The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division had brought lawsuits accusing Louisiana of confining prisoners longer than they should and South Carolina of keeping mentally ill people in unreasonably restrictive group homes. Both cases are now on hold. By Corey G. Johnson for ProPublica The Trump administration has halted litigation aimed at stopping civil rights abuses of prisoners in Louisiana and mentally ill people living in South Carolina group homes. The Biden administration filed lawsuits against the two states in December after Department of Justice investigations concluded that they had failed to fix violations despite years of warnings. Louisiana’s prison system has kept thousands of incarcerated people behind bars for weeks, months or sometimes more than a year after they were supposed to be released, records show. And the DOJ accused South Carolina of institutionalizing thousands of people diagnosed with serious mental illnesses — sometimes for decades — rather than provide services that would allow them to live in less restricted settings, as is their right under federal law. Federal judges temporarily suspended the lawsuits in February at the request of the states and with the support of the DOJ. Related | The Justice Department has turned into a raging dumpster fire under Trump Civil rights lawyers who have monitored the cases said the move is another sign of the Trump administration’s retreat from the department’s mission of protecting the rights of vulnerable groups. Since January, President Donald Trump’s DOJ has dropped racial discrimination lawsuits, abandoned investigations of police misconduct and canceled oversight of troubled law enforcement agencies. “This administration has been very aggressive in rolling back any kind of civil rights reforms or advancements,” said Anya Bidwell, senior attorney at the public-interest law firm Institute for Justice. “It’s unquestionably disappointing.” The cases against Louisiana and South Carolina were brought by a unit of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division tasked with enforcing laws that guarantee religious freedom, access to reproductive health services, constitutional policing, and the rights of people in state and local institutions, including jails, prisons and health care facilities for people with disabilities. The unit, the Special Litigation Section, has seen a dramatic reduction in lawyers since Trump took office in January. Court records show at least seven attorneys working on the lawsuits against Louisiana and South Carolina are no longer with the DOJ. The section had more than 90 employees at the start of the year, including about 60 front-line attorneys. By June, it had about 25, including around 15 front-line lawyers, according to a source familiar with its operation. Sources said some were reassigned to other areas of the department while others quit in protest against the direction of the office under Trump, found new jobs or took early retirement. Similar departures have been seen throughout the DOJ. Related | Justice Department smothers Biden-era police reform deals The exodus will hamper its ability to carry out essential functions, such as battling sexual harassment in housing, discrimination against disabled people, and the improper use of restraints and seclusions against students in schools, said Omar Noureldin, a former senior attorney in the Civil Rights Division and President Joe Biden appointee who left in January. “Regardless of your political leanings, I think most people would agree these are the kind of bad situations that should be addressed by the nation’s top civil rights enforcer,” Noureldin said. A department spokesperson declined to comment in response to questions from ProPublica about the Louisiana and South Carolina cases. Sources familiar with the lawsuits said Trump appointees have told DOJ lawyers handling the cases that they want to resolve matters out of court. The federal government has used settlement talks in the past to hammer out consent decrees, agreements that set a list of requirements to fix civil rights violations and are overseen by an outside monitor and federal judge to ensure compliance. But Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, Trump’s appointee to run the DOJ’s civil rights division, has made no secret of her distaste for such measures. Donald Trump is greeted by Harmeet Dhillon in Sept. 2019 as he arrives for a fundraiser in Mountain View, Calif. In May, Dhillon announced she was moving to dismiss efforts to impose consent decrees on the Louisville, Kentucky, and Minneapolis police departments. She complained that consent decrees turn local control of policing over to “unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats.” A DOJ investigation in the wake of the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis police officer accused the department of excessive force, unjustified shootings, and discrimination against Black and Native American people. The agency issued similar findings against the Louisville Metro Police Department after the high-profile killing of Breonna Taylor, who was shot in 2020 when officers forced their way into her home to execute a search warrant. Noureldin, now a senior vice president at the government watchdog group Common Cause, said consent decrees provide an important level of oversight by an independent judge. By contrast, out-of-court settlements can be subject to the political whims of a new administration, which can decide to drop a case or end an agreement despite evidence of continuing constitutional violations. “When you have a consent decree or a court-enforced settlement, the Justice Department can’t unilaterally just withdraw from the agreement,” Noureldin said. “A federal judge would have to agree that the public interest is served by terminating that settlement.” “I Lost Everything” In the case of Louisiana, the Justice Department issued a scathing report in January 2023 about the state confining prisoners beyond their sentences. The problems dated back more than a decade and remained widespread, the report said. Between January and April 2022 alone, more than a quarter of everyone released from prison custody was held past their release dates. Of those, 24% spent an additional 90 days or more behind bars, the DOJ found. Among those held longer than they should have been was Robert Parker, a disc jockey known as “DJ Rob” in New Orleans, where he played R&B and hip-hop music at weddings and private parties. Parker, 55, was arrested in late 2016 after violating a restraining order brought by a former girlfriend. He was supposed to be released in October 2017, but a prison staffer mistakenly classified him as a sex offender. That meant he was required to provide prison authorities with two addresses where he could stay that complied with sex offender registry rules. Prison documents show Parker repeatedly told authorities that he wasn’t a sex offender and pleaded to speak to the warden to clear up the mistake. But nobody acted until a deputy public defender contacted state officials months later to complain. By the time he walked out, Parker had spent 337 extra days behind bars. During that period, he said, his car was repossessed, his mother died and his reputation was ruined. “I lost everything,” he told ProPublica in an interview from a nursing home, where he was recovering from a stroke. “I’m ready to get away from Louisiana.” Louisiana’s detention system is complex. Unlike other jurisdictions, where the convicted are housed in state facilities, inmates in Louisiana can be held in local jails overseen by sheriffs. A major contributor to the so-called over-detentions was poor communication among Louisiana’s court clerks, sheriff’s offices and the state department of corrections, according to interviews with attorneys, depositions of state officials, and reports from state and federal reviews of the prison system. Related | Red states are embracing all the evil policies of Trump Until recently, the agencies shared prisoner sentencing information by shuttling stacks of paperwork by van or truck from the court to the sheriff’s office for the parish holding the prisoner, then to corrections officials. The document transfers, which often crisscrossed the state, typically happened only once a week. When the records finally arrived, it could take staff a month or longer to enter the data into computers, creating more delays. In addition, staff made data errors when calculating release dates. Two years ago, The 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Parker could pursue a lawsuit against the former head of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, James LeBlanc. That lawsuit is ongoing, said Parker’s attorney, Jonathan Rhodes. LeBlanc, who resigned last year, could not be reached for comment, and his attorneys did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement, Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill acknowledged that the state’s process to determine release dates was unreliable but said the issue had been overblown by the Justice Department’s investigation, which she called “factually incorrect.” “There were simply parts of it that are outside state control, such as clerks & courts,” Murrill stated. Murrill said correction officials have been working with local officials to ensure prisoner releases are computed in a “timely and correct fashion.” Louisiana officials point to a new website that allows electronic sharing of information among the various agencies. “The system has been overhauled. That has dramatically diminished, if not completely eliminated this problem,” Murrill stated. She did not address questions from ProPublica asking if prisoners were being held longer than their release dates this year. Local attorneys who are handling lawsuits against the state expressed skepticism about Murrill’s claims. William Most, an attorney who filed a class-action lawsuit on behalf of incarcerated people who had been detained past their release dates, noted that as late as May 2024, 141 people who were released that month had been kept longer than they should have been, 120 of them for more than 30 days. “I have seen no evidence suggesting the problem in Louisiana is fixed,” Most said. “And it seems unwise to dismiss any cases while that’s the situation.” Trapped in Group Homes South Carolina’s mentally ill population is grappling with similar challenges. After years of lawsuits and complaints, a DOJ investigation determined that officials illegally denied community-based services — required by the Americans with Disabilities Act and a 1999 Supreme Court decision — to over 1,000 people diagnosed as seriously mentally ill. Instead, the state placed them in group homes that failed to provide adequate care and were overly restrictive, the department alleged. The DOJ report didn’t address why the state relied so heavily on group homes. It noted that South Carolina’s own goals and plans called for increasing community-based services to help more people live independently. But the investigation concluded that the availability of community-based services varied widely across the state, leaving people in some areas with no access. And the DOJ said the state’s rules for deciding when someone could leave were too stringent. South Carolina funds and oversees more than 400 facilities that serve people with serious mental illness, according to a state affidavit. Kimberly Tissot, president of the disability rights group Able South Carolina, said it was common for disabled adults who were living successfully on their own to be involuntarily committed to an adult group home simply because they visited a hospital to pick up medicine. Tissot, who has inspected hundreds of the adult facilities, said they often are roach-infested, soaked in urine, lacking in adequate medicine and staffed by untrained employees. Her description mirrors the findings of several state and independent investigations. In some group homes, patients weren’t allowed to leave or freely move around. Subsequently, their mental health would deteriorate, Tissot said. “We have had people die in these facilities because of the conditions,” said Tissot, who worked closely with the DOJ investigators. Scores of sexual abuse incidents, assaults and deaths in such group homes have been reported to the state, according to a 2022 federal report that faulted South Carolina’s oversight. South Carolina has been on notice about the difficulties since 2016 but didn’t make sufficient progress, the DOJ alleged in its lawsuit filed in December. After two years of failed attempts, state lawmakers passed a law in April that consolidated services for disabled people into a new agency responsible for expanding access to home and community-based treatments and for ensuring compliance with federal laws. South Carolina’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, has argued in the DOJ’s lawsuit that the state has been providing necessary services and has not been violating people’s constitutional rights. In January, his office asked the court for a delay in the case to give the Trump administration enough time to determine how to proceed. His office and a spokesperson for the South Carolina Department of Behavioral Health and Developmental Disabilities declined to comment, citing the ongoing DOJ lawsuit. Tissot credits the federal attention with creating a sense of urgency among state lawmakers to make improvements. While she said she is pleased with the latest progress, she warned that if the DOJ dropped the case, it would undermine the enforcement of disabled people’s civil rights and allow state abuses to continue. “It would signal that systemic discrimination will go unchecked and embolden institutional providers to resist change,” Tissot said. “Most importantly, it abandons the people directly impacted.”

