The stories you want. The opinions that matter.
No, thanks
{{ site.specific_data.Twitter }}
'Changes Are Coming!': Trump Abruptly Admits Farms Rely On Migrant Workers

'Changes Are Coming!': Trump Abruptly Admits Farms Rely On Migrant Workers

President Donald Trump acknowledged on Thursday that his aggressive and controversial immigration policies are stripping undocumented immigrants from the farming and agriculture workforce. Now, he declares, “Changes are coming!”

Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, reportedly at the direction of White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, have been specifically targeting farms to detain and deport undocumented workers.

“The border is no longer the focus,” Reasonmaazine reported Wednesday. “Now, the administration seemingly believes that the [immigration] crisis extends to nail salons, hardware stores, farms, and restaurants across the country, where undocumented immigrants who are peacefully exchanging labor for dollars are being targeted.”

The Trump administration “is ramping up immigration raids across the country, and farm workers are no longer being spared. Almost half of the more than 850,000 crop workers in the US are undocumented, the Department of Agriculture estimates,” according to Bloomberg News.

One raid at an Omaha, Nebraska, meat plant reportedly netted 70 detentions this week, and now the facility is operating with just one-third of its staff, Bloomberg reported.

President Trump may be hearing some of the many stories.

In a cryptic message on Thursday, he wrote: “Our great Farmers and people in the Hotel and Leisure business have been stating that our very aggressive policy on immigration is taking very good, long time workers away from them, with those jobs being almost impossible to replace. In many cases the Criminals allowed into our Country by the VERY Stupid Biden Open Borders Policy are applying for those jobs. This is not good. We must protect our Farmers, but get the CRIMINALS OUT OF THE USA. Changes are coming!”

He did not provide any details.

Critics mocked Trump.

“The president of the United States is seemingly unaware that his administration recently ordered ICE to round up and deport immigrants who haven’t committed crimes … like those who work in tourism and agriculture,” observed MSNBC columnist Michael A. Cohen, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic Studies.

“Breaking News,” snarked Spencer Hakimian, a hedge fund chief investment officer. “The guy that spent the first 70 years of his life in construction, hospitality, and entertainment, accidentally finds out that our entire labor force runs off of illegal immigration. Oops!”

“Turns out,” California Governor Gavin Newsom wrote, “chasing hard working people through ranches and farms and snatching women and children off the streets is not good policy.”

But The New Republic’s Greg Sargent took a wider view.

“Trump just admitted that his mass deportations are bad for farmers and the economy, and crucially, also admitted that workers who are getting deported are ‘almost impossible to replace.’ That’s a massive repudiation of MAGA ideology,” Sargent wrote.

“It’s an enormous admission, both that his deportation policies are terrible *and* that he knows they’re awful politics for him,” he added.

“Every prominent Democrat in the country should jump on this immediately,” Sargent urged. “Enough b——- cowering on this issue. Get on this! Trump just handed you a massive weapon. Use it!”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Rambling Incoherently On War, Trump Threatens Protesters With 'Very Big Force'

Rambling Incoherently On War, Trump Threatens Protesters With 'Very Big Force'

President Donald Trump made a series of inaccurate claims in his remarks on Tuesday, conflating World War I and World War II, incorrectly suggesting he spoke with the governor of California on Monday when it was just after midnight Saturday morning, and asserting—contrary to the First Amendment—that protests, even peaceful ones, can be shut down with “heavy force.”

During remarks to reporters in the Oval Office, Trump was asked when he last spoke with California Governor Gavin Newsom. “

A day ago,” he said Tuesday afternoon, which was three and a half days after the governor confirmed his phone call. Trump also confirmed the call by sending a screenshot to a Fox News reporter. The screenshot read June 7, 1:23 AM.

“Recently, other countries celebrated the victory of World War I, France was celebrating, really,” Trump told troops at Fort Bragg on Tuesday afternoon. “They were all celebrating. The only one that doesn’t celebrate is the USA and we’re the ones that won the war. Without us, you’d all be speaking German right now. Maybe a little Japanese thrown in. But we won the war.”

The United States was part of a coalition during both WWI and WWII. Trump was speaking about WWI, but then claimed, “Without us, you’d all be speaking German right now. Maybe a little Japanese.”

That’s a reference to World War II—Japan was on the side of the Allies, with the U.S., in WWI.

Also on Tuesday, Trump declared that anyone caught protesting his controversial military parade on Saturday will be met with “very heavy force,” despite the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution clearly protecting political protests.

“We won the war, and we’re the only country that didn’t celebrate it, and we’re going to be celebrating big on Saturday,” Trump claimed. Veterans Day was initially created as Armistice Day to honor those who died in World War I.

“And if there’s any protestor that wants to come out, they will be met with very big force. By the way, for those people that want to protest, they’re gonna be met with very big force. And I haven’t even heard about a protest, but, you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very heavy force.”

The First Amendment protects both political speech and the right to “petition the government for a redress of grievances.”

Trump did not state “violent protestors,” or “rioters.” He said “any protestor.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

U.S. Senator Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

Senators Roast Trump's FDA Chief Over Fired Scientists

The Commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration, Marty Makary, came under strong criticism for his inconsistent remarks before a Senate Appropriations subcommittee after the accuracy of his claims related to terminated scientists and others was called into question by Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA).

"You were asked on April 17th whether any of the personnel reductions had included personnel responsible for food safety or infant formula safety," Ossoff told Makary. "You said, quote, 'There were no cuts to scientists or reviewers or inspectors—absolutely none'. You were asked on April 23rd on CNN, and said, quote, 'Again, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors'."

"But then just two days later, an HHS spokesperson confirmed that in fact, scientists had been fired, and that you were scrambling to rehire them," Ossoff continued. "Did you, in fact, say on April 23d, there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors? Just before we get into the details, is that an accurate quote?"

"No scientific reviewer was cut as part of the reduction in force," replied Makary.

"You said there were no cuts to scientists or inspectors. Didn't you say that?" Ossoff pressed.

"My understanding," Makary replied, "was that there were no cuts to the scientific staff, but specifically the scientific reviewers is what I was referring to."

"But you said there were," Ossoff responded.

A similar back and forth continued for several minutes, then Ossoff asked, "Had, in fact, scientists who study outbreaks of food related illnesses and the safety of infant formula been fired?"

"The reason it's not accurate, Senator, is that people were not fired, they were scheduled for the reduction in force, and when that was before I got there. When I got there, we did an assessment, and so some of those individuals out of the 19,000 were restored," Makary replied.

"Have all scientists responsible for food safety and infant formula safety, been rehired or reinstated?" Ossoff asked.

"Look, we have not reduced in force the scientific review staff. I know where you're going with this," Makary replied.

"You said there were no cuts to scientists, and then the HHS spokesperson said, actually, there were cuts to scientists, and now we're trying to rehire them. I mean, so it gives the impression you're not sure about the personnel actions ongoing in your own agency," said Ossoff.

After more back-and-forth, Ossoff wrapped it up: "You were very specific. You said there were no cuts to scientists. And then five days later, there were cuts to scientists. Those are your direct quotes. There were no cuts to scientists, but there were cuts to scientists."

Again, more back-and-forth and then Makary appeared to grow frustrated.

"I mean, this is the problem in government. Somebody has a fancy sounding name like, 'Infant Formula Safety,' and no one can ever touch them, even if they're not doing their job."

During his testimony, Makary also declared to another Senator, "By the way, America doesn't want COVID boosters."

And a third chastised him, saying: "You're prepared for a question that I didn't ask ... I'm asking you what are you doing about bird flu! Just answer that. Please. Don't give me a runaround about other stuff."

