, such as neglecting their duties. That ruling shields a number of independent, bipartisan multi-member agencies from direct control by the White House.As Gupta noted, the idea that government needed independent agencies and people with experts to solve complex problems was introduced during the New Deal era, to replace what was known as “the spoils system”, in which the incoming president rewarded friends, campaign staffers and other supporters with appointments to federal government positions for which they had no qualifications or expertise.Ed Martin, the combative interim US attorney for the District of Columbia, and a 2020 election denier who helped lead the Stop the Steal movement, plans to use his office to investigate possible election law violations, according to an email seen by Bloomberg Law.Martin, who publicly called the 2020 “rigged” in 2021, said in the office-wide email that he had established a “Special Unit: Election Accountability,” or SUEA.The unit “has already begun one investigation and will continue to make sure that all the election laws of our nation are obeyed”, Martin wrote. “We have a special role at this important time.”David Becker, the director of the nonpartisan Center for Election Innovation & Research, told Talking Points Memo that Martin “seems to be misunderstanding his jurisdiction and the federal laws around elections and voting, and without more information, it’s unclear what is being done here other than furthering conspiracy theories that he’s embraced in the past”.Martin is a veteran anti-abortion activist who has argued for a national ban without exceptions for rape or incest, falsely claimed that “no abortion is ever performed to save the life of the mother” and discussed the possibility of jailing doctors who perform abortions and women who get abortions.Senator Mike Lee, a Utah Republican, has criticized the chief justice of the supreme court, John Roberts, for defending the federal judge who tried to block the government’s showy deportation of suspected Venezuelan gang members to El Salvador.After Donald Trump reacted to Judge James Boasberg’s ruling by calling for his impeachment, Roberts said in a statement: “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”Responding on X, the social network owned by Elon Musk, Lee wrote:
      Impeachment is a non-justiciable political question assigned by the Constitution to Congress—one of the two political branches of the U.S. government—and not to the courts
      Frankly, I’m surprised that Chief Justice Roberts is publicly opining on such matters
      Musk himself had posted a similar comment hours earlier. Lee, a former critic of Trump who had called on him to drop out of the 2016 campaign before becoming a public convert, also shared Musk’s comment and added, of the arch-conservative Roberts, “This isn’t the first time he’s treaded on legislative power”.Here is more from our colleagues Hugo Lowell and Joseph Gedeon on the Roberts intervention:Trump’s trade war has had an incredible impact on the popularity of Canada’s Liberal Party, as new polling suggests a stunning reversal of public opinion.For the first time, projection shows the Liberals with a 55% chance of a majority government, according to the closely watched website 338Canada, which tracks and aggregates national polls, converting those figures into projected election results. In January, these odds stood at less than 1%.The shifting polls reflect the outsized role played by a teetering and unpredictable US president, and it underscores the incentives for newly minted prime minister Mark Carney to call a snap election in the coming days.Read more about it here:Of all that Donald Trump has done since being sworn in on 20 January, there’s a good argument to be made that dismantling USAid was the most impactful, though not necessarily within the United States. The Guardian’s Katy Lay has a look at how the global fight against HIV has suffered from USAid’s stripping:This year the world should have been “talking about the virtual elimination of HIV” in the near future. “Within five years,” says Prof Sharon Lewin, a leading researcher in the field. “Now that’s all very uncertain.”Scientific advances had allowed doctors and campaigners to feel optimistic that the end of HIV as a public health threat was just around the corner.Then came the Trump administration’s abrupt cuts to US aid funding. Now the picture is one of a return to the drugs rationing of decades ago, and of rising infections and deaths.But experts are also talking about building a new approach that would make health services, particularly those in sub-Saharan Africa, less vulnerable to the whims of a foreign power.The US has cancelled 83% of its foreign aid contracts and dismantled USAid, the agency responsible for coordinating most of them.Many fell under the President’s Emergency Plan for Aids Relief (Pepfar) programme, which has been the backbone of global efforts to tackle HIV and Aids, investing more than $110bn (£85bn) since it was founded in 2003 and credited with saving 26 million lives and preventing millions more new infections. In some African countries it covered almost all HIV spending.Judge Theodore D Chuang’s ruling that the dismantling of USAid was likely unconstitutional landed just as top officials at the agency were planning for it to be completely shut down by the end of September, the Bulwark reports.Employees at USAid were informed that their jobs will likely be wrapped into other federal departments, while workers overseas will be sent back to the United States. Chuang’s ruling could disrupt these plans, though the Trump administration could also appeal it.Here’s more from the Bulwark of what was planned for USAid’s final months:
      Tim Meisburger, the head of USAID’s Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance, recently briefed staff about plans and pegged a final day for the agency’s existence at September 30, 2025 (notably, when the just-struck government funding deal runs out). According to notes of the briefing, which were obtained by The Bulwark, Meisburger expected that the agency would have a new structure, new names for subsections, and that there would be a “minimal overseas footprint,” with the possibility to expand in the future. They’d be incorporated into the State Department and officials had to “mentally prepare” to go from being agency leaders to senior staffers.
      “Most of the madness is behind us,” Meisburger said, according to the notes. It was time to “make lemonade out of lemons.”
      But what if you can’t get the lemons home? That’s one of the problems USAID is currently confronting.
      Last week, Jason Gray, who was serving as acting administrator for USAID, sent an email to staffers outlining the process for overseas officials to use the agency portal to come back to the United States. According to one person familiar with those concerns, the American Foreign Service Association is seeking information about the use of the portal. As of now, some USAID employees stationed abroad face a Catch-22. Some fear that if they relocate voluntarily, they may not be eligible for all the reimbursements associated with relocation costs (such as the shipment of personal effects). Other overseas employees worry that if they don’t voluntarily return to the United States, they could be fired. But at least that would potentially make the government liable to cover more of the end-of-contract relocation costs (assuming the current administration doesn’t just choose to leave fired employees abroad).