A cartoon by Clay Jones. Related | Trump has Epstein files on the brain as presser goes off the rails

Injustice for All is a weekly series about how the Trump administration is trying to weaponize the justice system—and the people who are fighting back. Eighth Circuit keeps vying to be the worst circuit For years now, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals has been known as the most conservative appeals court in the country. But with 11 of its 12 members being GOP appointees, the Eighth Circuit is making a run for the title. This time around, it’s holding that private citizens and groups cannot sue under the Voting Rights Act for disability-based discrimination. Instead, only state attorneys general can sue to enforce the Voting Rights Act. This follows on the heels of a 2023 decision from the same court saying that there was no private right of action under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racially based gerrymandering.   While this might sound arcane, what it means is that groups like the NAACP could no longer sue to challenge a redistricting decision, or a disability advocacy group could not sue over laws that restricted their access to voting. If only state attorneys general can do it, you’re just guaranteed that conservative attorneys general are never going to sue to enforce the civil rights of voters in their state when they agree with the restrictions passed by the state legislature. The federal courts have been relentlessly chipping away at the Voting Rights Act for years. And everyone knows that Chief Justice John Roberts is no fan of the law. It’s going to be hard to watch decades of progress being unwound.  Democrats sue DHS over law that says exactly what it says  Twelve Democratic members of Congress have been forced to sue the Department of Homeland Security over its restrictions on access to immigration detention facilities. Though Trump signed the 2019 law explicitly allowing members of Congress to inspect Immigration and Customs Enforcement facilities without prior notice, DHS has provided “guidance” that says just the opposite.  First, the policy stated that members of Congress had to provide 72 business hours’ notice to visit and 24 hours’ notice before entering a detention facility. The administration later bumped that visit notice requirement to seven days.  Detainees walk toward a fenced recreation area during a media tour at the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement detention facility in Tacoma, Washington. The explanation for defying the law is the same one that the administration always offers, which is that no one can stop the president from doing whatever he wants. Per Tricia McLaughlin, DHS assistant secretary for public affairs, “Requests should be made with sufficient time to prevent interference with the President's Article II authority to oversee executive department functions—a week is sufficient to ensure no intrusion on the President's constitutional authority.” This stance, of course, means that Congress can never pass any law that in any way affects the executive branch, which is a very … interesting … view of the separation of powers. Now, as with so many other things these days, the only way that the law will be enforced is if someone can successfully sue the Trump administration, a thing which is less and less likely with a Supreme Court that really loves to give Trump his way.  Eric Tung is the perfect example of a second-term Trump judicial pick, and that’s not a compliment  Trump has tapped Eric Tung for a lifetime seat on the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Tung brings the qualifications we’ve come to expect from a Trump judicial nomination, which is to say that he has never been a judge, has never served as lead counsel on a case, has never tried a case to verdict, and has spent about 10% of his time on criminal cases. Well, it’s not like the Ninth Circuit hears a lot of criminal cases. Oh, wait.  Tung wasn’t selected for having any relevant experience, though. He was selected for his worldview. Tung clerked for Justices Antonin Scalia and Brett Kavanaugh, then took a job at  Jones Day, the law firm that is a breeding ground for hard-right lawyers. He hates unions, doesn’t believe there is a constitutional right to same-sex marriage, and thinks striving for racial equity is bad.  He has a history of misogynistic remarks complaining about “radical feminists try[ing] to blur gender roles, but refused to answer questions about that during his confirmation hearing. His logic? Because things like gender roles are “the subject of wide debate,” and therefore as a nominee, “I cannot answer under judicial canons.” He also wouldn’t answer questions about whether a minor who is sexually assaulted or the victim of incest should be forced to give birth.  Given that the Senate Republicans confirmed Emil Bove, the former Trump criminal defense lawyer who told DOJ attorneys they should disobey court orders, Tung is a shoo-in.  Another court order broken. Weird how that keeps happening Judge Royce Lamberth told Trump officials on Wednesday it was likely the administration violated his order to restore news programming at Voice of America. He also said they are violating numerous other statutory provisions, provided misleading info to the court, and flip-flopped in sworn declarations. So, business as usual for the administration, basically. Can’t wait to hear how Lamberth is a wild-eyed commie as opposed to an 82-year-old Reagan appointee. Administration does nomination shenanigans for not one, not two, but three U.S. attorneys The administration has a problem. Trump keeps tapping objectively unqualified people to serve as U.S. attorneys, people so unqualified he knows they won’t get through the Senate, which is saying something, given this Senate. So, the administration has to stitch together various types of temporary appointments that don’t require Senate confirmation, nor the approval of the judges in the district.  Alina Habba That’s why Alina Habba, one of Trump’s numerous personal attorneys, is now the acting U.S. attorney, which doesn’t require confirmation and allows her to serve for 210 more days. Same thing for Bill Essayli, who is now the acting U.S. attorney for the Central District of California for another 210 days, even though the district’s judges declined to name him to the post.  Enter Sigal Chattah, who is only hanging onto the U.S. attorney job in Nevada because Trump was willing to do the same thing he did for Habba and Essayli—roll her expiring interim job into an acting job, so she gets, you guessed it, 210 more days. It’s unknown whether the Nevada judges would have rejected Chattah as they did with Habba and Essayli, as Trump changed her status before that happened.  But it’s not like Chattah is a stellar candidate. She’s an election denier who, when running for Nevada attorney general in 2022, said her Black opponent “should be hanging” from a crane, which she insists is not actually racist to say. She also doesn’t appear to have any background in criminal law, but she did represent conservative churches that didn’t want to observe COVID-19 restrictions, which is what counts for qualifications these days.

