Opinion
Republicans are teeing up a nursing home apocalypse
Imagine learning that your grandmother’s nursing home is closing. The nearest one with room for her is a three-hour drive away. It doesn’t accept Medicaid, so if your grandmother is among the two-thirds of nursing home patients who are covered by Medicaid, she’s out of luck.
Your grandfather still lives at home. But the hospital near his house is closing, too. If he has a medical emergency, he’ll have to go to an overburdened hospital 40 minutes away.
That’s what will happen if President Donald Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law. There’s nothing beautiful about this hideous betrayal of the American people. Unless you’re a billionaire who can hop in a helicopter to see your private doctor, it will make your health care worse. All to give that same billionaire a giant tax cut.
The Big Ugly Bill cuts a trillion dollars from Medicaid. Even if you’re not on Medicaid, this will hurt you and your family. That’s because hospitals and nursing homes around the country rely on Medicaid for much of their funding.
If this bill becomes law, over half of nursing homes say they will have to reduce staff, and a quarter say they will close. At the nursing homes that remain open, seniors and people with disabilities will wait in agony for someone to take them to the bathroom or give them their pain medication.
Those whose nursing homes close will struggle to find another one with room for them, especially if they rely on Medicaid. If they manage to find one, it will likely be hours away from their loved ones.
This bill is a disaster for people who rely on Medicaid to pay for nursing homes and other long-term care. But it’s also a disaster even for those who don’t directly rely on Medicaid, because it will devastate the entire healthcare system. Rural areas will be hit hardest, but nowhere and no one (except for billionaires) is safe.
Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told Iowans concerned about the bill’s Medicaid cuts that “we all are going to die.” Many of us will die faster, including the hundreds of Iowans who will lose their nursing home beds.
In Iowa alone the impact is massive across the entire state and in each vulnerable Republican House District.
In Iowa’s 1st District, represented by Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, four nursing homes with a collective 280 beds will close: Aspire of Muscatine (46), Mississippi Valley Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center—Keokuk (83), Iowa City Rehab and Health Care Center—Iowa City (89), and Azria Health Prairie Ridge—Mediapolis (62).
In Iowa’s 2nd District, represented by Republican Ashley Hinson, two nursing homes with a collective 271 beds will close: Heritage Specialty Care—Cedar Rapids (201) and Cedar Falls Healthcare Center (70).
In Iowa’s 3rd District, represented by Republican Zach Nunn, two nursing homes with a collective 113 beds will close: Aspire of Perry (46) and Granger Nursing and Rehabilitation Center—Granger (67).
And this story repeats across the entire country. There is no place to hide from the tsunami being unleashed against nursing homes. Anyone who has dealt with the current system knows how bad it is now. It is about to be a whole lot worse. Nursing homes that don’t close outright will become death traps as the demand far outstrips the supply.
All of this needless death and chaos, just so some billionaires can get trillions in tax handouts that they don’t even need.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.
Polling shows that Americans hate the Big Ugly Bill—if they know about what’s in it. The problem is that most of them don’t. Nearly half of Americans are completely unaware of the bill, and only 8% of them know it cuts Medicaid.
Talk to your friends and family members. Tell them that Republicans are about to cause a nursing home and hospital apocalypse—but it isn’t too late to stop it. The Senate has passed the Big Ugly Bill. Now it goes back to the House of Representatives — where Republicans will try to rush the bill through before the public can learn about it.
- Alex Lawson is the Executive Director of Social Security Works, the convening organization of the Strengthen Social Security Coalition -- a coalition made up of over 340 national and state organizations representing over 50 million Americans.
Keep reading...
Show less
This key group opposes Trump's Big Beautiful Bill
President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, H.R. 1, is a dream of tax cuts for corporations and the wealthy. However, the same bill that passed the Senate on Tuesday is also a loaded gun of healthcare spending cuts aimed at the American people, 11.8 million of whom could lose their coverage by 2034, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.
Some of these Americans are mom-and-pop entrepreneurs.
Dr. Alexia McClerkin owns The Wellness Doc in Houston, Texas. She can't afford to buy herself health insurance and relies on Medicaid for her three sons' coverage. Dr. McClerkin has a bird's-eye view of how her patients cope with paying their healthcare bills.
Doug Scheffel is president of ETM Manufacturing in Littleton, Massachusetts. Two of his employees rely on state health exchanges. Other employees of Scheffel are care providers for family members receiving Medicaid.