      A federal judge has ordered Elon Musk and his “department of government efficiency” (Doge) to stop their dismantling of USAid, saying their move to rapidly shut down the agency tasked with managing foreign assistance was likely illegal.“The court finds that defendants actions taken to shut down USAid on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAid headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAid Officer, likely violated the United States constitution in multiple ways, and that these actions harmed not only Plaintiffs, but also the public interest, because they deprived the public’s elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress,” wrote Maryland-based judge Theodore D. Chuang.He ordered Musk and Doge officials to halt any work meant to shut down USAid, reinstate email access for all USAid employees and contractors and not disclose any employees’ personal information publicly.He also said Musk and Doge have two weeks to either certify that USAid’s Washington DC headquarters has been reopened or have a top USAid official agree to close it down.Federal judge James Boasberg has given the Trump administration until noon tomorrow to provide answers to specific questions about three flights carrying suspected Venezuelan gang members that left the United States despite his order preventing their departure.Boasberg informed the justice department they have until 12pm ET tomorrow to answer the following questions:
      1) What time did the plane take off from U.S. soil and from where? 2) What time did it leave U.S. airspace? 3) What time did it land in which foreign country (including if it made more than one stop)? 4) What time were individuals subject solely to the Proclamation transferred out of U.S. custody? and 5) How many people were aboard solely on the basis of the Proclamation?
      The government, which has cited national security concerns in refusing to answer Boasberg’s questions, is allowed to reply under seal.The Pentagon said that fewer than 21,000 employees have accepted voluntary resignations after they announced plans to cut up to 60,000 civilian jobs, the Associated Press reports.The defense department announced last month that it would fire 5-8% of its civilian workforce, with layoffs of 5,400 probationary workers. The defense department is the largest government agency, with the Government Accountability Office finding in 2023 that it had more than 700,000 full-time civilian workers.A man accused of battling police with a baseball bat and shield during the January 6 riot at the US Capitol has announced a run for the US Senate in Florida.Jake Lang, a prominent January 6 defendant, has announced on social media that he is seeking the seat recently vacated by the current secretary of state Marco Rubio in 2026.“WE ARE TAKING OVER THE CAPITOL AGAIN,” Lang wrote in a post on X.Lang continued to be politically active during his time in the DC jail, reportedly attempting to organize a militia and creating fundraisers for the January 6 defendants.Lang did not stand trial for charges related to his role in the insurrection due to continuous delays. He was pardoned alongside about 1,600 others who participated in the Capitol attack when Donald Trump took office.Read more about it here:The Trump administration has moved to reinstate at least 24,500 recently fired probationary workers following a pair of orders from federal judges last week.The reinstatements were outlined in a filing by the Justice Department in federal court in Maryland on Monday.US District Judge James Bredar, an appointee of former President Obama, previously ordered the mass reinstatement of fired probationary workers at 18 federal agencies. He determined that the government’s claims that the terminations were because of performance issues “isn’t true”.The majority of the reinstated employees were placed on paid administrative leave, according to the Washington Post. According to the filings, some workers were fully reinstated with pay, and some were reinstated without pay if they had been on unpaid leave before their termination.Voters in Wisconsin are casting the first ballots in a pivotal state supreme court race that will decide whether liberal or conservative justices control the highest court in the state.The first day of early voting comes two weeks before the April 1 election between the Republican-supported Brad Schimel and Democratic-supported Susan Crawford.The race, which is in an important presidential battleground state, can be seen as a barometer of public opinion early in Trump’s presidency. The outcome will have far-reaching implications for a court that faces cases over abortion and reproductive rights, the strength of public sector unions, voting rules and congressional district boundaries.The White House said in a statement that Trump and Putin “spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war” in a phone call that lasted over an hour.
      “Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace,” reads the statement. “The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace.”
      Putin and Trump also discussed the Middle East, the “need to stop” the proliferation of strategic weapons, and Iran, according to the statement.The justice department told the judge considering the legality of deporting suspected Venezuelan gang members that they did not violate his order to stop the planes from departing, but refused to immediately offer more details of their itinerary.The filings came after judge James Boasberg yesterday gave the administration a deadline of today at noon to share details of how the three planes were allowed to fly to El Salvador even though he ordered that they not depart, and turn back if they were in the air.In response, Robert L. Cerna, an Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (Ice) official based in Texas, said that two of the planes had already left US airspace by the time that Boasberg issued his order, while the third carried migrants who had been ordered deported through the typical legal process – not the Alien Enemies Act, which is at issue in the case Boasberg is considering.From Cerna’s filing:
      On March 15, 2025, after the Proclamation was publicly posted and took effect, three planes carrying aliens departed the United States for El Salvador International Airport (SAL). Two of those planes departed U.S. territory and airspace before 7:25 PM EDT. The third plane departed after that time, but all individuals on that third plane had Title 8 final removal orders and thus were not removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue. To avoid any doubt, no one on any flight departing the United States after 7:25 PM EDT on March 15, 2025, was removed solely on the basis of the Proclamation at issue.
      Separately, attorney general Pam Bondi and other top justice department officials signed a notice to Boasberg in response to his demand for details about the planes and their departure time, essentially refusing to provide him with what he wanted:
      The Court also ordered the Government to address the form in which it can provide further details about flights that left the United States before 7:25 PM. The Government maintains that there is no justification to order the provision of additional information, and that doing so would be inappropriate, because even accepting Plaintiffs’ account of the facts, there was no violation of the Court’s written order (since the relevant flights left U.S. airspace, and so their occupants were “removed,” before the order issued), and the Court’s earlier oral statements were not independently enforceable as injunctions. The Government stands on those arguments.
      Here’s more on the legal wrangling over the deportations, and Donald Trump’s invocation of the Alien Enemies Act: More