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Pete Hegseth

Hegseth Promotes Pentagon Religious Service Preaching God 'Anointed' Trump

U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, an Evangelical Christian whose religious tattoos drew scrutiny during his confirmation hearings, led a Christian prayer service in the Pentagon auditorium during official working hours on Wednesday. The event featured Secretary Hegseth's personal pastor from Tennessee, Brooks Potteiger, and included remarks describing President Donald Trump as “sovereignly appointed," according toThe New York Times.

"This morning at 9:00 AM the Office of the Secretary of Defense sent out what appears to be a building wide email to the entire Pentagon inviting everyone to a 'Christian prayer service and worship' in the Pentagon auditorium," wrote Fred Wellman, who writes "On Democracy" at Substack. Wellman is a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School, an Army veteran of 22 years who served four combat tours, and a political consultant. "Not the chapel. The auditorium."

"This is a clear and direct violation by a Cabinet member of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and is a direct violation of military norms, traditions, and regulations by the senior official of the entire military," Wellman alleged.

"The defense secretary said that attendance at the prayer service was voluntary," the Times added, "but encouraged the uniformed military personnel and civilian employees there to tell their co-workers about it."

Politico Pentagon and national security reporter Paul McLeary noted that there was even an official government email address on the invitation, "to RSVP to this 30 minute event in the middle of a workday."

The Atlantic's Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and expert on national security, added: "The RSVP is a nice touch, so that they know who's on board."

He also weighed in more broadly:

"Not sure of the constitutionality here - not a lawyer! - but years ago, one of the War Colleges used to do this with 'voluntary' Bible study opportunities that had the same kind of roster-taking, and that went away pronto after complaints and an investigation," Nichols wrote.

Last week, the Freedom From Religion Foundation published a report stating that Pastor Potteiger is "known for promoting Christian nationalist views," and claimed that Wednesday's event "is expected to be a monthly prayer gathering. According to Potteiger, the event will include Christian preaching, proselytizing and the recitation of the Lord’s Prayer — all within one of the most powerful institutions of the U.S. government."

“This is a blatant violation of the First Amendment and its proscription of religion in government,” FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor said in a statement. “Assuming the pastor’s boast is true, these prayer meetings would not only exclude and marginalize the significant number of nonreligious and non-Christian service members, they will send the impermissible message that Christianity is the Pentagon’s preferred faith.”

"Turning the Pentagon into a church service during duty hours isn’t just inappropriate — it’s unconstitutional," FFRF also said. "We’ve sent a letter demanding an end to this blatant breach of the First Amendment."

In January, before he was confirmed, The Guardian reported that in "a series of newly unearthed podcasts, Pete Hegseth, Donald Trump’s pick for defense secretary, appears to endorse the theocratic and authoritarian doctrine of 'sphere sovereignty', a worldview derived from the extremist beliefs of Christian reconstructionism (CR) and espoused by churches aligned with far-right Idaho pastor Douglas Wilson."

Others are also blasting the decision to hold a Christian prayer service inside the Pentagon.

"Hegseth continues to propagate christian white nationalism, while undermining the separation of church and state and the norms of civil-military relations," wrote retired U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, the former Director of European Affairs for the U.S. National Security Council, whose whistleblower efforts led to the first impeachment of Donald Trump.

"This is what Christian nationalism looks like: the government using its power to push religion from the top down, said Max Flugrath, Communications Director for Fair Fight Action.

In February, author Brian Kaylor, a Baptist minister with a Ph.D. in political communication, posted a video from a Pentagon town hall where Secretary Hegseth began his remarks by declaring, “All glory to God.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg

Judge Threatens White House With Contempt Over Deportation Order

Citing a “willful disregard,” Chief U.S. District Judge James Boasberg has found probable cause that the Trump administration could be held in criminal contempt of court after officials defied his order to not remove Venezuelan migrants from the country based on a centuries-old wartime law.

Boasberg, first appointed to the federal bench by President George W. Bush, on Wednesday “said he would launch proceedings to determine whether to hold Trump administration officials in criminal contempt,” The Washington Post reported.

Pointing to the “broader showdown between the Trump administration and the federal judiciary,” the Post reported that Boasberg “[said] the Trump administration’s actions on March 15, as the removal flights proceeded despite his order to the contrary, ‘demonstrate a willful disregard … sufficient for the Court to conclude that probable cause exists to find the Government in criminal contempt.'”

The judge wrote: “The Court does not reach such conclusion lightly or hastily; indeed, it has given Defendants ample opportunity to rectify or explain their actions. None of their responses has been satisfactory.”

But Boasberg also offered the administration some options: essentially, file “a declaration explaining the steps they have taken and will take to do so,” or, file “declaration(s) identifying the individual(s) who, with knowledge of the Court’s classwide Temporary Restraining Order, made the decision not to halt the transfer of class members out of U.S. custody on March 15 and 16, 2025.”

Attorney Aaron Reichlin-Melnick explains that Boasberg ordered “them either to fix their mistake, or identify who made those decisions (presumably for further sanctions).”

“The Constitution,” Boasberg also wrote, citing previous rulings, “does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make ‘a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’

Watch CNN’s report below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Stephen Miller

Trump And Miller Brazenly Lie About Unanimous Supreme Court Order

Backing up the Trump administration, the President of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, says he has no intention or ability to return an unlawfully removed Maryland legal resident, Kilmar Abrego García, to the United States. Abrego García was wrongly deported to a notorious maximum security “mega-prison” for terrorists in El Salvador.

“How can I return him to the United States?” President Bukele said to reporters on Monday, during a meeting with President Donald Trump and his top officials in the Oval Office, as reported by The Washington Post. “I smuggle him into the United States? Of course I’m not going to do it.”

Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court in an apparent unanimous opinion ordered the Trump administration to “facilitate” the return of Abrego García to the United States.

Minutes before President Bukele’s remarks, White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller, on-camera in the Oval Office, delivered what is being called an “outrageous misinterpretation” of the Supreme Court’s opinion, which was quickly condemned.

“I promise you, if he was your neighbor, you would move right away,” Miller, who was the architect of the first Trump administration’s child separation policy, told reporters.

“What was the ruling in the Supreme Court, Steve, was it nine to nothing?” President Trump interjected.

“Yes, it was a 9-0, in our favor,” Miller wrongly claimed. “against the district court ruling, saying that no district court has the power to compel the foreign policy function of the United States.”

“As Pam said,” Miller continued, referring to Attorney General Pam Bondi, “the ruling solely stated that if this individual—at El Salvador’s sole discretion—was sent back to our country, that we could deport him a second time.”

“No version of this legally ends up with him ever living here, because he is a citizen of El Salvador,” Miller claimed, before pointing reporters to Bukele.

“That is the president of El Salvador. Your questions about it per the court can only be directed to him,” said Miller.

Attorney Michael Kasdan responded to Miller’s remarks: “We have reached the point where the White House openly lies on television about what a unanimous Supreme Court ruling against them says. The stuff of dystopian novels.”

“This is a blatant lie. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 AGAINST Trump,” wrote the progressive nonprofit People For the American Way.

“This is deeply Orwellian. The Court ruled against the Trump administration 9-0,” observed the MeidasTouch Network.

Conservative legal activist and political commentator Ed Whelan, who clerked for U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, weighed in.

“Outrageous misrepresentation of Supreme Court ruling,” Whelan declared, serving up a somewhat technical legal analysis. “The unanimous Court ruled that the district-court order ‘properly requires the Government to ‘facilitate’ Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’ Yes, the Court also stated that the “intended scope of the term ‘effectuate’ in the District Court’s order is, however, unclear, and may exceed the District Court’s authority,” and it told the district court to ‘clarify its directive, with due regard for the deference owed to the Executive Branch in the conduct of foreign affairs.’ But: (1) ‘due regard’ doesn’t mean that the district court couldn’t give any teeth to ‘effectuate’; (2) in any event, the district court dropped ‘effectuate’ from its revised order, so this is all irrelevant. Duty to ‘facilitate’ continues.”