In a recent survey of 574 small business owners, seven of 10 opposed the spending cuts in H.R. 1 that seeks to extend the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. According to this Small Business for America's Future (SBAF) survey, 27% support the healthcare cuts in H.R. 1, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, and 5% are not sure.
This SBAF survey found that 58% of small businesses have owners, employees, or family members who rely on Medicaid, healthcare that covers the disabled, elderly, and low-income Americans, or Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP coverage), low-cost or free care for kids in families whose annual income disqualifies them from Medicaid, an alternative to unaffordable private healthcare insurance.
According to the SBAF survey, 56% of respondents themselves, their employees, or family members use Affordable Care Act (ACA) Marketplace coverage with premium tax credits set to expire that are not extended in the H.R. 1 legislation.
Over half, or 52%, of responding small business owners stated that climbing healthcare insurance harms their bottom lines.
"Small businesses cannot afford to be shut out of access to affordable healthcare. Medicaid, CHIP, SNAP, and enhanced ACA premium tax credits are lifelines for small business, their families, and their workers," said Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) in a written statement.
"If Republicans gut these programs or allow them to expire, healthcare costs for small businesses and their families will skyrocket, employees will lose coverage, and entrepreneurs will be stifled. We must expand access to health coverage for all, especially small businesses."
A policy alternative for universal health coverage is Medicare for All. However, passing such legislation through Congress for the president to sign faces stiff opposition from the healthcare industry. It has been successful in blocking Medicare for All.
"Small business owners have been crying out for relief from crushing healthcare costs for years, and Congress' response is to make it worse," said SBAF co-chair Walt Rowen, owner of Susquehanna Glass Company in Columbia, Pennsylvania, in a statement.
"These cuts don't solve problems—they shift costs from government programs onto the businesses least able to absorb them, all while extending tax breaks for corporations that already pay lower effective rates than the corner store."
Keep reading...
Show less
Here's the real reason Republicans hate the middle class
A Pew poll published last week finds that 59 percent of Americans say the GOP’s “Big Beautiful Bill” that cuts taxes for billionaires and raises them for working-class people — and was passed by the Senate on Tuesday — “would hurt lower-income people and 51 percent think it would hurt middle-income people.”
And they’re right. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill will measurably reduce the income and spending power of low- and middle-income people while giving a ~$4 trillion gift to the morbidly rich.
Americans have figured this out: according to a Fox “News” poll published last week and reported by Newsweek:
“Only 38 percent favored the bill, while 59 percent opposed it, a 21-point gap against the bill. About half of all voters believed the legislation would be detrimental to their families, and just a quarter thought it would deliver any benefit.”
So, why would Republicans want to further reduce the size and wealth of America’s middle class?
Turns out, there are two good reasons that answer that question.
The first and simplest is that ever since five corrupt Republicans on the Supreme Court made it legal for billionaires and big corporations to bribe politicians, the GOP has done the bidding of the morbidly rich to the exclusion of everybody else.
And there’s considerable truth to that argument. The Court opened that door with their Buckley and Bellotti decisions in the late 1970s, laying the foundation for Ronald Reagan’s war against unions and working people and his so-called “Reagan Revolution” on behalf of the wealthy.
As Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson pointed out in the Diamond Alternative Energy v EPA case that was decided on June 20 and made it easier for the fossil fuel industry to challenge environmental regulations:
“This case gives fodder to the unfortunate perception that moneyed interests enjoy an easier road to relief in this Court than ordinary citizens. … Our ruling will no doubt aid future attempts by the fuel industry to attack the Clean Air Act. … I worry that the fuel industry’s gain comes at a reputational cost for this Court, which is already viewed by many as being overly sympathetic to corporate interests. …
“For some, this silence will only harden their sense that the Court softens its certiorari standards when evaluating petitions from moneyed interests, looking past the jurisdictional defects or other vehicle problems that would typically doom petitions from other parties. This Court’s simultaneous aversion to hearing cases involving the potential vindication of the rights of less powerful litigants — workers, criminal defendants, and the condemned, among others — will further fortify that impression. …
“The Court’s remarkably lenient approach to standing in this case contrasts starkly with the stern stance it has taken in cases concerning the rights of ordinary citizens. … The Constitution does not distinguish between plaintiffs whose claims are backed by the Chamber of Commerce and those who seek to vindicate their rights to fair housing, desegregated schools, or privacy. But if someone reviewing our case law harbored doubts about that proposition, today’s decision will do little to dissuade them.”