You must watch Buttigieg break down Trump’s massive Epstein problem x x YouTube Video Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg clearly articulated why he believed the Trump administration’s refusal to release its files on accused sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein poses a political risk greater than that of Trump’s Medicaid-slashing “One Big Beautiful Bill.” Scots torment Trump on taxpayer-funded trip to his crappy golf courses x x YouTube Video Trump took a taxpayer-funded trip to Scotland, where he visited two of his golf properties, seemingly cheated on the links, and the Scots were not pleased, greeting him with protests and efforts to obstruct his media appearances. And when reporters pressed him about his relationship with Epstein, Trump said he never had the “privilege” of visiting the convicted sex offender’s private island, where he allegedly abused underaged girls. x x YouTube Video Watch Cory Booker's fiery 'wake-up call' for his fellow Democrats x x YouTube Video Sen. Cory Booker of New Jersey called out his fellow Democrats, arguing that advancing a policing bill without proper scrutiny amounted to complicity in Trump’s anti-constitutional agenda. Trump has Epstein files on the brain as presser goes off the rails x x YouTube Video Trump couldn’t keep Epstein off his mind during a recent press conference, whiffing a softball question and veering into a rant about his own administration’s inability to release its files on Epstein. You'll never believe why Trump claims 'Obama owes me big' x x YouTube Video Before he jetted off to Scotland for his little golfing trip, Trump was asked whether the Supreme Court’s presidential-immunity decision applies to former President Barack Obama, whom Trump has baselessly accused of treason as the president attempts to distract the public from the ongoing Epstein scandal.  It’s been yet another chaotic week of Republican incompetence, and unfortunately, there are no signs they’ll learn from their mistakes anytime soon. For more video content, please check out Daily Kos on YouTube.

Climate scientist Michael Mann called the report “a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding.” By Dennis Pillion for Inside Climate News Several top climate scientists are weighing how to respond to a new climate report issued by the Trump administration that they are calling “deceptive,” “cherry-picked,” and “antiscientific.” The U.S. Department of Energy released a 150-page report Tuesday titled “A Critical Review of Impacts of Greenhouse Gas Emissions on the U.S. Climate,” which argues that human-caused climate change “appears to be less damaging economically than commonly believed,” and “aggressive mitigation strategies could be more harmful than beneficial.” That flies in the face of most published scientific research on the topic, as gathered in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change assessment, the European Climate Risk Assessment, and the U.S. Government’s own Fifth National Climate Assessment, issued last year during the Biden administration. The DOE report states “the growing amount of CO2 in the atmosphere directly influences the earth system by promoting plant growth (global greening), thereby enhancing agricultural yields, and by neutralizing ocean alkalinity,” another way of saying ocean acidification. x Datawrapper Content NOAA’s page on ocean acidification states that lowering the pH of seawater makes it more difficult for animals like clams, oysters, corals and plankton to build and maintain their shells. The report then argues that climate model projections are overstating the risks from sea level rise and extreme weather events, and that efforts to decrease greenhouse gas emissions would have little impact. “The risks and benefits of a climate changing under both natural and human influences must be weighed against the costs, efficacy, and collateral impacts of any ‘climate action’, considering the nation’s need for reliable and affordable energy with minimal local pollution,” the report states in its conclusion. Michael Mann, director of the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Science, Sustainability and the Media, told Inside Climate News that the Trump administration report was typical of the relatively small number of scientists who deny the seriousness of climate change. ”All they’ve done is recycle shopworn, discredited climate denier arguments,” Mann said in an email. “They constructed a deeply misleading antiscientific narrative, built on deceptive arguments, misrepresented datasets, and distortion of actual scientific understanding. Then they dressed it up with dubious graphics composed of selective, cherry-picked data. “There is nothing scientific about this report whatsoever.” Related | Climate change helped fuel heavy rains that led to devastating Texas flood The report does open a 30-day public comment period, in which the Department of Energy says it is “seeking input from the public, especially from interested individuals and entities, such as industry, academia, research laboratories, government agencies, and other stakeholders.” Texas A&M climate scientist Andrew Dessler, who criticized the report extensively on social media, told Inside Climate News it’s important for mainstream climate scientists to participate even if the Trump administration seems unlikely to listen. “Many people I’ve spoken to recognize the need for a coherent response,” Dessler said in an email. “I think it’s important because this will certainly be litigated, and anything that is put out there could be used in the litigation. “There is no coordinated structure right now [to respond], but I’m hoping one comes together. The stakes on this are very high.” A spokesman for the Department of Energy said the department will “look forward to engaging with substantive comments,” after the comment period ends. “This report critically assesses many areas of ongoing scientific inquiry that are frequently assigned high levels of confidence—not by the scientists themselves but by the political bodies involved, such as the United Nations or previous Presidential administrations,” the spokesman said. “Unlike previous administrations, the Trump administration is committed to engaging in a more thoughtful and science-based conversation about climate change and energy.” Related | Trump issues executive order targeting 'unreliable' clean energy options Ben Sanderson, research director at the CICERO Centre for International Climate Research in Oslo, Norway, posted a thread critiquing the report. “Each chapter follows the same pattern,” Sanderson posted on Bluesky. “Establish a contrarian position, cherry pick evidence to support that position, then claim that this position is under-represented in climate literature and the IPCC in particular. Include a bunch of references, most of which don’t support the central argument.” Sanderson highlighted examples, such as the report’s claims of “global greening” and increased crop yields, for which the authors ignored impacts such as heat stress, increased drought, and nutrient limitations, which the IPCC factored in to determine that more atmospheric CO2 would have a negative impact on food security. Sanderson said the researchers had pointed to a flat number of fire ignitions in the U.S., “omitting that burned area, severity and persistence have all exceeded records.” “This is not a systematic or complete assessment of the report,” Sanderson posted. “But even a brief read is enough to understand what it’s doing—it’s selectively isolating particular studies and data to support the narrative that climate is less severe than assessed, whilst ignoring a much wider body of literature.” A “Red Team” Assembles The report relied on the Department of Energy’s new Climate Working Group consisting of five of the most prominent climate contrarians: John Christy, Judith Curry, Steven Koonin, Ross McKitrick and Roy Spencer. “The authors of this report are widely recognized contrarians who don’t represent the mainstream scientific consensus,” Dessler posted on social media. “If almost any other group of scientists had been chosen, the report would have been dramatically different. “The only way to get this report was to pick these authors,” Dessler said. A spokesperson for the Department of Energy said in an email that the department “intentionally selected individuals with expertise in climate and atmospheric science, economics, physical science, and academic research.” “The five experts represent diverse viewpoints and political backgrounds and are all well-respected and highly credentialed individuals,” the spokesperson said. x Datawrapper Content Energy Secretary Chris Wright, a former oil company executive, said in the report’s forward that he had not chosen the members because they would agree with him. “I didn’t select these authors because we always agree—far from it,” Wright said in the forward. “In fact, they may not always agree with each other. But I chose them for their rigor, honesty, and willingness to elevate the debate.” What the points of disagreement may be are unclear, but there are many connections among the five. Christy and Spencer have been a research team publishing together for decades at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Curry and Christy both testified in front of Congress on multiple occasions to advocate for a “red team” approach to climate science, seeking funding for research to challenge the scientific consensus. Koonin wrote an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal advocating for the same. Christy and McKitrick have published multiple papers together challenging the accuracy of climate models. Mann said that the report does not break new ground and merely gives a larger audience to fringe voices in the climate science community. “It’s the usual mix of untruths, half-truths, and discredited if seemingly plausible claims we’ve come to expect from professional climate deniers and those who platform them,” Mann said. Climate Denial Is Now Trump’s Official Policy The report is one in a series of actions by the Trump administration to undermine climate science, regulations and mitigation efforts. It was issued the same day the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced plans to revoke the agency’s “endangerment finding” on greenhouse gases, setting the stage for the federal government to cease regulating climate-warming emissions. “With this decision, climate change denial is now the official policy of the U.S. government,” science historian and author Naomi Oreskes said in an email. Dessler, from Texas A&M, said the report produced was more like a legal brief defending its client, carbon dioxide, than a scientific report, highlighting only the evidence that strengthens their case and ignoring the rest. “Scientists are obligated to engage with the full range of evidence, especially that which might contradict their hypothesis,” Dessler said on social media. “Ignoring contrary data is not just bad practice, in some cases it can rise to the level of scientific misconduct.” Mann said the administration’s actions will harm climate science moving forward. “Since actual scientific consensus behind human-caused climate change is both irrefutable and problematic to their fossil fuel agenda, the administration has chosen to simply reject the scientific consensus, defund the actual science, and literally stop the measurements from taking place,” he said. “Not since Stalin and Soviet Lysenkoism have we seen such a brazen effort to misrepresent science in service of an ideological agenda.”