    • 125 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Chuck Schumer postpones book tour stops amid shutdown vote backlash

      by

      The Senate minority leader, Chuck Schumer, has postponed several stops on a tour to promote his new book, citing security concerns, as the New York Democrat faces intensifying backlash over his vote to support a Republican-drafted spending bill and avert a government shutdown.Schumer was scheduled to participate in events in Baltimore, Washington DC, New York City and Philadelphia this week to discuss his new book, Antisemitism in America: A Warning, which is set to be released on Tuesday. The tour dates were expected to be rescheduled but the cancellation drew criticism from both political wings.Progressives erupted in fury over his decision last week to relent and help Republicans pass a stopgap funding bill many Democrats warned would hand Donald Trump and Elon Musk even greater discretion to slash government programs and services. Schumer had said Senate Democrats faced a “Hobson’s choice”: either vote for a “terrible” bill or shut down the government, which he argued would have been a far worse outcome for the party and the country.But Democrats are desperate for the party to stand up to Trump, as the administration embarks on a series of radical and potentially unlawful moves to slash the government, deport thousands of immigrants and launch a global trade war.“People are furious about Democrats not having a plan to fight Trump – and supposed ‘leaders’ folding [over] and over again,” Adam Green, the co-founder of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, said in a statement, accusing Schumer of attempting to “hide” from constituents. “We hope other Democratic senators continue meeting with their constituents and demand that their leadership fight with backbone.”Democrats have been organizing protests against Republican members of Congress, voicing their fury over the administration’s federal overhaul led by Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” as well as their fears over Republican proposals that would probably result in cuts to safety-net programs such as Medicare and Medicaid.But this week, several Democratic groups are targeting Schumer and other Senate Democrats who voted for the spending bill. Some have staged protests outside of the minority leader’s Brooklyn home while others are calling on him to step down.In an interview with the New York Times, Schumer brushed aside questions about whether the self-described institutionalist was the right leader for this moment. The New York Democrat said he knew how to win seats and compared himself to an “orchestra leader” skilled at highlighting the diverse talent in his caucus. He said he encouraged the senator Chris Murphy, one of the sharpest Democratic critics of the second Trump administration, to ramp up his media appearances, and the independent senator Bernie Sanders to lead a cross-country “fighting oligarchy” tour.When asked about the prospect of a primary challenge, perhaps by the New York congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, as some have reportedly encouraged her to do, Schumer demurred, saying 2028 was “a long time away”.But Schumer’s decision to relent rather than fight has shaken his party’s activist base.After the vote last week, Indivisible, one of the major groups organizing against Trump, said it was time for new leadership in the Senate.“This is a painful decision, the gravity of which we take very seriously. Senator Schumer has contributed to and led many important accomplishments that Indivisible is grateful for,” Ezra Levin, the co-executive director of Indivisible, wrote in a statement. “But with our democracy on the line, he let us, the country, and the Democratic party down.”The group is encouraging members to call their Democratic senators and ask them to pressure Schumer to “step aside”.The funding fight also exposed a deep rift with House Democrats, all but one of whom opposed the bill in a floor vote. On Friday, the congressman Hakeem Jeffries, the minority leader, declined to answer a question about whether it was time for new leadership in the Senate. More

    • 188 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      Why is Gavin Newsom handing Steve Bannon a megaphone? It’s becoming clear | Margaret Sullivan