But while it’s true that Republicans have been naked toadies for rich people and big corporations for a century, there’s a larger reason why Trump and the GOP are working so hard to immiserate and impoverish working class Americans.
That reason has to do with something called “modernization theory.”
Back in 1959, one of the inventors of modernization theory, Seymour Martin Lipset, famously wrote:
“The more well-to-do a nation, the greater the chances that it will sustain democracy.”
Lipset argued that industrialization led to unions and higher wages, which in turn funded higher-education opportunities and urbanization, which both grew a larger middle class. As people’s material conditions improved, Lipset noted, their focus shifted from survival issues like food and shelter to more aspirational elements like democratic values, civil and human rights, representation in government, and the rule of law.
In other words, the wealthier the middle class becomes, the more it will demand a vibrant democracy and a government that represents its interests.
On the other hand — and here is the GOP‘s real goal — if you can do away with or diminish the wealth and political power of the middle class, you can more easily loot the government and act exclusively in the interest of the morbidly rich.
As Barrington Moore noted in his book Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy: “No bourgeois [middle class], no democracy.”
In 2003, researchers Carles Boix and Susan Stokes found strong evidence that wealthier countries are more likely to be democracies, and once established, democracies are far more stable in richer nations. Similarly, in their book Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy", Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson prove that when economic growth empowers new classes (especially the middle class), those groups will demand political reforms.
Using examples including South Korea, Taiwan, Eastern Europe, and Tunisia, multiple cross-national studies using World Bank income data and Freedom House democracy scores show a strong correlation between per capita income and democratic governance; as people become wealthier they more vigorously demand a small-d democratic political system.
This happens because middle class people have economic security, giving them the time and energy to demand their rights; want property protections, honest courts, education, and fair governance; and typically have relied on meritocratic systems (education, hard work) to achieve their status instead of using corruption or inherited wealth and privilege.
By 1981, the American middle class was at its peak because of a 74 percent top personal income tax bracket, a 50 percent top corporate income tax rate, a strong and healthy social safety net, cheap healthcare (because hospitals and insurance companies were required to be nonprofits in most states), and free or near-free college.
Democracy was also arguably at its peak; for the previous 40+ years Congress had passed, one after the other, bills that primarily benefitted average working people and the middle class. Voting was easy, women and minorities were empowered, and we led the world in education and innovation.
This is not, however, what many wealthy oligarchs want, particularly those who become politically active.
Instead of democracy, they want government to protect their wealth and privilege to the exclusion of “the rabble.”
Instead of paying the cost of a government large enough to guarantee the emergence and sustenance of a middle class, they want tax cuts and subsidies for their businesses. Instead of rights for average people, they want police and courts that will, as Justice Jackson noted, focus instead on their unique wants and needs.
When Reagan came into office in 1981 about a third of American workers had good union jobs, meaning that about two-thirds of all American families lived good middle-class lives on a single paycheck (because the union jobs established the wage and benefits floor for non-union employers who had to compete with them for workers).
That was the year the GOP declared war on working-class people because, in the estimation of the Nixon- and Reagan-era Republicans, our democracy had gotten out of hand.
Workers were demanding good pay and benefits; women, racial, and gender minorities were demanding equal rights; and students demanded an end to the war in Vietnam.
Conservative thinkers like Russell Kirk and William F. Buckley saw these demands as symptoms of a “cultural decay” caused by working class people having more wealth and leisure time than they were “intellectually and culturally capable of handling.”
So, in 1981 the GOP set about dismantling the American middle class with their so-called Reagan Revolution.
Donald Trump, seen in the Oval Office at the White House. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein
The result is that today only about 45 percent of Americans are in the middle class, and it takes two jobs to establish that same lifestyle; since Reagan took office fully $50 trillion has been transferred from the homes, savings, and retirement accounts of working class people into the money bins of the top 1 percent.
As the social scientists cited above found, when the middle class shrinks below a certain threshold its demands for democracy are replaced by populist demands for, essentially, revenge.
