The Lawlessness Of The Alien Enemies Removals Come Into Focus
Take the question of the scope of the removals. On March 15, the Trump administration sent three planes to El Salvador. To DC chief judge James Boasberg, government attorneys have said that only the first two planes were used to conduct Alien Enemies Act removals. It's a key question that underlines how little we still know about what happened: how did the government decide who was subject to deportation without a hearing? Who was put on what plane?
Boasberg provisionally accepted that the first two planes were the ones at issue, but new developments this week poured doubt on whether the third plane was only carrying people who were, as the government suggested, removed via normal, legal means. Kilmer Abrego Garcia, an El Salvador-born Maryland man subject to a 2019 immigration court order barring his removal was placed on the third plane. The Trump administration admitted in a court filing this week that Abrego had been deported due to an administrative error, and said that it had no plans to try to return him to the United States.
The questions here are potentially endless. How could that have happened? Why was the Trump administration rushing? Might it have been, as TPM reporting has suggested, to evade judicial oversight? All of this caused Judge Boasberg to say at a Thursday hearing that he would likely reopen the question of the third plane. 'What you were willing to do by trying to do this as quickly as possible and avoid being enjoined by a court, was to risk putting people on those planes who shouldn't have been on the plane the first place,' Boasberg remarked.
This also raises a thicket of other legal issues. A Maryland federal judge on Friday ordered the Trump administration to return Abrego from El Salvador by Monday; the government immediately appealed. If the order stands, will the Trump administration move to comply? Abrego (and the other detainees) are not in the custody of the United States. Will Nayyib Bukele comply? Do wardens at the El Salvadorian labor camp keep close tabs on where each detainee is held?
We don't know, but it all emphasizes the profound lawlessness of the administration's decision to remove people that day.
— Josh Kovensky
Kate Riga looks at Democrats' victory in Wisconsin this week and the way in which it informs how the party, which has developed a reputation of complacency, thinks about its post-2024 strategy.
Emine Yücel has more from Senate Democrats this week as they attempt to raise the alarm about Republicans' attempt to use a budget gimmick to make portions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent with only 50 votes.
Khaya Himmelman unpacks the Justice Department's ongoing fixation with Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX) as it attempts to intimidate her out of publicly criticizing Elon Musk.
Let's dig in.
Recent off-year elections have Democrats feeling buoyed, a fairly foreign experience since President Trump's win in November.
So far, things are feeling pretty thermostatic-y — Democrats are hungry to come out and vote against Trump, even via other races.
But for those critical of Democrats' recent approach, those howling that the party or at least its leadership needs to be retooled to be competitive at the presidential level again, it presents something of a risk. The party is criticized, often rightly, for its complacency, reluctance to innovate, fear of aggression — all factors that incentivize it to keep on keepin' on, even if its tactics have proved disastrously fallible. If leadership decides that the pendulum will swing back in its favor again no matter what it does, we're living in a reality where the Democratic Party changes very little after 2024, besides some lip service to its critics.
Given the demographic trends encapsulated by the last election, that'd be a very risky bet to make.
— Kate Riga
Democrats are pointing to new projections from the Congressional Budget Service that shows the price tag for extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts will be higher than previously estimated.
The new estimate says the tax cuts would all-in-all cost $5.5 trillion, up from the previous estimate of nearly $4 trillion.
'The Republican handouts to billionaires and corporations will come at a staggering cost,' top Democrats on the House and Senate tax and budget committees said in a joint statement on Thursday.
'What Republicans are trying to jam through Congress right now is a level of economic recklessness we've never seen before,' they added.
The new numbers come as Senate Republicans are plowing ahead with their plan to utilize an unprecedented 'budget gimmick' to make portions of the 2017 Trump tax cuts permanent.
The budget resolution text — that Senate GOP leadership put out on Wednesday — suggests Republicans plan to make up their own numbers and cost estimates as a way of shoehorning in the 'current policy baseline,' in order to zero out the cost of their tax cuts and claim on paper that the extension will be costless.
The Senate took the initial procedural vote on the budget resolution Thursday night — with Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) being the only Republican to vote against the motion to proceed. A vote-a-rama is expected to begin Friday afternoon, which means by the time you're reading this Senate Republicans could've already passed their second budget blueprint.
House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) said he wants to push for a vote on the Senate's resolution as early as next week. But the almost inevitable resistance from hardliners in his conference could easily slow that timeline down.
— Emine Yücel
President Trump's nominee for D.C. U.S. Attorney Ed Martin issued an indirect warning to Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-TX), following a supposed altercation between Crockett and a journalist associated with right-wing conspiracy theorist Laura Loomer. It's another pointed example of the Department of Justice specifically going after President Donald Trump's perceived political enemies or anyone who criticizes the Trump administration.
In a video posted on X, Charles Downs posted the incident between himself and Crockett. In the video, Downs asks Crockett about her remarks during a 'TeslaTakedown' conference call, in which she discussed Elon Musk and his recent slashing of the federal workforce and federal spending through his Department of Government Efficiency.