      by

      Gavin Newsom’s choice of guests – a parade of rightwingers – on his new podcast might seem baffling.After all, the California governor is seen as a mostly progressive Democrat from a very blue state whose reputation is that of a coastal elite. That’s the kind of person the American right, and plenty of centrists, love to hate, as we learned once again when Kamala Harris lost the presidential race to Donald Trump. His image is that of a rich, pretty boy who probably thinks jumper cables are just oversized iPhone chargers.It’s understandable that he would want to reposition himself as he looks ahead to a possible 2028 presidential run.But the way he’s going about it is bizarre and deeply misguided.Still in its infancy, This Is Gavin Newsom has hosted several rightwing media figures including Michael Savage, Charlie Kirk and – almost unbelievably – Steve Bannon, one of the most regrettable people to emerge into public life in decades. This is the guy who trashes the reality-based press as the “opposition party”, and who believes in bamboozling the American people into submission by “flooding the zone with shit”.If you had to name the five people most responsible for Trump’s still-shocking rise to power, Bannon’s name would belong on that list. Don’t forget that he was sent to prison for criminal contempt of Congress after refusing to cooperate with the House of Representatives investigation of the January 6 insurrection at the US Capitol.But Newsom found Bannon worthy of a cordial chat blasted out to his growing podcast audience.For some, it boggles the mind.“I know what Steve Bannon got out of that interview – his fringe views were elevated and validated,” one prominent Democratic member of Congress told the journalist Oliver Darcy. “I don’t know what Gavin or Democrats got out of it.” Those “views”, naturally, included the repeated lie that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump.As Martin Pengelly reported in the Guardian, one red-state Democrat – someone who knows a lot about bridging the gap in American politics – heartily disapproves.“We shouldn’t be afraid to talk and to debate just about anyone,” said Andy Beshear, the Kentucky governor, “but Steve Bannon espouses hatred and anger, and even at some points violence, and I don’t think we should give him oxygen on any platform, ever, anywhere.” (Beshear, it should be noted, may also be looking at a presidential run, and was considered as Harris’s running mate last year.)So what the heck is Newsom’s strategy, exactly?If you ask one of his podcast guests – Kirk, the pro-Trump extremist and podcaster – it’s simple enough.In an opinion piece on the Fox News website that followed his podcast appearance, Kirk called the California governor savvy and charming, but most of all ambitious. Newsom, Kirk quipped, wanted to be president more than any other person alive – and maybe dead, too.“He has a shark’s instincts and is hoping the voters will have a goldfish’s memory,” he posited.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAdam Kinzinger, a former Republican congressman and vocal anti-Trumper, finds that infuriating.“Many of us on the right sacrificed careers to fight Bannon, and Newsom is trying to make a career and a presidential run by building him up,” Kinzinger told Pengelly.Make no mistake. There is a legitimate issue underlying this disagreement.Democrats are justifiably searching for a way to reach that wide swath of voters who seem permanently turned off to their party.And whatever one’s politics or affiliation, we all know that the US is terribly and destructively polarized. We must find a way to talk to each other across the great divide. We really do need to seek common ground.But the way to do it is not to normalize conspiracy theorists who have already done so much damage. It’s not to offer chummy chats – with little or no pushback – to those who want to trash vulnerable people, including transgender individuals and immigrants, or to repeat lies about a stolen election.This “rebrand” may help Newsom’s efforts to present himself as a healer or a centrist as he prepares to run for president in 2028.But anybody who’s paying close attention should know that what he’s doing is deeply cynical and ultimately counterproductive.

      Margaret Sullivan is a Guardian US columnist writing on media, politics and culture More

    • 138 Shares119 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats train fire on Musk as unelected billionaire dips in popularity