“Who did this to us?” is the battle cry, and the GOP’s ready answer — first emerging in the 1980s with Rush Limbaugh, going on steroids in the 1990s with Fox “News,” and pounded on by Donald Trump ever since he first came down that escalator in 2015 — is, “It’s the immigrants, Black people, uppity women, college students and professors, and the union bosses.”
MAGA — particularly its white racist base — bought it hook, line, and sinker, leading us to a massive tax-cut bill, court decisions that screw working people and the environment, and an explosion in hate crimes and politically inspired violence.
The bottom line is that the GOP opposes democracy because it interferes with and complicates their very well paid efforts to suck up to — and legislate on behalf of — the morbidly rich. And they disdain the middle class (but love the uneducated poor) because the larger the middle class the louder come the demands for fairness in the distribution of the common wealth and democracy.
So, the next time somebody asks you why Republicans hate the middle class, let them know that, “It’s the democracy, stupid!”
Keep reading...
Show less
Musk and Trump hate empathy. That makes them un-American
During a three-hour interview with the podcaster Joe Rogan some months ago, Elon Musk revealed the core of the ideology animating the richest person in the world.
“The fundamental weakness of western civilization is empathy,” Musk said, adding that liberals and progressives are “exploiting a bug in western civilization, which is the empathy response.”
Musk pointed to California’s move to provide medical insurance even to undocumented people who qualify for its low-income Medi-Cal program.
“We’ve got civilizational suicidal empathy going on,” Musk continued.
Empathy has been “weaponized.”
Musk is now officially out of Trump world but his DOGE lives on. It has already destroyed almost every empathic part of the U.S. government.
Musk disdains social insurance such as Social Security, which he calls a “Ponzi scheme.”
Musk’s former buddy Donald Trump presumably agrees with him. As do many Republicans, including Joni (“Well, we all are going to die”) Ernst and Mitch (“They’ll get over it”) McConnell.
Trump’s Republicans are now raiding Medicaid and food stamps to make way for a giant tax cut mostly for the rich. No empathy bug there.
Trump’s Department of Homeland Security is grabbing people off the streets and from courthouses without warrants and putting them in detention centers.
The number of immigrants detained in Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities has reached a record high of more than 56,000. The result is overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and enormous pain for affected families and communities.
It’s the opposite of empathy — treating people as if they aren’t human, as if they’re the “other.”
Both Musk and Trump are experts in taking selfish advantage of everything, anything, and anybody. Both have altered government programs and regulations to reap personal financial gain. Both have been quick to fire people. Both demand loyalty to themselves but have no loyalty to anything or anyone besides themselves.
They’ve got it all wrong. Empathy is a necessary precondition for a society.
Without empathy, we’d be living in a social Darwinist jungle animated only by selfish individuals pursuing selfish needs, like Musk and Trump.
If everyone behaved like Musk and Trump, we’d have to assume everyone else was out to exploit us if they could. Much of our time and attention would be devoted to outwitting or protecting ourselves from other Musks and Trumps.
Without a shared sense of empathy and responsibility, we would have to assume that everyone — including legislators, judges, regulators, and police — was acting selfishly, making and enforcing laws for their own benefit.
In a world populated by people like Musk and Trump, we couldn’t trust anyone to be truthful if they could do better for themselves by lying. We couldn’t count on any claim by sellers of any product or service. Internet-based “reputational ratings” would be of little value because raters would be easily bribed.
Journalists would shade their reports for their own selfish advantage, taking bribes from advertisers or currying favor with politicians. Teachers would offer lessons to satisfy wealthy or powerful patrons. Historians would alter history if by doing so they gained wealth or power. Scientists would doctor evidence for similar selfish motives. The truth would degenerate into a cacophony of competing factual claims, as, in part, it has.
We couldn’t trust doctors or pharmacists to give us the right medications. We couldn’t trust bankers and accountants not to fleece us, restaurants not to feed us tainted food, lawyers not to hoodwink us.
A society depends on people trusting that most others in society will have a modicum of empathy for others rather than take advantage of them. In this way, civic trust is self-enforcing and self-perpetuating, while civic distrust can corrode the very foundations of a society.
Polls tell us that many of today’s Americans worry that the nation is losing its national identity. Yet the core of that identity has never been the whiteness of our skin, the uniformity of our ethnicity, or the commonality of our birthplace.