Commenting on the video, immigration attorney Allen Orr Jr. Esq. wrote: “When you tell yourself the story you want to believe even when it is fiction.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump

As Stocks Spike Upward, Rumors Surge Over Insider Trading

After one of the best days on Wall Street since World War II, fueled by President Donald Trump and his team's conflicting messages and actions on tariffs, questions are swirling over possible insider trading, market manipulation, and "pump and dump" schemes.

President Trump's announcement that he is pausing most of the increased tariffs that went into effect at midnight was met with glee by investors but with questions by critics who note that the President, just minutes after the markets opened Wednesday morning, had declared it a "great time to buy." Less than four hours later, upon news breaking of his "pause" announcement, stock prices surged.

The Dow closed up almost 3000 points, and the S&P 500 surged 9.5 percent, its biggest increase since 2008.

Some critics say the optics are even worse given that Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, following the President’s market-shaking “pause” announcement, reportedly told reporters it had been the plan all along.

“Is this market manipulation?" asked Rep. Steven Horsford (D-NV), in a hearing Thursday afternoon, questioning Trump Trade Representative Jamieson Greer.

"No," Greer replied.

"Why not? If it was a plan, if it was always a plan, how is this not market manipulation?" Horsford insisted, appearing to refer to Secretary Bessent's prior remarks.

"It's not market manipulation, sir," Greer added.

"Well, then what is it?" an angered Horsford demanded. "'Cause it sure is not a strategy."

"We're trying to reset the global trade system," Greer continued.

"What has that done?" Horsford interjected. "How have you achieved any of that? But to enact enormous harm on the American people, which was our concern from the very beginning, Tariffs are a tool. It can be used in the appropriate way to protect U.S. jobs and small businesses. But that's not what this does. So, if it's not market manipulation, what is it? Who's benefiting? What billionaire just got richer?"

"But meanwhile, the Speaker is rushing to the floor to pass a budget reconciliation to screw America by passing the biggest tax cut in history — on the backs of the American people? W.T.F.! Who's in charge? Because it's sure doesn't look like it's the trade representative. You just got the rug pulled out from under you."

Journalist Ahmed Eldin writes, "Trump tells followers to buy when market opens, then hours later, he pauses tariffs — stocks surge. Totally normal! Just your average day of legal-ish insider trading and market manipulation. Corruption is trading at an all-time high."

On Wednesday afternoon, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-CA) announced that he will be "writing to the White House to demand who knew in advance that the president was once again going to flip flop on tariffs —and are people cashing in?"

"There is just all too much opportunity for people in the White House and the administration to be insider trading and you can't put it past them for a minute," he said. "I think Congress should do an investigation into this, but we're gonna demand answers from the administration."'

"This will come out," Schiff vowed, "but an administration that has their own meme coins and has already engaged in self interested dealing with Elon is 'DOGEing' agencies that are doing oversight in his own businesses, and that kind of corrupt climate, you have to assume the worst, and we're gonna try to find out."

Attorney Jackie Singh, a cybersecurity, privacy, and cybercrime expert, posted a CNBC screenshot with the headline: "White House insists Trump's tariff reversal was his strategy all along."

"Yes," she writes, "pump & dump schemes were previously an exclusive realm of fraudsters, and considered prosecutable criminal activity–Now neatly employed by the President of the United States (also a fraudster)."

Political strategist Chris D. Jackson writes, "So he caved after he said he wouldn't. Was this all a big market manipulation scheme?"

International security analyst Matthew VanDyke insisted the Trump administration "is going to be investigated for market manipulation."

"Somebody just made BILLIONS off this tariff-based manipulation of the markets," noted attorney Tristan Snell, who prosecuted the Trump University case for the State of New York. "And it wasn’t any of us."

"Historian here," writes Professor of history Manisha Sinha, "while they are tanking the U.S. economy the White House and Trumps cronies are making millions from market manipulation and speculation."

SiriusXM host John Fugelsang wrote: "This isn't The Art of the Deal. It's insider trading with a bad comb-over."

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Worse Than Signalgate? New Security Lapse Bombshell Hits White House

Worse Than Signalgate? New Security Lapse Bombshell Hits White House

Less than two weeks ago there was SignalGate, the Trump administration’s national security scandal that potentially endangered the lives of U.S. service members, and risked exposing military plans, by using an insecure channel to discuss, map out, and announce progress of an attack in Yemen. Then there was the Trump administration’s passwords scandal, where passwords, email addresses, and phone numbers of top Trump national security officials were easily found online. And just yesterday, GmailGate, the Trump administration’s use of the even less-secure commercial email app, to conduct government business.

All three crises involved President Donald Trump’s national security team, including White House national security adviser Mike Waltz, who admitted to setting up the insecure Signal chat.

On Wednesday afternoon, Politico reported that Waltz’s team actually had set up 20 or more different Signal group chats, for national security crises.

“National security adviser Mike Waltz’s team regularly set up chats on Signal to coordinate official work on issues including Ukraine, China, Gaza, Middle East policy, Africa and Europe, according to four people who have been personally added to Signal chats,” according to Politico. “Two of the people said they were in or have direct knowledge of at least 20 such chats. All four said they saw instances of sensitive information being discussed.”

“Waltz built the entire NSC communications process on Signal,” said one of the four sources.

Experts have warned that the use of Signal in certain circumstances may violate national security regulations, as well as federal law surrounding retention of government communications.

The use of Signal on personal cell phones is also problematic because those mobile devices can easily be compromised, experts say. CISA, the Department of Homeland Security’s Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, has recommended the use of Signal instead of less secure platforms, but not for classified or sensitive communications.

“None of the four individuals said they were aware of whether any classified information was shared, but all said that posts in group chats did include sensitive details of national security work,” Politico noted.

Additionally, on Sunday, The Wall Street Journal reported more concerning national security lapses.

“Two U.S. officials also said that Waltz has created and hosted multiple other sensitive national-security conversations on Signal with cabinet members, including separate threads on how to broker peace between Russia and Ukraine as well as military operations. They declined to address if any classified information was posted in those chats,” the Journal reported. It was not clear if these were among the 20 or more chats Politico reported on Wednesday.

“In under 10 days, we’ve heard about journalists added to unclassified chats and sensitive data being shot around on personal emails,” lamented Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), the vice-chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “And now we’re hearing there’s dozens more chats. It’s a never-ending parade of sloppy, reckless incompetence.”

Rep. Brad Schneider (D-IL), also responding to the latest news from Politico, wrote: “President Trump must put our troops and national security first. Waltz must step down. If he won’t, President Trump should fire him.”

Democratic congressional candidate Cait Conley is a former National Security Council official who “spent nearly 20 years in the military, including a stint working on counterterrorism for the National Security Council under former President Biden,” The New York Times has reported. She also worked at CISA, the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency.

“This is not an Administration that’s serious about protecting America. Every person on those (20!) group chats should have known better,” Conley observed.

“The national security advisor continues to put our country at risk by using chats to discuss sensitive issues, allowing our adversaries to potentially intercept these messages,” commented Sabrina Singh, former deputy Pentagon press secretary and former special assistant to the president. “This is not putting America First – it’s the opposite.”

Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA), a former Air Force JAG officer, wrote: “National Security Adviser Waltz should resign for repeatedly playing fast and loose with OpSec. Signal should not be used to discuss sensitive information. The Pentagon warned against using Signal even for unclassified information.”

MSNBC host Symone Sanders Townsend snarked, “Amateur hour at the OK Corral and that’s even offensive to the amateurs.”

“This is Trump’s CLOWN CAR CABINET!,” charged CNN commentator Maria Cardona. “Incompetent, unqualified, unserious. AND these massive national security blunders, put US all is SERIOUS danger! They need to go!!”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Bill Cassidy

'You Own This': Top GOP Senator Burned As Kennedy Wrecks Health Services

As the Trump administration’s Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., presses forward with a mass firing in a sweeping effort to downsize the agency tasked with safeguarding the nation’s well-being—including removing top leaders from key programs, including from the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention—a Republican Senator who cast the pivotal vote that enabled the controversial anti-vaccine activist to take the helm of the massive public health agency is facing scrutiny and backlash.