President Donald Trump responded to a reporter’s question about Friday’s jobs report, which showed a terrifying slowdown in job creation, by claiming it was fabricated by bad actors in the Bureau of Labor Statistics in order to make him look bad.  “Why should anybody trust numbers?” Trump said before launching into a semi-coherent and fictional story about election interference by the BLS. “You go back to Election—Election Day. Look what happened two or three days before with massive wonderful job numbers, trying to get him elected or her elected, trying to get whoever the hell was running—because you go back and they came out with numbers that were very favorable to Kamala, okay. Trying to get him—trying to get her elected. And then on the 15th of November or thereabouts, they had it 8[00] or 900,000 overstatement reduction right after the election. It didn't work because you know who won, John? I won.” x x YouTube Video Trump’s convoluted claim is absolutely false. The “[800] or 900,000 overstatement reduction” he is yammering about was a preliminary downward revision (by 818,000) of job estimates that the BLS announced on Aug. 21, 2024—months before the election. The finalized revision, released in February 2025, was 589,000 fewer jobs—not 900,000, and certainly not part of a plot to elect Kamala Harris. Related | New jobs numbers hint at Great Recession 2.0 Because facts are not Trump’s friend, he fired BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer on Friday after the woeful jobs report was released. Going forward, Trump will likely rant away and spew fabricated facts to make himself feel better whenever bad economic news rears its head.

A cartoon by Brian McFadden. Follow me on Mastodon, Bluesky, Patreon, or at my website. Related | Inside the Trump administration's deranged push to power AI with dirty energy

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know. Thanks, Trump: Stock market tanks amid new tariffs and crappy jobs report So. Much. Winning. Reporter speaks out about why The Washington Post is bleeding talent Yet owner Jeff Bezos keeps bending the knee to Donald Trump. Trump seeks to leave his gold-plated stain on the White House Let them eat cake, indeed. Cartoon: 90 denials in 90 days The president doth protest too much, methinks. Here’s how the Supreme Court is helping Trump put judges at risk The chief justice keeps looking the other way—and the consequences could be deadly. New jobs numbers hint at Great Recession 2.0 The last three jobs reports are the weakest since the COVID-19 crisis Click here to see more cartoons.

If you’re planning a trip to the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History, make sure to check out “The American Presidency: A Glorious Burden,” which will teach you about all the presidents who were impeached or resigned in lieu of impeachment. So there’s Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon, Bill Clinton, and … huh, that’s it.  Yes, if you look for information on President Donald Trump’s two first-term impeachments, you won’t find it in this exhibit. The Smithsonian removed them in July. The renowned museum told NPR it would put them back one day. Sometime in the future. It wouldn’t share a timeline. It happened. Twice. Until that day, if it ever comes, the Smithsonian is a part of Trump’s rewriting of history, one that treats his presidency like an unvarnished success, a testament to the greatness of the man himself. Though the administration very likely forced this removal, the Smithsonian spokesperson is still obliged to pretend this is just a normal thing, no big deal, just regular museum stuff where you have to roll back history 18 years, you know?  “Because the other topics in this section had not been updated since 2008, the decision was made to restore the Impeachment case back to its 2008 appearance,” the museum said in a statement. You see, they can’t include Trump’s impeachments because it’s just so much work to update things, per the administration’s statement to NPR: “A large permanent gallery like The American Presidency that opened in 2000, requires [a] significant amount of time and funding to update and renew. A future and updated exhibit will include all impeachments.”  That explanation might be a little less transparently bullshit if Trump’s twin impeachments hadn’t been included in the exhibit since September 2021.  If you ask the White House, they will explain to you that this is really all about returning America to its former glory and, of course, eradicating forbidden diversity. Per White House spokesperson Davis Ingle, for too long, the Smithsonian “highlighted divisive DEI exhibits which are out of touch with mainstream America,” and that the White House is “fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.”  It’s not just that the administration wants to remove negative history about Trump, though that is a driving force. It’s also about wanting the Republican Party, the federal government, and everyone else to display constant fealty to Trump. That’s why you see GOP proposals to put him on the $100 bill and on Mount Rushmore, to rename parts of the Kennedy Center after him and his wife, and to rename the Washington subway system the “Trump Train.” But it also extends beyond Trump. They want to rewrite American history more broadly so that it panders to those like Trump and his ilk: white, straight, cis, conservative, rich. Vice President JD Vance has been empowered to purge museums of anything that doesn’t align with Trump’s view of American history as an unbroken success story. Trump’s team has demanded that museums and the national parks remove anything that’s supposedly divisive, which broadly translates to things that make white people sad.  It used to feel like saying Trump wanted to memory-hole the history he doesn’t like was a bit of a stretch. These days, though, if anything, it may be an understatement.

A cartoon by Mike Luckovich. Related | Federal employees can now be harassed about religion by their bosses

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know. You'll never believe why Trump claims 'Obama owes me big' News flash: Presidential immunity is beneficial only to presidents who are corrupt. Filing taxes is about to get even harder for non-English speakers It’s just another transparent attack on immigrants. Trump won't rule out pardoning notorious sex offender he partied with His silence speaks volumes. Cartoon: Late night with MAGA The disgust will keep you awake. Sorry, Trump, but Fed Chair Jerome Powell isn't going anywhere No matter how much the president whines and moans. 'Bribery is still illegal': Paramount merger reeks of Trump payoff The message to corporations is clear: Bend the knee or get bent. How an iPhone app became a vital tool in fighting Trump’s ICE goons Let’s hope Apple does the right thing when the app is inevitably targeted. Trump teams wants to rewrite history by axing books on slavery His minions think telling the truth about slavery is “corrosive ideology.” Media keeps caving to Trump, but FCC goon demands even more The Federal Communications Commission chair is pushing for a “course correction.” Click here to see more cartoons.