The video ends abruptly, when Crockett appears to move the camera out of her face. But Downs, who published a follow up video on X, described the incident as an 'attack.'
'This matter extends beyond a personal dispute between Representative Crockett and myself. It concerns the protection of free speech within the Capitol, as the loss of free speech there would jeopardize its preservation across America,' Downs wrote on X.
As a response to that video, Martin issued a warning to Crockett on X.
'As I've said from Day One, no one is above the law,' Martin wrote. 'This matter is currently under review by law enforcement authorities. If it is referred to the U.S. Attorney's Office, we will follow the proper procedures to determine whether chargers are appropriate.'
Martin has issued similar warnings to other Democratic members of Congress for speech criticizing the Trump administration or the Supreme Court.
The warning follows Attorney General Pom Bondi's similarly vague warning to Crockett, directing her to 'tread very carefully,' after the lawmaker criticized Musk during last month's 'TeslaTakedown' conference call. Bondi issued her warning even though Crockett specifically clarified during the call that she was not calling for violence of any kind and that the protest she was promoting was 'nonviolent.'
On Wednesday, Crockett fired back at Bondi during a House Judiciary Committee meeting, saying: 'To have her go on Fox News, and to then decide that she wanted to send a threat to me, it was wrong.'
— Khaya Himmelman
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
a few seconds ago
- Yahoo
"South Park" Somehow Went Even Harder In On Trump, And This Time It's Raunchier
South Park returned on Wednesday to hit President Donald Trump below the belt with multiple depictions of his 'teeny tiny' penis. Warning: Spoilers below. The episode also skewered tech CEOs and government leaders for bribing Trump with golden 'gifts,' again depicted Trump's bedroom lover as none other than Satan himself, and reduced Vice President JD Vance to a miniature sidekick who offers to bring his boss a 'cumrag.' Related: That 'cumrag,' tragically, turns out to be longtime South Park fan-favorite character Towelie. Much of the episode focuses not on Trump, but on Randy Marsh ― Stan's dad ― and his marijuana farm, which struggles after his workers are hauled off in a federal raid. He sends Towelie to D.C. to lobby Trump for marijuana reclassification. Towelie finds the city overrun with military troops, as Trump has called in the National Guard, just as he has done in real life in a move critics have dismissed as a 'stunt.' Related: Towelie also finds a statue of Thomas Jefferson in the Capitol is now a statue of Trump, with a very small penis. Likewise, the statue of Abraham Lincoln at the Lincoln Memorial is also a statue of Trump, again with a tiny penis. When Towelie reaches the White House to meet Trump, an aide warns visitors to 'avoid staring directly into his penis.' There, Towelie joins a line of CEOs and officials who offer Trump 'gifts' and assure him that his penis isn't small. Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg, for example, brings the president a gold-plated VR headset. Related: Trump dismisses him as 'a little bitch.' Apple CEO Tim Cook shows up to give Trump a small sculpture ― something he did for real earlier this month. Trump takes the gift and goes to his bedroom, where he promptly tears off all his clothes and hops into bed with Satan. 'Hey Satan! Look at what some dipshit tech CEO gave me,' he tells Satan. 'I was thinking maybe we could try to shove it up your ass.' Towelie is there to lobby Trump to reclassify marijuana, but ends up as a gift to Trump instead. By the end of the episode, Satan finds Towelie in a White House bathroom, covered in white stains, begging for help. 'Please,' Towelie pleads with Satan. 'I wanna get out of here.' 'So do I,' Satan replies. 'But there is no escape from this place.' Related: South Park has so far been biweekly since returning last month, and that pattern will continue ― at least for now ― as the next episode is set to air Sept. 3 on Comedy Central. This article originally appeared on HuffPost. Also in In the News: Also in In the News: Also in In the News:
Axios
2 minutes ago
- Axios
What historians say is at risk if Trump expands his culture war beyond Smithsonian
Politics & Policy A White House official told Axios that President Trump intends to expand his review of American museums for "woke" ideology beyond the Smithsonian Institution. Why it matters: The size and scope of Trump's inquiries represents an unprecedented level of museum oversight in the nearly 250 years of American democracy, historians say. It also represents an escalation of the president's attack on cultural institutions. Here's what historians and curators fear could happen if Trump reframes museums through his perspective. What exactly does the president have in mind? Trump said that the "Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL" on Truth Social earlier this week. He then directed his attorneys to conduct a comprehensive review of the museum system, similar to the process officials have conducted at colleges and universities. What they're saying:"President Trump will explore all options and avenues to get the Woke out of the Smithsonian and hold them accountable," a White House official told Axios. "He will start with the Smithsonian and then go from there," they continued. Reality check: The Smithsonian is not a federal agency under control of the president, according to the institution. It's an independent institution, governed by a Board of Regents, which is composed of seventeen members, including the Vice President. Trump has no authority over private museums. Yes, but: The president could freeze the federal funding that some private museums receive, the way he has for schools that don't align with his anti-diversity views on education. What does Trump's perception of American history look like? Trump claims that there has been a "widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history" over the past decade. He insists that these efforts "undermine" America's achievements by casting its founding principles as "inherently racist, sexist, oppressive, or otherwise irredeemably flawed." Historians say the administration's singular, sanitized approach to the past, focusing solely on America's positive moments misses out on the nuance of American history and excludes the