During Kennedy’s confirmation process U.S. Senator Bill Cassidy of Louisiana became an important voice and crucial vote in persuading his fellow Republicans to support what many saw as an extreme candidate. Cassidy, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee, is a medical doctor who worked for decades in public hospitals, and is an active vaccine advocate.

Senator Cassidy “ultimately provided the one-vote margin needed to advance Kennedy’s nomination to the full Senate,” as the Los Angeles Times had reported.

Defending his vote to confirm Kennedy, Senator Cassidy said the scion of the American political family had made assurances to him that convinced him to support his nomination.

Cassidy “said he was swayed by Kennedy’s commitments to support the immunization schedules recommended by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, maintain systems used to vet new vaccines and monitor their safety, preserve statements on the CDC website assuring the public that vaccines don’t cause autism, and meet with Cassidy ‘multiple times a month,’ among other things.”

“I will watch carefully for any effort to wrongfully sow public fear about vaccines,” Cassidy said.

STAT News reported that Senator Cassidy “said he would be Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s keeper.”

Over the weekend, Cassidy was sharply criticized—and blamed—when HHS forced out Dr. Peter Marks, the head of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration division responsible for assuring the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as CNN reported. Dr. Marks resigned but was “given the choice to resign or be fired.”

On Tuesday, The Hill reported that Kennedy “won’t acknowledge the scientific consensus that childhood vaccines do not cause autism.”

“That skepticism over seemingly settled science appeared to come to a head over the weekend when the Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) top vaccine official was forced out and issued a fiery public letter blasting Kennedy.”

That official was Dr. Marks.

Cassidy appeared to express concern, but nothing more.

“I thank Dr. Marks for his dedicated service to the health of our country,” the Senator wrote. “His departure is a loss to the FDA. Commissioner Makary and Secretary Kennedy should replace him with someone of similar stature and credibility amongst the scientific community, who will lead without bias.”

Tuesday afternoon, CNN’s Manu Raju reported that he asked Cassidy about the firings of 10,000 HHS employees.

“I’m trying to understand it,” Cassidy said. “They say that they are consolidating duplicative agencies.”

Asked if he supports the firings, Cassidy replied: ‘Like I said I’m investigating.”

Back in January, Cassidy had asked RFK Jr. if he could “trust” him, as Politico reported.

Asked “if he thinks RFK Jr is backsliding on his commitments,” Raju reported, Cassidy said: “We’re in dialogue about that.”

Kennedy had told Cassidy that he was “not going to go into HHS and impose my preordained opinions on anybody at HHS. I’m going to empower the scientists to do their job.”

Many of those scientists were fired on Tuesday at 5 AM.

MSNBC analyst and Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief David Corn blasted Cassidy, writing: “Sen. Bill Cassidy, you violated the Hippocratic oath when you supported RFK Jr.’s nomination and you own this—and all the horrific consequences to come.”

Corn added a screenshot of a post from a popular epidemiologist, Katelyn Jetelina, detailing a few of the consequences of Tuesday’s firings.

Cassidy also came under fire on Tuesday for telling CNBC, “Is there some way that we can cut Medicare—excuse me—reform Medicare—so that benefits stay the same, but that it’s less expensive, more efficient?”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Published Texts Of Hegseth Signal Chat Shatter 'Bungled' Coverup

Published Texts Of Hegseth Signal Chat Shatter 'Bungled' Coverup

In response to the Trump administration’s disinformation-and-discredit campaign, The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, has released the full Signal chat at the center of the growing national security scandal. National security experts and other analysts and experts, after reviewing the exchange, are sharply rejecting the administration’s efforts to downplay the severity of the breach. Many assert that, contrary to official claims, classified information was clearly shared by unsecured means—violating established protocols, internal policy, and potentially federal law.

The Trump administration and its Republican allies have been waging a disinformation campaign and pushing back against the credibility of The Atlantic and its editor-in-chief, after he revealed on Monday that he had been inadvertently added to a group text chat on Signal that took place over a number of days and involved the planning of a military strike against a terrorist group in Yemen.

The use of what has been called an unsecured chat on the messaging app Signal, likely on private, not government phones, while various members of the 18-person group were traveling overseas, including in Moscow, constitutes extreme violations of accepted national security practices, experts say. The conversations should have been held via secure communications, inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF).

The president, the White House press secretary, the director of national intelligence, the director of the Central Intelligence Agency, the secretary of defense, and other officials — along with top Republican lawmakers and right wing media outlets—have all claimed that information in the Signal chat was not classified.

In sworn testimony on Tuesday before the Senate Intelligence Committee, the Director of National Intelligence and the Director of the CIA both insisted none of the information shared in the Signal chat was classified.

Experts disagree.

“The information Secretary of Defense Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat was classified at the time he wrote it, especially because the operation had not even started yet, according to a US defense official and another source who was briefed on the operation,” CNN Pentagon and national security correspondent Natasha Bertrand reported.

“It is safe to say that anybody in uniform would be court martialed for this,” the official said, according to Bertrand. “We don’t provide that level of information on unclassified systems, in order to protect the lives and safety of the servicemembers carrying out these strikes. If we did, it would be wholly irresponsible. My most junior analysts know not to do this.”

Barbara Starr, the iconic correspondent who covered the Pentagon on CNN for two decades, focused on National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, who admitted he set up the chat and inadvertently included Goldberg. She wrote:

“Waltz revealed an extraordinary detail when he said there was intel showing the top Houthi missile guy walked into a building. You only know that if you have overhead surveillance, comms intercepts, or an operative on the ground. It means the US had ‘pattern of life’ surveillance. How is that not classified?”

NBC News senior congressional reporter Scott Wong reports that two House Armed Services Committee (HASC) Republicans are denouncing the Trump administration’s handling of Signalgate.

“The White House is in denial that this was not classified or sensitive data. They should just own up to it and preserve credibility,” Rep. Don Bacon (R-NE) said.

After reviewing the Signal text chain, Rep. Scott DesJarlais (R-TN) “said he is concerned about Hegseth sending this detailed information over the messaging app,” Wong also reported.

DesJarlais, chairman of the HASC subcommittee on strategic forces said: “It should have never happened and must not happen again.”

Joseph J. Collins is a retired U.S. Army colonel, professor of national security strategy at the National War College, and former deputy assistant secretary of defense for stability operations. He currently leads the Center for Complex Operations at the National Defense University.

Dr. Collins, responding to Starr’s remarks, wrote: “Important point … this fiasco compromised or potentially compromised sources and methods, possibly including our agents and stringers on the ground.”

Veteran, activist, and Amherst College political science lecturer Paul Rieckhoff declared: “Hegseth must step down or be removed. Any member of the Department of Defense that did this would be in prison. There is no way someone that did this can lead our military as SecDef. And even he knows it.”

“Everyone on this chat probably has to go. Everyone. They all know the rules,” he continued. “Loose lips sink ships. Everyone who’s ever served knows that line. It’s OPSEC 101 that every Private learns in Basic Training. And a f— up like this could have cost American lives. There is no spinning it. Hegseth’s got to go.”

“We can’t have a SecDef who doesn’t follow the same rules and standard he’s expected to hold for millions at DoD,” Rieckhoff added. “There’s no wiggle room. Stakes are too high. Our troops lives depend on it. And our enemies are celebrating.”

Former Transportation Secretary and veteran Pete Buttigieg is one of a handful of top Democrats who have been vociferously contesting the administration’s claims. Based on his extensive military and high-level of government service, late Wednesday he simply wrote: “Well, they lied. Obviously.”