This confessional was posted to Reddit’s r/centrist community. In it, a Tennessee Democrat explains why he voted for Donald Trump in 2024, despite voting Democratic downballot. I’m sharing it with commentary because it offers a window into Trump’s enduring—and maddening—appeal. ​​I voted for Trump in 2024, it took a lot in me to do it but I did it. I live in Nashville so I voted Trump up top and actually I voted blue all the way down, I am not a huge fan of Tennessee republicans. I find them too extreme, I would consider myself similar to a northeastern republican, or a 90s democrat. I voted the day of, I could’ve early voted but I chose not to because I just couldn’t decide what to do. I didn’t plan to vote for Harris for a variety of reasons that I’ll explain, but it was either Trump or 3rd party. The day of, I chose Trump. First of all, “90s Democrat” is basically code for “not woke.” I’ve written recently about how progressive buzzwords have been an electoral disaster for the left. I watched the debate between Trump and Harris, and just like most people thought, Trump absolutely got his ass beat by Harris. She came off strong, prepared, looked great up there but I just didn’t hear anything new that she was looking to bring to the table that were fresh ideas and she had been the VP for Joe and I wasn’t very happy with Joe Biden’s presidency in all honesty. Didn’t think it was awful, but it wasn’t great either. So Kamala Harris had to bring “something new,” but Trump could recycle his failed first-term talking points? Trump’s always benefited from the bigotry of low expectations—and here it is on full display. Also, Biden wasn’t awful … so bring back the guy whose last presidency was?a When I watched the DNC, I didn’t really see much other than the party turning away from everyday citizens who are looking for a bright future and instead it seemed like DNC was open to big business and corporate donors. I’m all against political parties being bought and paid for so it turned me off to the democrats. This sounds like someone getting their political news from Fox News or Facebook memes. The idea that the DNC is in bed with corporate donors—but the Republican convention wasn’t—is fantasy. For the record, the conventions’ fundraising weren’t that far off, with $95 million for Democrats and $85 million for Republicans. And, yes, Republicans took corporate money. Of course they did. Nutirition is a huge thing for me, I felt RFK joining forces with Trump and talking about getting rid of nitrates, phosphates, corn syrups, seed oils…etc, and trying to reduce the cancer rates and going after corporations who are poisoning our foods everyday. Imagine thinking Trump is going to “go after” corporations—unless they’re run by a liberal or said something mean about him. And Robert F. Kennedy Jr.? He’s a dangerous crank, plain and simple. I felt Trump would calm down the Ukraine/Russia conflict and Trump would use his relationship to Putin to basically say “stop this shit” and create a calmer world for us. Also would work to fix the debt this country is facing, lower inflation, transparency on Epstein files and bring plenty of jobs back to the US. Trump’s greatest power is that his followers believe his lies, dismiss his truths, and when there’s neither, they just make things up. He’s a tabula rasa for projection. This is exhibit A. Here’s where things went south: Epstein files, guy thinks we’re stupid. He campaigns on the Epstein files, realizes he’s on there and now is telling us to stop worrying about it and questioning why we’re still talking about it? Now they’re trying to deflect by talking about Obama. This is embarassing. This guy isn’t MAGA, and to his credit, he says he’s going back to voting Democratic. But he’s right: the Epstein stuff is a genuine vulnerability for Trump. The more he tries to bury it, the more it feeds the narrative that he’s hiding something. Getting rid of the Dept of Education, I know he brought this up during his campaign but I thought he’d be sensible enough to work across the aisle with democrats on this matter but this is insane. He wanted to shut down the Dept of Education with no back up plan other than let the states figure it out. I don’t know if I necessarily trust republicans when it comes to education these days. Trump has never been sensible. He’s never worked with Democrats. Why would anyone think he’d start now? This guy knew what Trump was promising. He doesn’t even trust Republicans on education. And yet  he voted for Trump anyway. I can’t even. “The Big, Beautiful, Bill”, an abhorrently terrible bill that only helps people in the top tax brackets to save money on federal taxes that they don’t need. I make between 51k-100k and I would only save $800 on taxes but the highest tax brackets will save thousands. Why? I could use $5,000 back more than someone who owns a home or two. And the bottom bracket will pay more in taxes. This was by far the worst bill and it benefits the rich and not the working class, young people like myself who voted for Trump. Yes, the GOP passed a tax bill for rich people. This is not a twist ending. This is the brand. Tarrifs: wtf is this guy thinking other countries will pay more, we’re the ones having to foot the cost. This is making things more expensive for us and people up top brag the US has brought in higher amounts of revenue but it’s from our own people, not even other countries. Trump ran on this. He campaigned on it. Again, this guy wasn’t uninformed. So why the shock? Immigration: I’m a traveler, I’ve been to many countries and when you overstay your welcome, immigration will come to your door and ask you to leave so I get that. If you’re in this country and you’ve overstayed your visa, or are not documented, you have to head back and come back the right way. My dad is an immigrant, did all the right things and he’s here and can vote. It should be the same for everyone. BUT, when immigration is coming and going after citizens and not doing their due diligence and checking backgrounds and citizenship and they’re just assuming their illegal than that’s a massive red flag. Trump is basically telling these guys they have free will to do whatever and it’s messed up. Alligator Alcatraz and the living conditions there is ridiculous. Even this guy, who’s mostly supportive of immigration enforcement, recognizes how reckless Trump’s approach is. But he misses the core issue: The economy is heavily dependent on immigrant labor like construction, agriculture, and hospitality. Mass deportations are another inflationary time bomb. Polling shows growing support for immigrants, but much of that is just opposition to Trump’s policies, not a deeper ideological shift. The issue will continue to be a liability for Democrats.  I will absolutely be voting all blue come the midterms and will be voting for a sensible democrat next election. This guy has ruined it for me. We’re a 49-48 Democratic country. We don’t need to win over MAGA. But if we can peel off just 5 points—voters like this guy—we’re suddenly a 54-43 country. That flips more House and Senate seats, gives us cushion for midterms, and opens up red-leaning states to real competition. People like this guy—Democrats who flirted with Trump—are the lowest-hanging fruit. If there’s a silver lining to Trump’s disastrous presidency, it’s that some of them are now ready to come home.

A cartoon by Clay Bennett. Related | Guess who's reportedly named in the Epstein files