Our core identity as Americans — the most precious legacy we have been given by the generations who came before us — consists of the ideals we share and the obligations we hold in common. We are tied together by these empathic meanings and duties. Our loyalties and attachments, guided by empathy, define who we are.
If we are losing our national identity, it is not because we are becoming blacker or browner or speak in more languages than we once did. It is because we are losing the ties that bind us together, our collective empathy.
Musk and Trump typify what has gone wrong. Their most damaging legacies may be the erosion of the trust and empathy on which our society — any society — depends.
- Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump has his fat little foot on Lady Liberty’s throat
It’s been another brutal week in a brutal country. There’s no sense candy-coating it.
Thanks to a loaded, radical-right Supreme Court that believes in monarchies, not democracy — a group of robed anti-Americans led around by the nose and on lavish vacations by the billionaires who own them — a convicted felon who regards the truth as his mortal enemy now has the power he needs to wage war on the citizens of this country he pillages for his gain.
We are well on our way to becoming the brutal authoritarian country you used to see on TV and say, "Damn, thank God I don't live there ..."
Things are going to keep getting worse until (and if) we can put a stop to it, good people. Could be it’s already too late: we are a full-blown authoritarian country.
Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson knows full well the trouble we’re in, and offered this clear-eyed dissent Friday against the high court limiting federal judges’ ability to halt the fascist Trump’s hateful executive orders nationwide:
“The court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.”
AN EXISTENTIAL THREAT …
She wasn’t done:
“It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called ‘universal injunctions’ is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution — please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling today, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary has no choice but to deny it.”
In other words, Trump, the convicted felon … the guy who lies as he breathes … can pretty much ignore any law he doesn’t like.
I really don’t know if after this ruling granting Trump a king’s unchecked powers we will make it to the midterms, which are an endless 17 months away. It isn’t hard to imagine Trump ginning up some crisis and then smothering us in executive orders to halt our elections.
And if you think I’m going too far here, I think you are the problem.
Democrats and/or the opposition to GOP fascism need to be articulating what is at stake right now and emulating Justice Jackson’s courage and conviction. Everybody needs to understand we have entered the beginning of the end of a country where the people used to have the power.
And this is going to get so much damn worse so damn fast …
In my piece last week, We just got a deafening message — ignore it at your peril I warned Democrats of all shapes and sizes that if we make it to the midterms “there is going to be some serious bloodletting at the polls in 2026.”
I added for emphasis: “There will be no such thing as a 'safe' seat anywhere, because America is not a safe country right now. People are scared.”
I concluded: “Nothing motivates voters more than fear and anger, and the politician who doesn’t understand that, better be prepared to find some real work.”
Well, what do you know, guys like Andrew Cuomo aren’t hearing this message. After getting smacked at the polls in New York City’s mayoral primary, word is out that he will stay in the race and run as an alternative to the guy who thrashed him, Zohran Mamdani.
Cuomo is doing this because he’s an arrogant, privileged punk given license and a long leash by the Democratic elite who are completely out of touch with the American voter.
Rather than congratulate Mamdani, and tell him he will do everything he can to help him get elected, Cuomo's going to fight him. This is why so many people argue there’s really not much difference in America’s two major parties these days, and why I take heart most people aren’t affiliated with either one of them.
That last part might be exactly what saves us ...
In closing, I want to take you back to an ancient time, one year ago today.
Back then, a decent, hardworking guy named Joe Biden was our president and he was getting relentlessly hammered by our press, Republicans, and a disenchanted electorate for his inability to completely correct the dreadful economy he inherited from the guy who had attacked the country four years earlier — a guy by the name of Donald Trump.
It was the No.1 issue on the board for the majority of American voters, whose hair was on fire about high prices and inflation.
Well, we know how that election turned out.
As I was guzzling coffee and rifling through several newspapers this morning, I came across this story shoehorned onto the bottom of Page 10 of my local paper here in Madison, Wisconsin:
Turns out, things have gotten worse for the America consumer, not better, but nobody is talking about it anymore, because King Crud and his Crooked Court have given us 20 others things to worry about instead, including our survival.
Our press is flailing, and chasing danger instead of warning us about it.
This is chaos by design, with the goal of unsteadying us, and pushing us all toward surrender. The morbidly obese orange moron has his fat little foot on Lady Liberty’s throat and wants us all to just up and quit.
Well, I’m too goddam mad for that, AND WILL NOT SUBMIT to this clown or his bought-off court.