Former CIA lawyer Brian Greer posted screenshots from The Atlantic’s report, and the regulations surrounding what is classified information. He wrote: “This is all very plainly classified at the SECRET level. They all lied. They should all lose their jobs.”

Apparently referencing Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing during which the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, and CIA Director John Ratcliffe testified, claiming there was no classified information shared, Greer wrote: “There was quite a bit of perjury yesterday.”

See his social media posts below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Tulsi Gabbard

'Putin Is Giddy': National Security Agency Knew Russians Could Hack Signal

The National Security Agency was reportedly aware of vulnerabilities in the messaging app Signal weeks before 18 top Trump administration national security and defense officials used the app in a group chat to plan the recent bombing of Yemen. Those vulnerabilities, an NSA memo warned, were being exploited by Russian hackers. Details have also emerged that at least two top administration officials who were in the chat were overseas, including one in Moscow — where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

The use of the Signal app by the upper echelon of Donald Trump’s national security and defense team has rocked the nation, fueling concerns over the mishandling of sensitive—and potentially classified—information in ways that may be unlawful. These fears are seemingly compounded by Trump’s alleged mishandling of hundreds of classified documents, which led to criminal charges that were ultimately dropped after the U.S. Supreme Court granted presidents broad immunity from prosecution for official acts.

CBS News reports that the National Security Agency (NSA), an arm of the Pentagon, had “sent out an operational security special bulletin to its employees in February 2025 warning them of vulnerabilities in using the encrypted messaging application Signal.”

The NSA operates under the authority of the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard.

The Pentagon also sent out a memo warning of Signal’s vulnerabilities and use by Russian hackers, just days after that group chat.

“Several days after top national security officials accidentally included a reporter in a Signal chat about bombing the Houthi sites in Yemen, a Pentagon-wide advisory warned against using the messaging app, even for unclassified information,” NPR reported Tuesday.

“Russian professional hacking groups are employing the ‘linked devices’ features to spy on encrypted conversations,” the Pentagon’s memo warned.

It also notes that Google has identified Russian hacking groups who are “targeting Signal Messenger to spy on persons of interest.”

The Pentagon memo reminded users that “third-party messaging apps (e.g. Signal) are permitted by policy for unclassified accountability/recall exercises but are not approved to process or store non-public unclassified information.”

NPR’s Quil Lawrence noted that “NPR has seen DoD memo as far back as 2023 prohibiting mobile apps for discussing even much less sensitive info like ‘controlled unclassified information.'”

Last month, a Google Threat Intelligence memo warned of the use of apps like Signal by “military personnel, politicians, journalists, activists, and other at-risk communities.”

Critics argue that the use of Signal for “war plans” was against policy. During Tuesday’s Senate Intelligence Committee hearing CIA Director John Ratcliffe had insisted Signal was approved for use.

National security experts, including at least one former Trump administration official, have been highly critical of the use of the app by the 18-members in a chat.

President Trump’s Ukraine and Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff “was in Moscow, where he met with Russian President Vladimir Putin, when he was included in a group chat with more than a dozen other top administration officials — and inadvertently, one journalist — on the messaging app Signal,” CBS News reported on Tuesday. “Russia has repeatedly tried to compromise Signal, a popular commercial messaging platform that many were shocked to learn senior Trump administration officials had used to discuss sensitive military planning.”

Trump’s Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, acknowledged on Tuesday during a Senate Intelligence Committee hearing that she was overseas during the Signal chat. The Associated Press reported the DNI “wouldn’t say whether she was using her personal or government-issued phone because the matter is under review by the White House National Security Council.”

The Wall Street Journal’s chief foreign-affairs correspondent Yaroslav Trofimov appears to be one of the first to note that Witkoff had been in Moscow during the time the chat had been organized. He notes: “The Signal app itself has high encryption. But if your phone is inside Russia, and especially if your WiFi and Bluetooth are not disabled, Russia can see what is inside your phone pretty easily.”

On Tuesday morning, Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) noted: “Not a single person out of 18 of the very most senior officials in this Admin — including the Director of National Intelligence and the CIA Director — voiced any concern with highly classified military plans circulated on Signal. You also can be sure this is not the only time.”

The Atlantic’s Dr. Norman Ornstein, a political scientist and scholar, responded to Rep. Goldman, writing: “Putin is giddy. He has compromised the phones of every top national security official in the Trump administration. No doubt has enough juicy information from what is likely to be multiple Signal chats to deeply damage American security. And possibly to blackmail some of them.”

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Donald Trump

'I Don't Know Anything': Trump's War Plans Leak Denial Backfires

President Donald Trump’s claim that he was unaware of a cabinet-level breach of classified information—an incident reportedly involving up to 18 top national security officials discussing sensitive details of a planned military strike—appears to have backfired, raising questions about his knowledge of the actions of his top officials, and, as Commander-in-Chief, his knowledge of U.S. national security and military operations.

The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief, Jeffrey Goldberg, revealed Monday afternoon that he inadvertently had been included in the 18-person group chat on the unclassified messaging app Signal. Experts say those discussions should never have been held over the app, but rather inside a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility, or inside multiple SCIFs.

On Monday afternoon at a press conference, a reporter asked the commander-in-chief for his reaction to the story in The Atlantic.

“I don’t know anything about it,” was Trump’s immediate response. His next response was to attack the media outlet.

“I’m not a big fan of The Atlantic, it’s, to me it’s a magazine that’s going out of business,” the president declared. “I think it’s not much of a magazine, but I know nothing about it.”

He then asked the reporter to explain to him what had been reported in The Atlantic.

“You’re saying that they had what?” “Having to do with what?” he asked twice. “What were they talking about?”

After the reporter gave him more information, Trump, seemingly still not understanding all the details, declared that the leak “couldn’t have been very effective because the attack was very effective, I can tell you that.”

He again denied any knowledge of the leak.

“I don’t know anything about it,” Trump repeated. “You, you’re telling me about it for the first time.”

The White House has acknowledged the leak occurred. Axios called it a “mind-boggling security breach.” The Washington Post reported that “the disclosure raises questions about how the administration has discussed classified issues and whether anyone will be disciplined.”

“As the bombing campaign moved ahead, Hegseth’s [Signal] account shared details that Goldberg said he believed could put at risk the safety of U.S. troops or intelligence officials, especially those deployed in the Middle East,” the Post reported. “Those details, the Atlantic article says, allegedly included the specific weapons to be used and in which sequence the Houthi targets would be hit.”

Military and national security experts are stunned — not only that this massive leak occurred, but that the President was not informed until a reporter asked him about it on Monday.

“If the President is telling the truth and no one’s briefed him about this yet, that’s another story in itself. In any other administration, CoS would have been in the Oval within nanoseconds of learning about something like this, wroteThe Atlantic’s Tom Nichols via social media, referring to the White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles. Nichols is a retired U.S. Naval War College professor who is an expert on national security, international affairs, Russia, and nuclear weapons.

“Heads need to roll for this. They have broken laws and endangered the lives of our service members with this idiocy,” commented Army veteran of 22 years, Fred Wellman, a graduate of West Point and the Harvard Kennedy School.

Journalist Wajahat Ali wrote, “What’s worse is that he HAS no idea, allegedly, about the story, which makes it even worse and more terrifying. Like, bro, why don’t you know?”

“One wild thing about Trump,” observed journalist Isaac Saul, “is that he is notoriously insulated from certain information streams by his team. Absolutely believable that he went out to the podium having not been informed of this massive story bc the people who brief him on info were culpable in the leaks.”

“Here’s some insight,” offered Sophia Kinzinger, a former press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security. “The White House has an entire department, staffed by military professionals, dedicated to facilitating secure communications. They travel with staff, provide devices, and set up SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities) whenever and wherever needed, operating 24/7. There is absolutely no excuse for mishandling classified information, especially for someone leading the National Security Council at the White House. Their actions clearly demonstrate a lack of qualification for such a critical role. we deserve better!”