Caribbean Matters is a weekly series from Daily Kos. Hope you’ll join us here every Saturday. If you are unfamiliar with the region, check out Caribbean Matters: Getting to know the countries of the Caribbean. Puerto Rico has made it into mainland news headlines recently, and this time it’s not because of Bad Bunny or a hurricane, but for a human-made disaster.  The U.S. territory has launched an attack on trans youth, according to this AP story titled “Puerto Rico bans hormone therapy and gender surgery for trans people under 21”: Puerto Rico’s governor has signed a bill that prohibits hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from activists in the largely conservative U.S. territory. The law approved late Wednesday applies to those younger than 21 and calls for 15 years in prison for any violators, as well as a $50,000 penalty and the revocation of all licenses and permits of medical staff. “Minors, having not yet reached the necessary emotional, cognitive, and physical maturity, are particularly vulnerable to making decisions that can have irreversible consequences,” the law reads. “Therefore, it is the State’s duty to ensure their comprehensive well-being.” It also states that public funds cannot be used for such purposes. Puerto Rico’s LGBTQ+ Federation criticized the law in a statement Thursday. “Let there be no doubt: We will go to court to challenge the constitutionality of the governor’s cruel and inhumane signing of a law that criminalizes health professionals for caring for trans minors,” said Justin Jesús Santiago, the federation’s director. Puerto Rico associations that represent physicians, surgeons, psychologists, social workers, lawyers and other professionals had urged the governor to veto the bill. Roughly two dozen U.S. states have similar laws. xPuerto Rico has just banned gender affirming care for trans people up to age 21. It is now the ban with the highest age limit in the United States. www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-...[image or embed]— Alejandra Caraballo (@esqueer.net) July 17, 2025 at 12:40 PM CBS reported that the new “Puerto Rico law criminalizes hormone therapy and gender-affirming surgery for transgender people under 21”: Puerto Rico's governor has signed a bill that prohibits hormone therapy or gender-affirming surgeries for transgender youth, a move that has drawn sharp criticism from activists in the largely conservative United States territory. Puerto Rican Gov. Jennifer Gonzalez approved the law late Wednesday, following a wave of similar legislation passed across the U.S. The law applies to people younger than 21 and calls for 15 years in prison for any violators, as well as a $50,000 penalty and the revocation of all licenses and permits of medical staff. [...] GLAAD, a nonprofit organization focused on LGBTQ rights advocacy and media monitoring, were among the critics that had urged Gonzalez to veto the bill after it passed through Puerto Rico's legislatures. In a statement released jointly with the LGBTQ+ Federation earlier this month, the organization said such restrictions «would create unbearable burdens for the most marginalized in Puerto Rico.» GLAAD’s statement makes an important point: GLAAD is supporting on-the-ground advocates in raising the alarm about the serious risk the bill poses to transgender people on the island, literally cutting them off from lifesaving care that is supported by every major medical association in the world. Unlike in much of the contiguous U.S., Puerto Ricans are unable to  just drive over to a friendly state to find alternative providers. Transgender people in the territory who lose access would be stranded if they do not have significant money and resources to explore other options for care. Nothing has changed about the care including its safety and efficacy – the bill’s movement is the direct result of an extreme environment of disinformation that’s now infecting U.S. territories where marginalized people are already under greater threat. x3. President of the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation, Pedro Julio Serrano, told Erin in the Morning that because the law was intentionally “vague,” it opens up the very real possibility that not only doctors, but also affirming parents of trans people, could be prosecuted under this law.[image or embed]— Erin Reed (@erininthemorning.com) July 20, 2025 at 3:35 AM Journalist S. Baum weighed in via the Erin in the Morning Substack: Puerto Rican Governor Jenniffer González Colón, a Trump-aligned Republican, signed the most severe ban on gender-affirming care anywhere within the United States or its territories. Act 63-2025, the title of which translates to an “Act for the Protection of the Health and Well-being of Minors in Puerto Rico," criminalizes the provision of gender-affirming hormone treatment or surgery for anyone under the age of 21, even with consenting parents. This can include 15 years in prison, a $50,000 fine, and the loss of any medical certifications. President of the Puerto Rico LGBTQ+ Federation, Pedro Julio Serrano, told Erin in the Morning that because the law was intentionally “vague,” it opens up the very real possibility that not only doctors, but also affirming parents of trans people, could be prosecuted under this law—if they facilitate the provision of hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or affirming medical procedures like “top” surgery. It also directs the Department of Education and Department of Health to wage an “educational” campaign focusing on the “risks” associated with trans-affirming health care, geared towards parents, medical providers, and the “general community.” The law was pushed through the legislative process through a series of non-public hearings, Serrano said. At the recommendation of Puerto Rico’s Health Secretary, Víctor Ramos Otereo—who was appointed by the Governor herself—it was sent back to the legislature; Serrano said Otereo suggested adding amendments that would allow for puberty blockers as well as the continuation of care for trans Puerto Ricans already on HRT. “[Ramos] vehemently told [Governor Colón] to include that language in the bill or not sign the bill,” Serrano said. “Then she signed the bill. So she ignored her own Health Secretary.” This means adolescents and young adults currently on puberty blockers or HRT to treat gender dysphoria are legally required to medically detransition, the results of which could be dangerous and devastating for many young adults and their families. xI'm co-parenting a trans child from Puerto Rico. This news is the stuff of nightmares. We have got to fight back, and hard. www.yahoo.com/news/breakin...[image or embed]— Sasha Costanza-Chock (@schock.cc) July 18, 2025 at 10:23 AM For those of you who are unfamiliar with Puerto Rican politics, the island colony has had a terrible string of Republican governors. It’s hard to name who was the worst of the bunch, but let’s just say they’ve all been pretty awful. I wrote about former Gov. Pedro Pierlusisi here, his predecessor Wanda Vázquez Garced here, and her predecessor Ricardo “Ricky” Rosselló here. Susanne Ramirez de Arellano wrote about González-Colón’s decision to run for governor for Latino Rebels in “Jenniffer González Is More of the Same—and Probably Worse”: The current inhabitant of the Governor’s seat in PR,  Jenniffer González-Colón was elected Governor on November 5, 2024.  She is both a member of the island’s “New Progressive Party” (Partido Nuevo Progresista (PNP) which is in no way progressive, and a Republican, and a former chair of Latinos for Trump” .” González-Colón was an ardent Trump supporter, even after he called Puerto Ricans “dirty and poor” and blocked aid after Hurricane María. She was even one of the chairs of Latinos for Trump during the 2020 presidential campaign. She endorsed Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis in his 2022 reelection bid in Florida, backed disgraced Rep. George Santos in New York last year, and questioned the Puerto Rican identity of Democratic Rep. Alexandra Ocasio-Cortez, a Boricua born in New York.   She is also a staunch advocate of the Jones Act, which is profoundly detrimental to Puerto Rico. She has been fighting to turn the island into one colossal “Opportunity Zone,” which would only spur gentrification and the exodus of even more Boricuas from their homeland. On the other side of all of this negativity are organizations on the island and mainland that support trans folk and are fighting for their rights. Meet some of them here: Arianna’s Center At Arianna’s Center we are the only service and advocacy organization with the mission of supporting and empowering transgender women of color in Florida, Puerto Rico, or wherever there is a need for such service. We provide outpatient HIV/AIDS testing services, support with social workers, legal name changing services, referral for legal help, access to personal medical services and emotional health. We offer specific programs for Transmen and shelter for trans women who have been detained by ICE or have been incarcerated. We provide GED scholarship programs to pursue their high-school degree, personalized support for technical career pursuing and guidance to our clients on how to enter the world of work. We train our Trans and LGBTIQ+ community in advocacy, making them more active at a political level, supporting elected government leaders in establishing policies and policies that ensure the well-being of our communities in new laws for a better quality of life and laws in the field of HIV AIDS. x YouTube Video Gilead Sciences is proud to support Arianna’s Center, an advocacy organization deeply rooted in the Latinx transgender community that is committed to providing more equitable access to necessary HIV resources and supporting the unique needs of the trans people in South Florida and Puerto Rico. Arianna's Center is a recipient of grant funding from Gilead Sciences. Waves Ahead Puerto Rico We offer support to the marginalized and vulnerable sectors of society by giving them the necessary help to strengthen their community and family environment. Waves Ahead Puerto Rico and its Community Center provides advocacy and services for the LGBT+ older adults. We offer supportive, free and accessible services for all with particular emphasis on LGBT+ people over 50. We have service centers located in the north, south, west and east of the island. Our community center is the center for everyone. x YouTube Video The TransLatin@ Coalition in Puerto Rico Defending TGI Rights in Puerto Rico The TransLatin@ Coalition is committed to ensuring that the voices and rights of Transgender, Gender Expansive, and Intersex (TGI) people in Puerto Rico are not only recognized but prioritized. As part of our national agenda, we extend our policy and advocacy programs to the island to address the unique challenges faced by TGI communities in U.S. territories. La Federación LGBTQ+ de Puerto Rico (Translated from Spanish} A group of LGBTQ+ and allied organizations, which formed the United Front for Equity during the last election cycle, announced the creation of the LGBTQ+ Federation of Puerto Rico to maintain the collective work space in order to defend the dignity of LGBTQ+ people in the country. Puerto Rico Para Tod@s Executive Director Pedro Julio Serrano weighed in on the bill in a tweet saying, “The Lgbtq+ Federation of Puerto Rico denounced “the governor's cruel and inhumane signing of a law that criminalizes health professionals for caring for transgender minors and makes them even more precarious.” xLa Federación Lgbtq+ de Puerto Rico denunció «la firma cruel e inhumana por parte de la gobernadora de una ley que criminaliza a los profesionales de la salud por cuidar a los menores trans y les precariza aún más. youtu.be/PjbkOaljTXY?...[image or embed]— Pedro Julio Serrano (@pedrojulio.com) July 17, 2025 at 11:34 AM House of Grace Among the rocks of their Caribbean archipelago, a group of trans artists and creatives in Puerto Rico have found their safe port. It is a harbor offering them safety and affirmation amid choppy waters. Both a natural resource and cultural construct, it has an appropriately reverential name: House of Grace. House of Grace was founded by María José, a transdisciplinary artist and activist, in the months after Puerto Rico was ravaged by Hurricane Maria in 2017. In the midst of natural disasters and a global pandemic, when rains have flooded and the earth has been shaken, the dancers, performers and writers who make up the House have laid down collective roots, built trust and chosen one another. Despite its name, the House is not a physical domicile but instead a group who work to take care of themselves, and to uplift each other’s power, beauty, and artistic talents amid a worsening culture of discrimination against queer and trans people. Over time, House of Grace has evolved into a tight-knit yet welcoming community—and a family. Brut America produced a video titled “House of Grace: Meet the Trans Youth of Puerto Rico”: x YouTube Video There were quite a few news stories on Puerto Rican television about the bill as well. I won’t post them here, because there are no subtitles, but will post them in the comments section below. Please join me there for the weekly Caribbean news roundup.