      by

      For most of the 17-minute interview, Elon Musk stuck to a script. He was just a tech guy on a mission to “eliminate waste and fraud” from government.His slash-and-burn cost-cutting crusade was making “good progress actually”, he told the Fox Business commentator Larry Kudlow on Monday, despite sparking a backlash that has reverberated far beyond Washington.“Really, I just don’t want America to go bankrupt,” he said.But then Kudlow asked Musk to look forward. Would the so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) still be in place in a year? He thought so – his assignment wasn’t quite complete. Musk, the world’s richest man, then pointed to social security, a widely popular federal program that provides monthly benefits to retirees and people with disabilities, and other social safety net programs: “Most of the federal spending is entitlements. That’s the big one to eliminate.”For weeks, Donald Trump and Republicans have insisted that social security, Medicaid or Medicare would not “be touched”. Now Musk was suggesting the programs would be a primary target. Almost as soon as the words left his mouth, Democrats pounced.“The average social security recipient in this country receives $65 a day. They have to survive on $65 a day. But you want to take a chainsaw to social security, when Elon Musk and his tens of billions of dollars of government contracts essentially makes at least $8m a day from the taxpayers,” Hakeem Jeffries, the US House minority leader, said in a floor speech the following day. “If you want to uncover waste, fraud or abuse, start there.”As the second Trump era comes into focus, Democrats have found a new villain: an “unelected billionaire” whose bravado – and sinking popularity – they believe may offer their party a path out of the political wilderness.“There’s nowhere in America where it is popular to cut disease research, to gut Medicaid and to turn off social security,” said Jesse Ferguson, a Democratic strategist. “So it’s hard to see a place where what Musk is doing for Trump doesn’t become an albatross for Republicans.”The White House has championed Doge’s work while reiterating that Trump would “protect” social security and other entitlement programs. Musk did not respond to a request for comment.The Social Security Administration , which serves more than 70 million Americans, has announced plans to reduce its workforce by more than 10% and close dozens of offices nationwide as part of Doge’s federal overhaul. Officials with the group have been installed at the agency since early last month.Despite mounting criticism of Musk, the president has embraced his beleaguered ally, who spent close to $300m helping elect him to the White House. This week, Trump hailed Musk as a “patriot” as he showcased Teslas from the south lawn of the White House. The president selected a red sedan, hoping to boost the electric car company, which has suffered a sharp decline in sales and stock prices since its chief executive launched his Doge operation. The White House has said that if conflicts of interest arise, “Elon will excuse himself from those contracts”.But Musk and his chainsaw-wielding approach to downsizing government is playing a starring role in early Democratic ads and fundraising appeals. Progressive activists have staged “nobody elected Elon” protests across the country while other groups are targeting Tesla showrooms and dealerships. On a “fighting oligarchy” tour across the country, Senator Bernie Sanders pointed to Musk’s growing political influence as a central threat to American democracy.“Most American people, they can’t name us. They don’t know who Chuck Schumer is, but they do know what this administration and Elon Musk and the GOP are planning for them,” Katherine Clark, the House minority whip, said on Friday. “It’s why you’re seeing this uproar in town halls.”While Democrats have much to say about Musk, they are less sure of how to stop him.Many of Doge’s actions have been halted or stopped in the courts. This week two federal judges ordered government agencies to rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees who were fired as part of Doge’s purge of the federal workforce.Locked out of power in Washington, Democrats are under enormous pressure to use any leverage they have to block Trump and Musk. A Republican-authored bill to fund federal agencies through September and avert a shutdown fiercely divided Democrats this week. House Democrats and progressive activists erupted in anger at Chuck Schumer, the Senate minority leader, who ultimately relented and helped pass the measure rather than risk a funding lapse and, in his words, give Musk and Doge an opportunity to “exploit the crisis for maximum destruction”.Public polling underlines Democrats’ interest in Musk. A new CNN survey found that just 35% of Americans held a positive view of the billionaire Trump adviser, a full 10 percentage points lower than the president. The poll also found that he is notably better known and more unpopular than the vice-president, JD Vance.More than six in 10 Americans said Musk had neither the right experience nor the judgment to carry out a unilateral overhaul of the federal government, though views broke sharply along partisan lines. Roughly the same share said they were worried the reductions would go “too far”, resulting in the loss of critical government programs.A survey conducted by the left-leaning Navigator Research polling firm late last month found that views of Doge as a standalone cost-cutting initiative were marginally favorable, in line with other polls that have found Americans are broadly supportive of its stated mission to root out waste and improve efficiency. But there are signs Americans don’t like the approach or implementation so far.When the effort was framed as “Elon Musk’s Doge”, views turned sharply more negative. The poll also captured the far-reaching impact of the cuts: 20% say they or someone they know has lost access to a federal service, 19% say they or someone they know has lost access to a federal grant, and 17% say they or someone they know has quit or been laid off from a federal government job.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Musk is the face of everything that people are worried about in the Trump administration,” Ferguson said, adding: “To a lot of people, putting Elon Musk in charge of protecting the middle class is like putting Jeffrey Dahmer in charge of protecting a morgue.”Democrats believe Musk’s comments on entitlement programs are particularly potent – the world’s wealthiest man advocating for steep cuts to programs designed to help retirees and vulnerable Americans.In the Fox Business interview, Musk claimed the programs were rife with waste and fraud, suggesting as much as $600bn to $700bn – or nearly a quarter of their budget – could to be cut. Federal watchdogs have long identified improper spending as a problem, but Musk’s figure exceeds their estimates.Musk has derided social security as “the biggest Ponzi scheme of all time”. As evidence of widespread fraud, Musk repeated a debunked theory, favored by Trump, that social security benefits are being paid to dead centenarians. The head of the agency has rejected the premise. Democrats have warned that Trump and Musk were using false or exaggerated claims of fraud as a “prelude” to slash the program or privatize it, as many conservatives have long desired.After Musk’s comments aired, the White House swiftly issued a “fact check” insisting that Musk had only advocated for eliminating waste and highlighted several occasions in which Trump has vowed to protect Americans’ benefits.Republicans also rushed to clarify Musk’s comments. “Look, Elon Musk is a brainiac with an IQ that I cannot even fathom. He is not a master of artful language,” Mark Alford, a Republican representative of Missouri, said on CNN. “We are not going to eliminate social security, Medicare and Medicaid. That’s sheer nonsense.”It was a rare break with Musk, whom Republicans have been loath to cross, well aware that he not only has the president’s full support and ear but a fortune to squash any dissent within the ranks. During Trump’s address to Congress earlier this month, Republicans gave Musk a standing ovation as the president heaped praise on his work. They publicly warn that Democrats oppose Musk’s fraud-and-waste removal efforts at their own political peril.Yet there are signs that Republicans are beginning to worry. Despite Trump’s close alliance with Musk, even he seemed to indicate it was time to rein him in. “We say the ‘scalpel’ rather than the ‘hatchet’,” the president wrote in a social media post.House Republicans have reportedly been advised not to hold in-person town halls after several widely publicized confrontations with constituents furious over loss of government jobs and services. At the few meetings that did take place this weekend, constituents confronted Republican members of Congress with their concerns about possible cuts to social security.Republicans are weighing deep cuts to entitlement programs as a way to offset the cost of extending Trump’s sweeping tax cuts aimed largely at the wealthy. Trump has praised the House plan.“The Republican party at this point has wrapped both arms around the third rail and is holding on as the electricity flows,” said Ben Wikler, the chair of the Democratic party in Wisconsin, where a contest next month will provide an early test of the party’s anti-Musk strategy.On Thursday night, Wikler hosted a People v Musk grassroots event to discuss the billionaire’s impact on the 1 April state supreme court race, which will determine the balance of power between conservative and liberal justices on Wisconsin’s highest bench. Musk has spent millions of dollars through his America Pac in an effort to tip the scales in favor of Brad Schimel, a county judge and former Republican attorney general. Democrats are supporting Susan Crawford, a county judge and former attorney for Planned Parenthood.Wikler said Musk’s ascendancy in Washington – and his influence in the race – has turned liberal voters in the state from “concerned to panicked to outraged with the heat of 1,000 suns”.“If Susan Crawford wins this race, and Musk and Schimel lose,” he said, “then that will be a big bat signal in the sky to Democrats everywhere that fighting back is not only the right thing to do, it’s good politics.” More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Washington worried with Trump back in town: ‘The atmosphere is toxic here’