Rep. Veronica Escobar (D-TX) added: “If it’s true that the President of the United States had no idea that his war cabinet and VP were discussing war plans on a Signal chat that included a journalist, that is astounding ignorance and profound incompetence.”

Derek Martin, who conducted supply chain counterintelligence at the National Security Agency (NSA), asked: “If Trump doesn’t know about a major incident involving his VP, Chief of Staff, NatSec Advisor, Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, Director of National Intelligence, and CIA Director, then who exactly is running the government?”

Sen. Chris Coons (D-DE), according toDeadline, wrote: “Every single one of the government officials on this text chain have now committed a crime – even if accidentally – that would normally involve a jail sentence. We can’t trust anyone in this dangerous administration to keep Americans safe.”

In his report at The Atlantic, Goldberg noted that “coordinating a national-security-related action over Signal, may have violated several provisions of the Espionage Act, which governs the handling of ‘national defense’ information, according to several national-security lawyers interviewed by my colleague Shane Harris for this story.”

Goldberg also explained that he chose to not publish all of the texts, noting that, “if [some] had been read by an adversary of the United States, [they] could conceivably have been used to harm American military and intelligence personnel, particularly in the broader Middle East, Central Command’s area of responsibility. What I will say, in order to illustrate the shocking recklessness of this Signal conversation, is that the Hegseth post contained operational details of forthcoming strikes on Yemen, including information about targets, weapons the U.S. would be deploying, and attack sequencing.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Alina Habba

Belligerent Trump Lawyer Habba Named US Attorney In New Jersey

President Donald Trump has named his former personal attorney Alina Habba, who has been serving as White House counselor, the interim, or acting, United States Attorney for the District of New Jersey. Habba immediately lashed out at the Garden State’s top Democrats.

Trump said the he is also nominating the current acting U.S. Attorney, John Giordano, who has been in that role for a mere three weeks, to a new post: U.S. ambassador to Namibia. Giordano is listed as a member of the White House Historical Association.

Habba, who recently faced backlash for suggesting that veterans dismissed from federal jobs may be “not fit to have a job at this moment,” quickly went on the offensive against Sen. Cory Booker and New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy (video below), claiming they have “failed the state of New Jersey.”

Telling reporters that “there is corruption, there is injustice, and there is a heavy amount of crime right in Cory Booker’s backyard and right under Governor Murphy,” Habba vowed, “that will stop.”

“I look forward to working with Pam Bondi and with the Department of Justice and making sure that we further the president’s agenda of putting America first, cleaning up mess, and going after the people that we should be going after, not the people that are falsely accused,” she said, a possible reference to the numerous state and federal charges Trump had faced until winning back the White House.

Politico describes Habba as Trump’s “legal attack dog.” Trump remains a convicted felon after being convicted by a jury in the State of New York on 34 counts of business fraud in what prosecutors said was an effort to influence the 2016 election.

The New York Post’s Manhattan courts reporter Molly Crane-Newman noted on Monday that “Habba’s behavior during Trump’s defamation trial last year was so far outside the bounds that Judge Kaplan threatened to imprison her.”

The Guardian’s Hugo Lowell reported that “Habba previously represented Trump in the New York civil cases where he was ordered to pay $450m for inflating his net worth and $83m for defaming E Jean Carroll.”

“In 2023, a federal judge also ordered Trump and Habba to pay $1m in sanctions for filing a frivolous claim against Hillary Clinton and others, calling the lawsuit ‘a hodgepodge of disconnected, often immaterial events, followed by an implausible conclusion,'” Lowell added.

Critics blasted the decision to name Habba.

Talking Points Memo founder and editor Josh Marshall appeared to compare Habba to an underboss in the Mafia, writing: “lol Alina Habba is now the capo of New Jersey.”

Former federal prosecutor Mitchell Epner wrote, “I served as an AUSA in the District of NJ from 2001-04.”

“I’m disgusted by this,” he said, adding: “Caligula’s horse would have been a better choice.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

Chuck Schumer

'Delusional': Schumer Under Growing Pressure After Hayes Interview

Senate Democratic Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, in an attempt to cauterize the self-inflicted wound from his decision to help Republicans pass their “CR,” continuing resolution, last week—a move backed by President Donald Trump—may have only deepened what some rank-and-file Democrats see as a crisis of leadership.

In what some are calling a “devastating” interview on Tuesday evening with MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, the Democratic leader appeared unwilling to grasp the full extent of the current threat level to American democracy, that our democracy is now at a crossroads—a fact well-documented by experts on democracy, and proclaimed by a Democratic U.S. Senator—and struggled to acknowledge that the nation is facing a constitutional crisis.

Trying to defend what is being seen as a lack of strategy, an inability to grasp the gravity of this moment in American history, and a refusal to fight the battle that is actually before him, Schumer made his argument to Hayes.

President Donald Trump’s approval “numbers have started to go down, from 51 to 47. If we keep at it and keep at it and keep at it, his numbers will be much lower. He will not only be less popular, but less effective,” Schumer insisted.

Schumer additionally claimed that “we will find the moments where we shouldn’t give them votes.”

But Schumer was sitting in Hayes’s studio exactly because he did give Republicans votes. He canceled his book tour that was supposed to start this week, reportedly due to security threats, and instead has been hitting the talk shows and cable news defending his decision — and his leadership position.

“There’s this weird asymmetry right now,” Hayes observed, noting that Republicans “are acting in this totally new way, in which they are ambitiously trying to seize all power and create a presidential dictatorship in the United States of America, and the Democratic opposition is acting like, ‘Well, if we can get their approval rate down a few points.’ Then what? Then what happens?”

“Well,” Schumer, still in defensive mode, declared, saying that “what happens is, look, first, we get it way down, he’s gonna have much like we—this worked in 2017.”

For some on social media, that appeared to be the inflection point—the moment that Schumer exposed that he is using the old playbook that the Trump administration, MAGA, The Heritage Foundation, and Project 2025 burned long ago.

“You say now it’s a different government,” Schumer acknowledged.

“It’s different, though,” Hayes pressed.

“Oh, it is different, but health care: we beat them. Taxes: we beat them, and guess what we did? Guess what we did, Chris? We took back the House and won in the Senate, and that got and then we were allowed to do all those good things.”

Hayes also honed in on Schumer’s 2017 reference.

“I don’t disagree with that, but the difference to me between 2017 and now,” he explained, is that it “is a full-fledged assault on the Constitutional order that has not been seen.”

And Hayes asked, “but then the question becomes, what is the role of the minority in resisting that, that’s distinct from ‘we’re gonna beat them on health care, we’re gonna beat them on spending with Medicaid.'”

Then Schumer said, “If our democracy is at risk—”

“It is at risk,” Hayes declared.

“Sorry. It is certainly at risk,” Schumer acknowledged, after Hayes made that declaration, but then he ignored Hayes’s question: “Do you believe” it is at risk?

Schumer moved on, appearing to say that if the federal courts ultimately fail to hold Trump, “we’ll have the court of public opinion, and if that happens, as you pointed out, we have had rule of law since the Magna Carta, okay?”

“The people will have to rise up, not just Democrats, not just Republicans, not just, you know, people everybody. But our democracy will be at stake then,” he said, again, not appearing to grasp that, as experts say, it is right now.

“And if the people make their voices heard as strong and stand up, and we join them, I believe we can try to beat that back.”

“We can beat that back, but it’s it’s it’s up on that one, if democracy is at risk, that’s a little different than what we’re talking about now — even a shutdown as horrible as it is.”

“We’ll all have to stand up and fight back in every way,” Schumer concluded.

Critics, and rank-and-file Democrats, and some elected Democrats, say the fight should have started when Trump was elected.