I am raging and sounding the alarms. I am done looking for leaders where they are supposed to be, and perfectly happy to find ‘em right here in this space.
I say let’s be the answer, and kick some ass.
People. Not parties.
Enough Already.
(D. Earl Stephens is the author of “Toxic Tales: A Caustic Collection of Donald J. Trump’s Very Important Letters” and finished up a 30-year career in journalism as the Managing Editor of Stars and Stripes. You can find all his work here.)
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump wants Alaska reserve open for drilling. We can still stop him
Mariah Meek, Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University
The largest tract of public land in the United States is a wild expanse of tundra and wetlands stretching across nearly 23 million acres of northern Alaska. It’s called the National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska, but despite its industrial-sounding name, the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska, or NPR-A, is much more than a fuel depot.
Tens of thousands of caribou feed and breed in this area, which is the size of Maine. Migratory birds flock to its lakes in summer, and fish rely on the many rivers that crisscross the region.
The area is also vital for the health of the planet. However, its future is at risk.
The Trump administration announced a plan on June 17, 2025, to open nearly 82% of this fragile landscape to oil and gas development, including some of its most ecologically sensitive areas. The government is accepting public comments on the plan through July 1.
I am an ecologist, and I have been studying sensitive ecosystems and the species that depend on them for over 20 years. Disturbing this landscape and its wildlife could lead to consequences that are difficult – if not impossible – to reverse.
What is the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska?
The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska was originally designated in 1923 by President Warren Harding as an emergency oil supply for the U.S. Navy.
In the 1970s, its management was transferred to the Department of Interior under the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act. This congressional act requires that, in addition to managing the area for energy development, the secretary of the interior must ensure the “maximum protection” of “any significant subsistence, recreational, fish and wildlife, or historical or scenic value.”
The Bureau of Land Management is responsible for overseeing the reserve and identifying and protecting areas with important ecological or cultural values – aptly named “special areas.”
The Trump administration now plans to expand the amount of land available for drilling in the NPR-A from about 11.7 million acres to more than 18.5 million acres – including parts of those “special areas” – as part of its effort to increase U.S. oil drilling and reduce regulations on the industry.
I recently worked with scientists and scholars at The Wilderness Society to write a detailed report outlining many of the ecological and cultural values found across the reserve.
A refuge for wildlife
The reserve is a sanctuary for many Arctic wildlife, including caribou populations that have experienced sharp global declines in recent years.
The reserve’s open tundra provides critical calving, foraging, migratory and winter habitat for three of the four caribou herds on Alaska’s North Slope. These herds undertake some of the longest overland migrations on Earth. Infrastructure such as roads and industrial activity can disrupt their movement, further harming the populations’ health.
The NPR-A is also globally significant for migratory birds. Situated at the northern end of five major flyways, birds come here from all corners of the Earth, including all 50 states. It hosts some of the highest densities of breeding shorebirds anywhere on the planet.
An estimated 72% of Arctic Coastal Plain shorebirds — over 4.5 million birds — nest in the reserve. This includes the yellow-billed loon, the largest loon species in the world, with most of its U.S. breeding population concentrated in the reserve.
Expanding oil and gas development in the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska could threaten these birds by disrupting their habitat and adding noise to the landscape.
Many other species also depend on intact ecosystems there.
Polar bears build dens in the area, making it critical for cub survival. Wolverines, which follow caribou herds, also rely on large, connected expanses of undisturbed habitat for their dens and food. Moose browse along the Colville River, the largest river on the North Slope, while peregrine falcons, gyrfalcons and rough-legged hawks nest on the cliffs above.
A large stretch of the Colville River is currently protected as a special area, but the Trump administration’s proposed plan will remove those protections. The Teshekpuk Lake special area, critical habitat for caribou and migrating birds, would also lose protection.
Indigenous communities in the Arctic, particularly the Iñupiat people, also depend on these lands, waters and wildlife for subsistence hunting and fishing. Their livelihoods, food security, cultural identity and spiritual practices are deeply intertwined with the health of this ecosystem.
Oil and gas drilling’s impact
The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska is vast, and drilling won’t occur across all of it. But oil and gas operations pose far-reaching risks that extend well beyond the drill sites.