      by

      It was an audience more accustomed to stifling a cough or resisting the temptation to unwrap a sweet. But when they spotted vice-president JD Vance taking his seat at the John F Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington on Thursday night, classical music-goers erupted in unrestrained boos, jeers and shouts of “You ruined this place!”The noisy protest exemplified a culture clash taking place in the nation’s capital. It came in the same week that work began to remove a giant “Black Lives Matter” mural near the White House, a top political columnist quit the Washington Post newspaper and a spending bill passed by the House of Representatives sought to impose drastic budget cuts of $1.1bn on the District of Columbia (DC).Compounding it all, with Elon Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency” (Doge) slashing the federal workforce, some residents fear that Washington could go the way of Detroit half a century ago: a city that loses its principal industry and goes into a downward spiral.“Everybody feels the atmosphere is toxic here and you can’t get away from it,” said Sally Quinn, an author, journalist and socialite. “People are so distraught and so down and in despair. The question is, what can we do? That’s what people are asking in Washington. The biggest feeling of all is impotence: they can’t stop it.”Trump has always been an anachronistic presence in DC, where the Republican lost last year’s presidential election to Democratic opponent Kamala Harris by 86 percentage points. During his first term, he only ventured out to one restaurant in the city – his own – and never attended the annual Kennedy Center Honors or White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.But as in other arenas, Trump’s second term is more direct, determined and intentional, and includes the cultural equivalent of precision air strikes against the mostly liberal residents of Washington.View image in fullscreenOn Monday crews started work to remove a giant yellow “Black Lives Matter” slogan painted on a street one block from the White House. DC mayor Muriel Bowser, a Democrat, had ordered the painting and renamed the intersection Black Lives Matter Plaza in June 2020 following the murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer.Its erasure five years later amounts to a public acknowledgement of how vulnerable DC is now that Trump is back in the White House and Republicans control both houses of Congress. The work is expected to take about six weeks and the words will be replaced by an unspecified set of city-sponsored murals.Among those who gathered to witness the work on Monday was Megan Bailiff, chief executive of Equus Striping, the pavement marking company that originally painted the letters. She told the Associated Press its presence was “more significant at this very moment than it ever has been in this country” and described its its removal as “historically obscene”.Trump has seized control of the Kennedy Center, the crown jewel of the city’s performing arts scene, installing himself as chair and loyalist Ric Grenell as president. Numerous artists and producers have cancelled shows, including Lin-Manuel Miranda’s hit musical Hamilton, while ticket sales reportedly dropped roughly 50% week-over-week after Trump announced his takeover.The backlash against Vance at this week’s National Symphony Orchestra concert was a palpable demonstration of the anger. Coming just weeks after the vice-president publicly berated Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy in the Oval Office, some could not help but note the irony that he was attending all-Russian programme that included Stravinsky’s Petrushka, the story of three puppets brought to life by a charlatan.The booing incident prompted a retort from Grenell, who wrote on the X social media platform: “It troubles me to see that so many in the audience appear to be white and intolerant of diverse political views. Diversity is our strength.” Meanwhile this week Trump added Fox News host Laura Ingraham and Fox Business anchor Maria Bartiromo to the Kennedy Center’s board.Quinn observed: “They’re being very imaginative in their atrocities. They trashed the Kennedy Center and threw everybody out and put Laura Ingraham on the board. The Kennedy Center has been so much a part of the city for so long and suddenly it’s gone. They’ve lost in the first couple of weeks 50% of their ticket sales. They’re not getting the donations they used to get. All kinds of acts are cancelling and people I know say they won’t ever set foot in that place.”View image in fullscreenThe Trump International hotel on Pennsylvania Avenue is no more but the Maga (Make America great again) movement is gaining a foothold in other parts of the city. Butterworth’s, a bistro on Capitol Hill, has drawn Trump allies including Musk and Kash Patel and has been dubbed “Steve Bannon’s restaurant”.Bannon, who lives nearby but has no formal connection to Butterworth’s, said in a text message it reminds him of one of his favourite areas in London. “It’s Mayfair come to Capitol Hill,” he explained.Co-owner Raheem Kassam, a former editor-in-chief of Breitbart News UK and ex-aide to British rightwing populist Nigel Farage, insisted in an online message: “We are a Capitol Hill restaurant that welcomes everyone and refuses to discriminate based on politics. Our investors come from a range of backgrounds, and includes left-liberals, apolitical-types, LGBT+ people, and minorities.