The Atlantic’s Dr. Norman Ornstein, a noted political scientist, responded to a clip of Hayes’ interview with Schumer, declaring, “Chuck is delusional.”

That word has repeatedly surfaced.

“‘This worked in 2017’ is all you need to hear. I can understand Schumer’s logic on the shutdown, but he’s delusional if he thinks that’s a winning strategy,” observed Cosmopolitan editor Olivia Truffaut-Wong.

“You know, I watched Sen. Schumer on Chris Hayes and really tried to hear him defend his actions in good faith,” wrote Charlotte Clymer, a former Human Rights Campaign press secretary who has called for Schumer to resign, “but by the end of their discussion, it just felt impossible for me to avoid this very deep sense of dangerous foreboding. Big ‘tempting fate’ energy in the worse way. Honestly scary.”

One day before Schumer’s MSNBC interview, Clymer on Monday had already made the case for “Why Chuck Schumer Should Step Down.”

“We have lost our way not because of what we believe in,” she wrote, referring to rank-and-file Democratic voters, “but because of our party leadership’s reluctance to fight for what we believe in.”

Sam Seder, the progressive political commentator and host of “The Majority Report with Sam Seder,” declared Schumer’s interview with Hayes was “devastating for Schumer. ..ignoring the criticism from all corners of the party..can’t articulate a strategy. It’s bizarre. He thinks it’s 2017.”

He also wrote that Schumer was “trying to justify his lack of leadership and strategy on his failed dirty CR. He’s panicked and should be. He is not up to the era. Instead of fighting against every other Democratic leader he should resign for the sake of the country.”

Emma Vigeland, Seder’s co-host, wrote that Hayes “nailed Schumer at the end of tonight’s interview by getting him to equivocate about whether or not we are currently at risk of losing our democracy. This is entirely out of step with how the base feels and saying this on MSNBC could (and should!) cost him his leadership.”

Elected Democrats are starting to break their wall of silence and call for Schumer to resign as Senate Democratic Leader.

Rep. Glenn Ivey (D-MD) on Tuesday, as C-SPAN reported, said: “I was deeply disappointed that Senator Schumer voted with the Republicans. You know you’re on bad ground when you get a personal tweet from Donald Trump thanking you for your vote…I’m afraid it may be time for the Senate Democrats to pick new leadership…”

Christopher Webb, a social media political commentator with a strong multi-platform following, posted edited video of the interview and also called it “devastating.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.

At Justice Department, Trump Calls CNN And MSNBC 'Illegal'

At Justice Department, Trump Calls CNN And MSNBC 'Illegal'

President Donald Trump, just 54 days into his second term, declared himself “the chief law enforcement officer in our country” and labeled two major news organizations, CNN and MSNBC, as “illegal,” while further denouncing their coverage as “illegal.” His remarks Thursday afternoon were delivered to officials at the Department of Justice, in an appearance that shattered a decades-old norm designed to insulate the department from political interference—a safeguard established in response to President Richard Nixon’s abuses of power. Trump’s statements have drawn sharp criticism for their authoritarian tone and direct attack on press freedom, sparking alarm.

“I believe that CNN and MSNDC,” said Trump (video below), using his own derogatory twist on MSNBC’s name, “who literally write 97.6 percent bad about me, are political arms of the Democrat Party. And in my opinion, they’re really corrupt and they’re illegal. What they do is illegal.”

Trump also “rallied against the press,” in general, “claiming they are influencing judges and, without any evidence, claiming the media works in coordination with political campaigns, which is not allowed in the news industry,” The Hillreported.

It has been widely reported that during his first term in office, Fox News host Sean Hannity spoke with Trump “nearly every weeknight.”

“These networks and these newspapers are really no different than a highly paid political operative. And it has to stop, it has to be illegal, it’s influencing judges and it’s really, eh, changing law and it just cannot be legal. I don’t believe it’s legal and they do it in total coordination with each other,” the President alleged.

Trump’s remarks were just a part of a speech that lasted more than one hour, during which he “delivered an insult-laden speech that shattered the traditional notion of DOJ independence,” as Politicoreported. During those remarks, Trump also “labeled his courtroom opponents ‘scum,’ judges ‘corrupt’ and the prosecutors who investigated him ‘deranged.'”

“With the DOJ logo directly behind him, Trump called for his legal tormentors to be sent to prison.”

It is not the first time the President, who is a convicted felon, has declared MSNBC “illegal.”

Last month, when MSNBC host Joy Reid left the news network, Trump unleashed a torrent of hatred.

“Lowlife Chairman of ‘Concast,’ Brian Roberts, the owner of Ratings Challenged NBC and MSDNC, has finally gotten the nerve up to fire one of the least talented people in television, the mentally obnoxious racist, Joy Reid,” Trump wrote in a post on his social media platform. “Based on her ratings, which were virtually non-existent, she should have been ‘canned’ long ago, along with everyone else who works there. Also thrown out was Alex Wagner, the sub on the seriously failing Rachel Maddow show. Rachel rarely shows up because she knows there’s nobody watching, and she also knows that she’s got less television persona than virtually anyone on television except, perhaps, Joy Reid.”

Trump’s Friday afternoon assault on the media was swiftly criticized.

“This is what a dictator sounds like,” wrote U.S. Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-RI).

“Journalism is legal,” declared award-winning investigative journalist Lindsay Beyerstein. “Criticizing the president is legal. Being a Democrat is legal. Nothing Donald Trump is ranting about here is a crime and he’s disgracing himself and the Department of Justice by talking this way.”

Journalist Matt O’Brien observed, “Trump wants to get rid of freedom of speech because he wants to be a dictator. And unlike his first term, he now has a government full of fascists who are eager to make that a reality.”

Marlow Stern, adjunct assistant professor of journalism at Columbia Journalism School wrote: “sounds like putin.”

Pulitzer Prize-winning political columnist Kyle Whitmire wrote simply: “Enemy of the Constitution.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

New Quinnipiac Poll Shows Majority Reject Trump On Key Issues

New Quinnipiac Poll Shows Majority Reject Trump On Key Issues

Barely more than 50 days into his second term, President Donald Trump appears to be failing in the eyes of a majority of American voters on nearly every major issue — from the economy to immigration to the war in Ukraine to trade to his handling of the federal workforce and more —according to a new poll released Thursday by the highly-respected Quinnipiac University.

"A noticeable uptick of discontent can be seen over President Trump's handling of a range of issues: from Ukraine to the economy to the federal workforce," Quinnipiac University polling analyst Tim Malloy said in a statement.

A majority of Americans, 53 percent, disapprove of the president's performance overall, with just 42 percent approving. That's a significant swing (11 points) on the disapproval side from Quinnipiac's January 29 poll, which found 46 percent percent of Americans approved of the new president's performance, and 42 percent disapproved.

Fox News host Jessica Tarlov gave an overview of the poll's results, telling viewers (video below), "So basically, he is underwater on everything."

On one of the most strongly-negative questions, 60 percent of voters oppose President Trump's plan to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education. Just one in three support it. Another major negative is Trump's position on trade with Canada: 58 percent of voters disapprove of his handling of that issue, just 36 percent approve. That is closely followed by trade with Mexico (56 percent disapprove).

Historically, the economy has been one of Trump's strongest approval areas. That is no longer the case.

A majority of voters, 54 percent disapprove of Trump's handling of the economy — just 41 percent approve.

"In the Quinnipiac poll released today, one percent of voters describe the state of the America’s economy as excellent. That’s not a typo," observed Democratic strategist Matt McDermott.

On that topic, Quinnipiac reported, a whopping "76 percent describe it as either not so good (45 percent) or poor (31 percent)."

According to Quinnipiac's numbers, voters thought President Joe Biden's economy was better in his last full month (December) than they think President Trump's is now.

Quinnipiac University's December 2024 poll found 34 percent described the economy "as either excellent (three percent) or good (31 percent) and 64 percent described it as either not so good (31 percent) or poor (33 percent)."