Infrastructure like roads, pipelines, airstrips and gravel pads fragment and degrade the landscape. That can alter water flow and the timing of ice melt. It can also disrupt reproduction and migration routes for wildlife that rely on large, connected habitats.
Networks of winter ice roads and the way exploration equipment compacts the land can delay spring and early summer thawing patterns on the landscape. That can upset the normal pattern of meltwater, making it harder for shore birds to nest.
ConocoPhillips’ Willow drilling project, approved by the Biden administration in 2023 on the eastern side of the reserve, provides some insight into the potential impact: An initial project plan, later scaled back, included up to 575 miles (925 kilometers) of ice roads for construction, an air strip, more than 300 miles (nearly 485 kilometers) of new pipeline, a processing facility, a gravel mine and barge transportation, in addition to five drilling sites.
Many animals will try to steer clear of noise, light and human activity. Roads and industrial operations can force them to alter their behavior, which can affect their health and how well they can reproduce. Research has shown that caribou mothers with new calves avoid infrastructure and that this impact does not lessen over time of exposure.
At Alaska’s Prudhoe Bay, the largest oilfield in the U.S., decades of oil development have led to pollution, including hundreds of oil spills and leaks, and habitat loss, such as flooding and shoreline erosion, extensive permafrost thaw and damage from roads, construction and gravel mining. In short, the footprint of drilling is not confined to isolated locations — it radiates outward, undermining the ecological integrity of the region. Permafrost thaw now even threatens the stability of the oil industry’s own infrastructure.
Consequences for the climate
The National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska and the surrounding Arctic ecosystem also play an outsized role in regulating the global climate.
Vast amounts of climate-warming carbon is currently locked away in the wetlands and permafrost of the tundra, but the Arctic is warming close to three times faster than the global average.
Roads, drilling and development can increase permafrost thaw and cause coastlines to erode, releasing carbon long locked in the soil. In addition, these operations will ultimately add more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, further warming the planet.
The public comment period on the White House’s plan to open more of the National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska to oil and gas drilling closes at the end of the day on July 1.
The decisions made today will shape the future of the Arctic — and one of the last wild ecosystems in the United States — for generations to come.
- Mariah Meek is Associate Professor of Integrative Biology, Michigan State University. She has received funding from the National Science Foundation, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, and several state agencies. In addition to being a professor, she is also the director of research for The Wilderness Society, where she supervises a team of scientists doing research to understand ecological interactions in the Alaskan Arctic.
Keep reading...
Show less
The ties that bind: Trump celebrates his own version of Independence Day
Nick Anderson is a Pulitzer Prize-winning editorial cartoonist.
Senate Republicans are passing the worst bill in history
One of my objectives is to equip you with the facts you need. As the Senate approaches a vote on Trump’s giant “big beautiful” tax and budget bill, I want to be as clear as possible about it.
First, it will cost a budget-busting $3.3 trillion. According to new estimates by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the Senate bill would add at least $3.3 trillion to the already out-of-control national debt over a decade. That’s nearly $1 trillion more than the House-passed version.
Second, it will cause 11.8 million Americans to lose their health coverage. The Senate version would result in even deeper cuts in federal support for health insurance, and more Americans losing coverage, than the House version. Federal spending on Medicaid, Medicare, and Obamacare would be reduced by more than $1.1 trillion over that period — with more than $1 trillion of those cuts coming from Medicaid alone.
All told, this will leave 11.8 million more Americans uninsured by 2034.
Third, it will cut food stamps and other nutrition assistance for lower-income Americans. According to the CBO, the legislation will not only cut Medicaid by about 18 percent, it will cut Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (food stamps) by roughly 20 percent. These cuts will constitute the most dramatic reductions in safety net spending in modern U.S. history.
Fourth, it will overwhelmingly benefit the rich and big corporations. The CBO projects that those in the bottom tenth of the income distribution will end up poorer, while the top tenth will be substantially richer.
The bill also makes permanent the business tax cuts from the 2017 legislation, further benefiting the largest corporations.
Finally, it will not help the economy. Trickle-down economics has proven to be a cruel hoax. Over the last 50 years, Congress has passed four major bills that cut taxes: the 1981 Reagan tax cuts; the 2001 and 2003 George W. Bush tax cuts; and the 2017 Trump tax cuts. Each time, the same three arguments were made in favor of the tax cuts: (1) They’d pay for themselves. (2) They’d supercharge economic growth. (3) They’d benefit everyone.