People feel disconnected from politics and government. And that disconnection leads them to vote based on nonissues like trans athletes. The best way to reconnect them? Make it blazingly obvious how the government helps them.  For example, don’t just hide benefits in obscure tax credits or long-horizon infrastructure projects. Send them freakin’ checks. President Donald Trump is the dumbest motherfucker to ever occupy the Oval Office—but, damn, he knows how to rally the masses. When COVID-19 stimulus checks went out under his watch, he made sure that his name was on them. In contrast, President Joe Biden reverted to letting the Treasury secretary sign them, a mistake he recently admitted was “stupid.” Now Trump is toying with the idea of sending Americans checks funded by tariff revenue.  A COVID-19 stimulus check with President Donald Trump’s name on it. “We’re thinking about that actually. We have so much money coming in, we’re thinking about a little rebate,” Trump told reporters before heading off to Scotland on Friday. He said that the rebate might go to “people of a certain income level, adding that “the big thing we want to do is pay down debt. But we’re thinking about a rebate.” It’s worth noting that paying down debt was the original justification Trump gave for his economy-destroying tariffs—and, yes, higher prices are coming. But voters don’t actually care about debt. They say they do, but it’s not how they vote.  The deficit and debt are abstract, disconnected from people’s daily struggles—just like climate change often is. What voters do respond to is someone promising to lower prices or offer free stuff—like lower prices on Day 1 and free buses. Direct checks are politically potent. If Democrats had converted the Child Tax Credit into monthly payments signed by Biden, they could have campaigned in 2024 with a simple message: “Republicans will cancel your checks. Vote accordingly.” Now imagine Trump distributing tariff rebates to voters. Republicans in 2026 or 2028 could easily say, “Democrats will repeal those tariffs and cancel your checks.” Even if the counterargument is that the tariffs cost more than the check is worth, that’s a hard message to land. So far, Trump’s tariffs have brought in $113 billion over the past 9 months. Assuming that none of those tariff revenues offset the massive $3.4 trillion in new debt created by the GOP’s “One Big, Beautiful Bill,” that works out to a one-time payment of $437 per person—or about $48 a month. Not nothing, but not life-changing either. President Donald Trump announces his tariffs on “Liberation Day.” Looking forward, the Tax Foundation estimates that Trump’s tariffs will generate $2.5 trillion over the next decade. That’s about $245.5 billion per year. Divide that by 336 million Americans, and it comes to roughly $731 a year, or $61 a month. That’s better than current levels, given that many of Trump’s proposed tariffs are still in limbo, but again, it won’t move the economic needle for most people. Trump did say that the checks would go to people “of a certain income level,” which means they could be targeted toward his working class base and end up larger than the estimated $61 monthly payment. But that same Tax Foundation model also projects that Trump’s tariffs will shrink GDP by nearly a percentage point and eliminate almost 800,000 jobs.  The economic damage would be real—and it would disproportionately hurt the very same low-income workers that these checks are supposedly meant to help. Still, it’s good politics. And it’s the kind of thing that Democrats should have been doing all along—just without the economic destruction.  And our version should make the richest 1% pay for it.

Federal Communications Commission Chair Brendan Carr was asked about Stephen Colbert, whose show was canceled in what many view as a craven concession to appease President Donald Trump, during an appearance on CNBC Friday. “They have such a storied history, and it's sort of sad to see what's happening to Colbert. They obviously can't get it done. They're not making money over there. But I think they need a course correction. And frankly, I think, you know, the media industry across this country needs a course correction,” he said. x x YouTube Video Carr was on the show to discuss approving a multibillion-dollar merger between Paramount and Skydance, which came just weeks after the media giant paid Trump $16 million to settle his frivolous lawsuit—a lawsuit that was mocked by “South Park,” a Paramount-distributed show.  Anna Gomez, the sole Democratic-appointed FCC commissioner, castigated Paramount’s “months of cowardly capitulation to this Administration.”  When asked about her statement condemning the obvious bribe and violation of the First Amendment, Carr responded, “I think it's time for a change.” x x YouTube Video While CBS claimed that Colbert’s late night show was canceled for financial reasons, it’s been widely criticized as disingenuous. And as Carr defends President Donald Trump ’s war on the First Amendment as an effort to combat “bias” against the right, his actions prove otherwise.

A cartoon by Jack Ohman. Related | CBS cancels Trump critic Colbert's 'Late Show'—and faces sharp blowback

Lee Zeldin might be dismantling the Environmental Protection Agency bit by bit, but at least he’s making gas cans great again. The EPA administrator announced Friday that he had made an official plea to gas-can manufacturers, begging them to change their spout designs.  “Gas cans used to POUR gas. Now they just DRIBBLE like a child's sippy cup. The Trump EPA’s message to gas can makers: VENT THE DARN CAN and let it FLOW BABY FLOW!” he wrote on X. In a memo sent to can manufacturers, Zeldin’s EPA encouraged the designers to stop making cans in compliance with a 2009 EPA standard that was meant to cut down on the release of harmful greenhouse gases.  On one hand, the frustration among consumers using gas cans seems to be more than just among a sparse few. However, as Zeldin wages public battles with plastic cans, he has also been wreaking havoc on his environmental colleagues. Last week, Zeldin announced his plans to shut down the scientific research arm of the EPA.  «Under President Trump's leadership, EPA has taken a close look at our operations to ensure the agency is better equipped than ever to deliver on our core mission of protecting human health and the environment while powering the great American comeback,» Zeldin said in a statement. «This reduction in force will ensure we can better fulfill that mission while being responsible stewards of your hard-earned tax dollars.» A sign protesting emissions from oil and gas stands across from Lybrook Elementary School, in Counselor, New Mexico, Navajo Nation, on March 11. Zeldin’s plan is to shutter the Office of Research and Development, which oversees studies into the harms of toxic chemicals, wildfires, climate change, drinking-water pollutants, and more. And less oversight and public awareness is just what the chemical industry wants. All of this fits into Zeldin’s other work since taking on his role at the EPA.  Since January, he has cut the workforce, including scientists and researchers, and pulled critical research grants across the country. And as he seeks to hamper the EPA’s ability to do its job, he has also made it easier for companies to bypass regulations as well. From no longer collecting most greenhouse-gas data to allowing companies to opt out of regulations by emailing in their requests, Zeldin has been hard at work.  After all, it was his initial plan to “driv[e] a dagger” through the heart of “climate-change religion.” And now the world gets to suffer from that wound.