Immigration, also once a strong area for Trump, no longer is.

Nearly half of voters, 49 percent, disapprove of Trump's handling of immigration issues, while 46 percent approve.

Other negatives include his handling of the Russia - Ukraine war (55 percent disapprove), the federal workforce (also 55 percent disapprove), foreign policy (53 percent disapprove,) and the military (48 percent disapprove).

Nor did Trump's Oval Office dressing down of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky go over well with the American voter.

"Fifty-eight percent of voters disapprove of the way President Trump handled the recent meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky at the White House, while 35 percent approve."

Trump's overall approval rating (42 percent) is actually one point below what voters gave President Zelenskyy (43 percent).

Meanwhile, six in ten voters (61 percent) think Trump is not hard enough on Russia, while half (50 percent) think he is too tough on Ukraine.

In fact, the only issue where Trump's overall favorable outweighed his unfavorable rating is trade with China, which has not made many headlines recently. On that issue, 46 percent approve, 44 percent disapprove, a narrow margin.

But even in areas not directly tied to Trump's approval rating, voters oppose the President's position, at least in part.

"More than half of voters (57 percent) think that children who have not received standard vaccinations should not be allowed to attend schools and childcare facilities, while 35 percent think that children who have not received standard vaccinations should be allowed to attend schools and childcare facilities," Quinnipiac found.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet

Donald Trump Zelensky

Trump's Coziness With Russia Will 'Immediately' Cost Ukrainian Lives

In the week since Donald Trump and JD Vance launched a two-on-one televised attack on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the American president, his administration, and his allies have escalated actions that undermine—and even endanger—Ukraine and its people on multiple fronts, leading critics to denounced President Trump’s “betrayal.”

Trump and his administration reportedly will be targeting Ukrainian refugees in the U.S., and have already crippled a key military tool vital to Ukraine’s defense, halted weapons shipments, and ordered a top Pentagon agency to suspend operations and planning against Russia’s cyber offensives. Trump’s close allies reportedly are looking to back Zelenskyy’s political opponents in Ukraine. Critics—and even Russian state propagandists—say these moves send an unmistakable signal to the world: the United States has “switched sides” in Vladimir Putin’s illegal war against Ukraine.

“The new administration is rapidly changing all foreign policy configurations,” Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov recently declared, as MSNBC reported Tuesday. “This largely aligns with our vision.”

President Trump “was asked for his reaction after the Kremlin said the White House was largely aligned with Moscow. He didn’t answer — but he didn’t have to,” observed MSNBC’s Steve Benen.

Reuters is reporting that the Trump administration will move to revoke the legal protected status of 240,000 Ukrainians who fled the Russian invasion to come to the United States. These refugees, under a Biden administration program, were required to pay fees, be fully vetted, and have proof of a sponsor and financial means.

“The move, expected as soon as April, would be a stunning reversal of the welcome Ukrainians received under President Joe Biden’s administration,” according to Reuters, which noted that at least some could be put on a fast track to deportation.

While Reuters reports its sources say the plan was in place before President Donald Trump’s and Vice President. JD Vance’s Oval Office blowup, it also comes amid moves that appear to put the Trump administration on the side of Russia and President Vladimir Putin.

Earlier this week, President Trump ordered a suspension of critical intelligence sharing with Ukraine, a move that is “expected to cripple Kyiv’s ability to target Russian forces,”The Wall Street Journalreported.

The Trump administration also “suspended weapons shipments to Ukraine earlier this week,” after the “contentious Oval Office meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky,” the Journal reported. Central Intelligence Agency Director John Ratcliffe, “said Trump, after that meeting, had also ‘asked for a pause’ of intelligence sharing.”

For years, the CIA and other U.S. Intelligence agencies “have forged deep ties with Ukrainian counterparts,” according to the Journal. Now, that has changed.

“We have taken a step back and are pausing and reviewing all aspects of this relationship,” Trump National Security Advisor Mike Waltz told reporters Wednesday.

Trump’s decision to halt intelligence sharing “will cost civilian lives almost immediately, dismayed Ukrainians said Thursday,” NBC News reported. The President’s decision also came as European leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, “convened a summit in Brussels as they attempt to cope with an upended landscape in which the Trump administration appears to be treating them with hostility while seemingly warming to the Kremlin.”

In another escalation against Ukraine and an apparent move toward Russia, on Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio told Fox News that the war in Ukraine is “a proxy war between nuclear powers – the United States, helping Ukraine, and Russia – and it needs to come to an end.”

Reuters reported that the Kremlin “said on Thursday that Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s view that the Ukraine conflict is a proxy war between the United States and Russia is in line with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s own assessment.”

On Thursday, Politico Europe exclusively reported that “senior members of Donald Trump’s entourage have held secret discussions with some of Kyiv’s top political opponents to Volodymyr Zelenskyy, just as Washington aligns with Moscow in seeking to lever the Ukrainian president out of his job.”

“The discussions centered on whether Ukraine could hold quick presidential elections. These are being delayed in line with the country’s constitution because Ukraine remains under martial law. Critics of holding elections say they could be chaotic and play into Russia’s hands, with so many potential voters serving on the front lines or living abroad as refugees.”

Politico notes that while the Trump administration denies interfering in Ukraine’s domestic politics, “the behavior of Trump and his officials suggests quite the opposite. Trump has accused Zelenskyy of being a ‘dictator without elections,’ and hinted he would not be ‘around very long’ if he didn’t do a deal with Russia. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has falsely accused Kyiv of canceling the election.”

University of Copenhagen award-winning professor of political science, Marlene Wind, blasted the news.

“This is just appalling. Is Trump secretly planning a coup in Kyiv by replacing @ZelenskyyUa with a pro-Russian politician?” she asked.

Bartłomiej Gajos, a historian of Russia and the Soviet Union, asked: “Is it official US policy to seek regime change in Ukraine? That would be my question to the administration if I were a journalist.”

Meanwhile, critics are also condemning Secretary Rubio’s remarks—with some calling them Russian talking points. And President Trump’s decision to target the nearly quarter-million Ukrainian refugees in the U.S. is also being denounced.

Critics Sound the Alarm

“This is nasty, heartless, un-American and dangerous,” declared veteran and veterans’ activist Paul Rieckhoff. “It’s sending innocent civilians back into a war zone to die. These are women and children and seniors. The latest move to deepen Trump’s betrayal of Ukraine. And American values. He continues to drive the knife deeper into the back of Ukraine. And NATO. Putin is celebrating. And the Statue of Liberty is weeping. Congress must exhaust every option to block this. I’d expect Canada or another good nation to step up to accept these Ukrainians. As America continues to fail and fall. And become more isolated and less safe.”

“Hold on,” said the Wall Street Journal’s chief foreign affairs correspondent Yaroslav Trofimo, “didn’t President Trump just say that half of Ukraine is flattened and that his main motivation is care for innocent Ukrainian lives?”

The New Yorker’s Susan Glasser remarked, “How to see this as anything other than a betrayal of people who fled for their lives? The US welcomed them… and now we’re throwing them out, and switching sides in Putin’s war.”

Last week, Glasser wrote: “the United States of America has switched sides in the war between Russia and Ukraine. The country is no longer on the side of Ukraine.”

Late Thursday morning Glasser posted video of a French lawmaker, calling it a “Powerful speech about Trump’s betrayal of the democratic world.”

“My question watching this — where is the American version?” she asked. “Why hasn’t US’s own opposition to Trump been able to speak out with such clarity and force? Tempus fugit.”

Jesuit priest James Martin, a New York Times best-selling author, and editor-at-large of America magazine, responding to the news Ukrainian refugees may lose protections and be deported, wrote simply: “‘I was a stranger and you did not welcome me’ (Mt 25).”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

Reprinted with permission from Alternet.