“But frankly, we’re not really interested in ticking boxes. We’re interested in great food and good vibes. If you fancy that, we’re the place for you, no matter who you are. Just please, no hats for dinner service.”Washington has often had a tenuous peace with the federal government when Republicans controlled Congress and the White House. It is now facing its most urgent threat since it was given the power of home rule during the Richard Nixon administration.This week the House passed a continuing resolution to fund the federal government that includes a provision treating DC as a federal agency for budget purposes. This would force DC to revert to its fiscal year 2024 spending levels, resulting in an estimated $1.1bn cut to its current 2025 budget over the remaining six months.The funds are locally raised taxpayer dollars, not federal subsidies. City officials warned of “calamitous reduction in services ranging from schools to public safety”. Washington could face potential hiring freezes, layoffs across various agencies, renegotiation or termination of leases and decreased security and janitorial services.Paul Strauss, shadow US senator for DC, said: “I’m shocked that it’s now House Republicans that are taking steps to defund the police, which was normally a position staked out by extreme members of the far left. To have the House vote to cut the police budget so substantially seems difficult to understand.”After final passage of the continuing resolution, the Senate unanimously passed a bill by voice vote to restore the $1.1bn in spending cuts to the DC government. The DC bill, which Trump supports, must still be approved by the House when it returns on 24 March.Democrats and DC officials view the proposed budget cuts as politically motivated, potentially aimed at undermining the self-governance of the predominantly Democratic city. Trump has previously suggested that DC would be better off under total federal control.View image in fullscreenSuch is the concern that Jamie Raskin, a Democratic congressman from Maryland, even floated the idea that Washington could be temporarily incorporated into Maryland. Raskin said on the City Cast DC podcast: “If you guys want to think about coming back to Maryland for this period, you would definitely be safer in the free state than you’d be under the brutal thumb of Maga colonialism.”Simultaneously, Washington is facing economic headwinds due to deep federal job cuts orchestrated by Doge under the Trump administration. Unemployment claims recently rose 25% in one week and are four times as high as one year earlier. Glen Lee, the district’s chief financial officer, has forecast that DC could lose 40,000 federal jobs – down by a fifth – and projected a loss of revenue of $1bn over the next three years.Bill Galston, a chair in governance studies at the Brookings Institution thinktank, noted that the federal government is a vast establishment with 2.3 million workers spread across the country, of whom 80% are not in Washington. “So I don’t think that life in Washington DC has been upended yet,” he said.“What there has been and of course is is a pell-mell replacement of a sense of security with a pretty near total sense of insecurity. The sense of what might happen to an individual is a larger effect than the actual firings. People are hunkering down.”The shift in Trump’s second term has been more dramatic than anyone expected, added Galston, a resident of 43 years. “There’s an element of incredulity. People who tried to imagine in the starkest possible detail what could happen almost universally concede that, while they have let their imaginations run riot, they feel they didn’t go far enough.“There is something slightly surreal about all of this, but I wake up in the morning and I walk down the driveway in a very old fashioned way for my three newspapers and I open up the package and it’s very real.”As Doge downsizes the government, the Trump administration has considered offloading numerous federal properties, raising concerns about vacant buildings and a decline similar to that of Detroit after the car manufacturing industry was gutted. An essay in the New York Times newspaper this week was headlined: “DC Is Becoming Another Hollowed-Out Company Town.”View image in fullscreenQuinn said: “It is a one industry town, and basically what they’re doing is destroying the government, which is what Trump said he would do. Even Trump supporters are stunned. I know from some of my friends on the Hill that Republican senators and congressmen are freaking out, too, because they’re hearing from their constituents.”Quinn was married to the late Ben Bradlee, who was editor of the Washington Post when it reported on the Watergate scandal, which forced Nixon’s resignation. Long a vital part of the fabric of the city, the storied newspaper has been in freefall, financially and editorially, over the past year.Billionaire owner Jeff Bezos, who donated to and attended Trump’s inauguration, recently ordered that the paper narrow the topics covered by its opinion section to personal liberties and the free market. Opinions editor David Shipley resigned because of the shift. This week Ruth Marcus, who had worked at the Post since 1984, also quit. Several star reporters have left in recent months.David Maraniss, a former associate editor of the Post who recently resigned after 48 years at the paper, said: “What’s happening at the Post is connected to Trump and that’s very disturbing to me. I don’t think Bezos genuflecting to an autocrat is something I want to have any part of. I consider the Post a public trust almost. That sounds sort of idealistic and naive but it’s larger than an owner; it’s an identity.“What it represents in terms of journalistic ethics and integrity has been damaged almost beyond repair and this is a time when newspapers of that sort are needed more than ever. For us to recede from that push for freedom of speech, the First Amendment, for the search for truth is depressing to me.”For many of Trump’s critics, Washington feels like a city under occupation. Maraniss added: “It’s the second occupation but it seems more pronounced than the first. My feelings are complicated by a double whammy of what’s happening in my newspaper and in the city, in the country and in the world. It all seems wrapped together. In terms of Washington there’s anxiety, a feeling of a darkness coming over the city and enormous uncertainty about what people should do.” More