Even in an era where every new presidential executive order is a body blow, President Donald Trump’s “Ending Crime and Disorder on America’s Streets” is particularly awful. Ostensibly about “making America safe again and ending homelessness,” per the ever-mendacious White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt, it’s nothing but criminalizing homelessness, substance use disorders, and mental health issues.  And, like so many things in the Trump era, the right-wing justices on the Supreme Court cleared the way for this cruelty.  The first part of the order purports to be about “restoring civil commitment,” which is nothing but a call for mass institutionalization of people experiencing substance use issues or a mental health crisis. Civil commitment has never gone away, so there’s nothing to be restored as such.  Every state has laws providing for involuntary commitment, but those generally have far higher barriers to entry than those preferred by conservatives. What this boils down to is that right-wingers haven’t yet managed to figure out a way to arrest and imprison people simply based on their diagnoses, so they need a different approach. The approach here is just to demand that states lock people up anyway, albeit under the guise of “civil” commitment.  But what to do with people who aren’t suffering an acute mental health crisis but are unhoused? How can Trump impose some sort of cruel incarceration on them as well? Well, by trying to force states and cities to criminalize urban camping, “loitering,” and “squatting.” The latter two are inflammatory terms meant to make it sound nefarious that the unhoused get to be out in public, standing around. xTrump on homelessness: «Tents -- I'm getting rid of them right now. You can't do that, especially in Washington DC. I talk to the mayor about it all the time. I said, 'you gotta get rid of the tents.' When leaders come to see me to make a trade deal & there's tents outside the WH, you can't have it»[image or embed]— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) July 25, 2025 at 10:08 AM And here’s where the Supreme Court comes in. In 2024, the court decided Grants Pass v. Johnson. There, the conservative majority ruled that cities could impose criminal penalties on people sleeping or camping in public places, even if there were not enough available shelter beds. As repugnant as that decision was, it obviously couldn’t force states or municipalities to adopt those criminal penalties, and executive orders aren’t law, as much as Trump wants them to be. Additionally, those orders really, really, really can’t bind states thanks to that whole federalism/Tenth Amendment thing on which our democracy is theoretically still based.  Never fear, though. The order has a solution. For grants from the Departments of Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, or Transportation, priority will be given to states and municipalities that adopt policies making it easier to arrest the unhoused.  That approach is unforgivable on its face, but it’s also bad policy. Any pretense that the administration cares about anything except cruelty is belied by the fact that it has already slashed billions from programs that help people.  Conservatives loathe “Housing First” policies, which prioritize getting people into secure and sustainable housing where things like treatment options are available, but not mandated. Instead, they want people forced into a cycle of forced treatment and incarceration, their vision of the appropriate “punishment” for poverty. Housing First efforts result in better results for the whole community by providing housing stability.  Conservatives also hate harm reduction efforts, which focus on lessening the harmful effects of substance use with efforts like providing fentanyl test strips or clean needles. Exposing people with substance use disorders to as much danger as possible should not be a viable policy position, but it is one held by a majority of conservatives. The executive order is a permission slip to stigmatize and incarcerate people rather than helping.  But hey, wait, conservatives love the troops, right? Surely they want to make sure that struggling vets get housing? Not so much. They’ve slashed programs that help vets pay for housing. And while Trump made a big splash demanding that the Department of Veterans Affairs  house 6,000 unhoused veterans in West Los Angeles by the end of his term, there are no real details or money attached to making that happen. Also, good luck with that, given that overall cuts to the VA will help grind that agency’s effectiveness to a halt.  Always money for cruelty, never for compassion. It’s the hallmark of the Trump era.

Disgraced former GOP Rep. George Santos of New York reported to federal prison Friday to begin his sentence of more than seven years. He pleaded guilty in April to a series of fraud schemes ranging from wire fraud to aggravated identity theft. But if you thought he would go quietly, think again. In true Santos fashion, he’s spent the past few weeks making the rounds on podcasts—including Tucker Carlson’s—posting lengthy farewells on social media, and sending cameo videos to fans for more than $300 each. On Wednesday, he posted a clip on X of Frank Sinatra’s “My Way,” complete with the line, “And now the end is near / and so I face the final curtain.”  Then on Thursday, Santos wrote a rhinestone-studded goodbye on X. Santos arrives at federal court for his sentencing on April 25. “Well, darlings… The curtain falls, the spotlight dims, and the rhinestones are packed. From the halls of Congress to the chaos of cable news what a ride it’s been! Was it messy? Always. Glamorous? Occasionally. Honest? I tried… most days,” he wrote. “To my supporters: You made this wild political cabaret worth it. To my critics: Thanks for the free press. I may be leaving the stage (for now), but trust me legends never truly exit.” Later that evening, he hosted a final 90-minute X Spaces call, which at one point had more than 800 listeners, according to ABC News. When asked about the possibility of a presidential pardon, Santos replied, “The only person that could answer that question is, you know, whoever the President of the United States is—in this case, President Donald Trump.” He also got emotional during the stream, thanking his supporters, getting choked up, and insisting that he wouldn’t repeat his mistakes.  “Make better choices, be smarter than me, that’s for sure. I’ve made a string of shit choices in my life and for that, I’m sorry,” he said. “We built common ground through trust and transparency, and I wouldn't have done it any other way.” Ginger Gaetz, wife of disgraced former GOP Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, was among those who called in to wish Santos well. And he got in a few final jabs, calling his sentence excessive. “There's something to be said about the prison industrial complex, by the way. They’re selling fucking Twinkies for $5,” he said. “I mean, they have to be making banging profits. I mean, I’m thinking maybe when I get out of prison, I open a prison.”  Santos while still a representative He also joked about bad advice he’s received—like fighting the biggest guy on the inside—and said he planned to bring only a notepad, a Bible from his grandmother, and a pocket copy of the U.S. Constitution. He added that he hopes to teach civics while behind bars. Santos rose to fame in 2022 after flipping a House seat on Long Island. But by 2023, the lies had caught up with him. Reporters uncovered discrepancies in his résumé and campaign filings, while prosecutors alleged he had defrauded donors, misused funds, and stolen identities to rack up fraudulent charges. He was ultimately expelled from the House in December 2023, becoming the sixth member in history to face such a punishment. He pleaded guilty before trial to 23 counts—including fraud, money laundering, and false statements—and he was sentenced to 87 months in prison and ordered to pay nearly $600,000 in restitution and forfeitures.  Santos closed his X Spaces stream by urging people to come together across political divides. “I hope you all keep doing exactly what you’ve been doing, which is keeping each other honest and engaging in very much needed discourse,” he said. “We are in a time in our [lives] where we need to come closer as humans and not further.” Even in his final moments of freedom, Santos didn’t shy away from settling scores—or playing the tragic star of his own political cabaret.