lived experiences of Black, Indigenous, Latino, and LGBTQ+ people. Friction point:"That is anti-democratic," Beth English, executive director of the Organization of American Historians told Axios, referring to the administration's push to stifle and sanitize information, debate and historical facts. "It's not education, right?" English questioned. "It begins to kind of veer into the space of indoctrination, selecting, sort of a selective memory of what is and isn't going to be part of our national story." Why is Trump's push to install political appointees to review museums problematic? Curators said distilling history into accurate, engaging examples that the public can understand requires a level of expertise that an untrained political appointee likely lacks. The majority of curators at national museums have PhDs, or have been trained in museum studies through rigorous degree programs and research. "It's not like people are creating exhibitions to tell a story, to win a political agenda," Omar Eaton-Martinez, former board president of the Association of African American Museums said. "People are actually curating exhibitions based on scholarship that is supported by evidence," he continued. Don't museums reframe and reevaluate history all the time? Historians say museums expanding their collections isn't evidence of nefarious behavior, but rather, it's simply how the static nature of history grows. Zoom out: Collections have increasingly included the perspectives of sociologists, psychologists and other social scientists over the past few decades, in addition to more thorough reviews of census records, genealogy, oral histories, archeology, objects, and images. "We're constantly building on prior scholarship to help ask more nuanced questions about a topic," Sarah Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association said. "We're always peeling back the layers of the onion, so to speak." Black, Indigenous and Latin scholars have been digging into their respective histories for centuries, and those experiences have been recognized and incorporated into museums in recent decades. That includes history that was once ignored, such as the burning of records in thriving Black neighborhoods such as the massacres in Tulsa, Oklahoma or Rosewood, Florida; the forced removal of Indigenous nations from one part of America to another during the " trail of tears"; and urban renewal projects to upgrade cities that ultimately gentrify communities of color. What funding and programs has Trump already taken aim at? The Trump administration has taken aggressive action to reduce the staffing and funding available for the Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS,) the National Endowment for the Humanities, and the National Endowment for the Arts. Stunning stat: IMLS's acting director testified in court that the administration cancelled roughly 92% of the agency's Grants to States. Only 100 grants remain out of the original 1,200 managed by the institute prior to Trump's executive order. The president also attempted to fire Kim Sajet, the director of the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, earlier this year due to her support of diversity initiatives, despite not having the authority to do so. The Smithsonian has legal authority over personnel decisions, but Sajet eventually decided to step down in the weeks following Trump's announcement. What other times has an American museum pivoted after political influence? An exorbitant amount of debate goes into exhibit decision-making, so museums have already determined the best way to display potential controversies. When museums modify exhibits, it's typically due to public pressure, and has never been under significant force from the president. Case in point: The Smithsonian's 90s exhibit on Enola Gay, the B-29 bomber that dropped the atomic bomb, sparked opposition from veterans and members of Congress on how to interpret the bomb's dropping and America's role in World War II. The bottom line:"These kinds of controversies exist frequently, and that's a good thing, because public debate about the nation's past is healthy," James Grossman, former executive director of the American Historical Association told Axios. "But the President of the United States has no business telling museums what to exhibit, telling teachers what to teach, and has no business telling Americans what to think," Grossman continued.
Boston Globe
2 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Thank you, Massachusetts millionaires!
It's time to thank the people involved in the millionaires tax — including the millionaires — without whom Massachusetts would not continue to be among the 'Our state thrives on eds and meds, and those are things particularly under the axe,' said Phineas Baxandall, research director at the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center. 'It's fortuitous that some counterbalance from the Fair Share income has been there.' For the second year in a row, revenues from the surtax have Advertisement The Fair Share Amendment specifies that revenues collected on taxable income — not assets — above $1 million be spent only on education and transportation. In the fiscal year just ended, revenues from the surtax Now other high-income states — which tend to be blue states — are A cautionary note: Proponents of the Fair Share Amendment intended that its benefits be used to enhance programs in education and transportation, not substitute for shortfalls. 'These investments have been life-changing for individuals and communities,' said Max Page, president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association, a central player in the Raise Up coalition that fought for the surtax. 'That's why I am concerned that it not become simply a way to backfill cuts by Trump.' Advertisement The idea, he said, 'was not just to prevent cuts; it was always to build a better society.' After voters in Massachusetts passed a hefty cigarette tax in 1992, legislators It's difficult to know whether the surtax is driving rich people from the state. But A state that invests in its future is a state that believes in itself. Despite serious headwinds from Trump's baneful policies, Massachusetts is working to stay a healthy, brainy, welcoming place, a place that values innovation, a clean environment, and world-class health care and education. A place where everybody — from multimillionaires on down – wants to live. Renée Loth's column appears regularly in the Globe.