    • 163 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Maga since forever’: mercenary mogul Erik Prince pushes to privatize Trump deportation plans

      by

      Silicon Valley has played a sizable part in the early days of Donald Trump’s new administration, but another familiar face in the Maga-verse is beginning to emerge: businessman Erik Prince, often described by his critics as a living “Bond villain”.Prince is the most famous mercenary of the contemporary era and the founder of the now defunct private military company Blackwater. For a time, it was a prolific privateer in the “war on terror”, racking up millions in US government contracts by providing soldiers of fortune to the CIA, Pentagon and beyond.Now he is a central figure among a web of other contractors trying to sell Trump advisers on a $25bn deal to privatize the mass deportations of 12 million migrants.In an appearance on NewsNation, he immediately tried to temper that his plan had any traction.“No indications, so far,” said Prince about a federal contract materializing. “Eventually if they’re going to hit those kinds of numbers and scale, they’re going to need additional private sector.”But the news had people wondering, how is Prince going to factor into the second Trump presidency?Sean McFate, a professor at Georgetown University who has advised the Pentagon and the CIA, said: “Erik Prince has always been politically connected to Maga, the Maga movement, and that’s going back to 2015.”Prince, himself a special forces veteran and ex-Navy Seal, is a known business associate of Steve Bannon, the architect of Trump’s first electoral win. Prince even appeared with him last July at a press conference before Bannon surrendered to authorities and began a short prison sentence for defying a congressional subpoena.“He comes from a wealthy Republican family,” said McFate, who has authored books on the global mercenary industry and is familiar with Prince’s history. “His sister, Betsy DeVos, is the former education secretary, and he’s been a Maga, not just a Maga, he’s been a Steve Bannon, Maga Breitbart Republican, since forever.”Beginning during the two Bush administrations, Blackwater was a major recipient of Pentagon money flowing into wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. But a massacre in Baghdad at the hands of some of his contractors led to prison sentences, congressional inquiries and blacklistings of the firm.Years later, Trump would come to the rescue: pardoning all of the Blackwater mercenaries involved in the massacre.Now, with the current administration, which is doling out free advertising to Elon Musk and other Maga loyalists, Prince has a new and familiar ally in Washington.“This is a big market time for him,” said McFate. “He’s very quiet when there’s a Democrat in the White House and gets very noisy when a Republican, especially Trump, is in the White House; I expect this to be one of many things he will try to pitch.”Do you have tips about private military contractors or the world of Erik Prince? Tip us securely here or text Ben Makuch at BenMakuch.90 on Signal.McFate said Prince is nothing if not an “opportunist” and an “egotist” with a penchant for getting into media cycles.“If Trump or somebody says ‘That’s an interesting idea,’ he will pump out a PowerPoint slideshow proposing an idea, whether or not he can do it,” he said. Prince also has the ear of Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, and was a character witness for her Senate confirmation.There’s no denying Prince is a relentless pitchman, offering world governments billion-dollar plans to privatize wars or other less expensive espionage activities. For example, he was recently named to the advisory board of the London-based private intelligence firm Vantage Intelligence, which advises “sovereign wealth funds” and other “high-net-worth individuals”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionPost-Blackwater and under new companies, he has proposed missions in Afghanistan, Ukraine, Congo, Libya and, purportedly, Venezuela – a country he often mentions as ripe for overthrow on his podcast, Off Leash.A senior commander in an alliance of former Venezuelan soldiers who defected from the Chavista regime told the Guardian his organization has been asking Prince for help against the country’s current president, Nicolás Maduro.“We have sent messages to Mr Erik Prince to try to see if we can meet,” said Javier Nieto Quintero, a Florida-based former captain in the Venezuelan military and leader of the Venezuelan dissident organization Carive. “If he wants, we can provide help, support in terms of information, intelligence, or any other area based on the freedom of our country.”Nieto Quintero, who said Prince has yet to respond, and Carive was used in a failed operation against Maduro in 2020 led by a former Green Beret. In what is notoriously known as the “Bay of Piglets”, six of Nieto Quintero’s men were killed and close to 100 captured, including two former US servicemen recruited for the job who were freed two years ago from a Caracas prison.Prince’s eye has undoubtedly been focused on Venezuela, a country with vast oil reserves that has long been in the crosshairs of Trump’s retinue. In recent months, Prince has supported a Venezuelan opposition movement called Ya Casi Venezuela, claiming to have raised more than $1m for it over the summer. The Maduro regime is now investigating Prince’s links to the campaign, which it paints as a sort of front for western governments fostering its downfall.Venezuela has reason to fear Prince and his connections to American spies: the CIA, with a rich history of covert actions in Latin America, was at least aware of a plot to overthrow Maduro’s predecessor Hugo Chávez in 2002.“We were in contact with Ya Casi Venezuela, but a meeting never took place,” said Nieto Quintero. “We have continued to grow and strengthen our ranks and our doctrine, our plans, our institutional, military, security and defense proposals.”Prince is officially active in the region. Last week, Ecuador announced it would be partnering with Prince in a “strategic alliance” to reinforce the country’s controversial “war on crime” with his expertise.Prince did not respond to a request for comment sent through his encrypted cellphone company, Unplugged. Ya Casi Venezuela did not answer numerous emails about its relationship with Prince. As of now, no business deal between the Trump administration and Prince has been signed or publicly disclosed.But across his career as both a shadowy contractor and a political figure, who just graced the stages of the latest Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) to applause and then spoke to Harvard Republicans, the public and private sides of Prince remain somewhat antithetical.“He likes to be in the news, which makes him a very bad mercenary,” said McFate. “Frankly, most mercenaries I talk to in Africa, the big ones, despise him.” More