All have been proven wrong. Here’s what in fact happened:
(1) Did the tax cuts pay for themselves?
No. Rather than paying for themselves, the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts each significantly increased the federal deficit. In total, those tax cuts have added over $10.4 trillion to the federal deficit since 1981 compared to the CBO’s baseline projections.
(2) Did the tax cuts supercharge economic growth, create millions of jobs, and raise wages?
Absolutely not. Rather than growing, the economy shrank after passage of the Reagan tax cuts. And unemployment surged to over 10 percent. Following the enactment of the Bush and Trump tax cuts, the economy did grow a bit, but at rates much lower than their supporters predicted.
(3) Did the tax cuts benefit everyone?
Heavens, no. Rather than benefiting everyone, the savings from the Reagan, Bush, and Trump tax cuts flowed mainly to the richest Americans. The average tax cut for households in the top 1 percent under the Reagan tax cut ($47,147) was 68 times larger than the average tax cut for middle-class households ($695). The Bush tax cut for households in the top 1 percent was 16 times larger than the average tax cut for the middle class. The 2017 Trump tax cut for households in the top 1 percent was 36 times larger than for middle-class households.
Summary: If the bill now being considered by the Senate is enacted, 11.8 million Americans will lose their health insurance, millions will fall into poverty, and the national debt will increase by $3.3 trillion, all to provide a major tax cut mainly to the rich and big corporations. There is no justification for this.
Never before in the history of this nation has such a large redistribution of income been directed upward, for no reason at all. It comes at a time of near-record inequalities of income and wealth.
What you can do: Call your senators and tell them to vote “no” on this calamitous tax and budget bill. Congressional switchboard: (202) 224-3121.
Beyond this, help ensure that senators who vote in favor of this monstrosity are booted out of the Senate as soon as they’re up for reelection.
- Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Keep reading...
Show less
Rats to a burger joint dumpster: Why does Florida have such awful politicians?
Younger readers may be unaware there was a time when politicians followed the rules, almost as if they cared about good government.
Certainly there were liars, fraudsters, and zealots, your Sen. Joe McCarthys, your Sen. Styles Bridges, and, of course, the great-granddaddy of corruption and sleaze, Richard Nixon. But most lawmakers actually seemed to believe in, you know, the law.
Seems almost quaint.
Take a look, if you can stomach it, at Florida’s sitting attorney general, one James Uthmeier Esq.
A federal judge has held him in contempt for violating a court order halting SB 4C — last session’s bill allowing the state to arrest anyone who might kinda sorta look “illegal.”
Brown folks rounded up by handcuff-happy cops included at least one American citizen.
Uthmeier took to X, proclaiming, “If being held in contempt is what it costs to defend the rule of law and stand firmly behind President Trump’s agenda on illegal immigration, so be it.”
Older readers will detect an echo of former Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who did her damnedest to stall ballot recounts in the great Gore-Bush imbroglio of 2000, and who would grandly quote the Biblical Queen Esther, “If I perish, I perish.”
The AG appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, half of whom were appointed by Trump. They told him (in judicial language) to get lost.
Scofflaw history
Uthmeier’s lucky U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams didn’t fine him or throw his arrogant backside in jail.
Still, it’s early days: Hope Florida, the nonprofit founded by the state’s ambitious First Lady, is under investigation by North Florida State’s Attorney Jack Campbell. Uthmeier is up to his eyeballs in this one.
State Rep. Alex Andrade (R-Pensacola) has accused Uthmeier of criminal fraud and money laundering.
Seems Hope Florida got a $10 million “donation” of taxpayer money, of which a good chunk went to a PAC controlled by Uthmeier.
You can’t use that money for political purposes; nevertheless, that’s just what Uthmeier’s PAC did, spending it on ads to defeat last year’s recreational marijuana amendment.
DeSantis hadn’t yet elevated Uthmeier, then his chief of staff, to the AG job, but still: The guy was an officer of the court, a member of the Florida Bar.
You’d think he’d get it.
Then again, Florida under DeSantis is not known for adherence to the rule of law.
Remember in 2022 when the governor tricked a bunch of Venezuelan asylum seekers onto a plane and flew them to Martha’s Vineyard? Legally dubious? Ethically ugly? Yes and yes.
De Santis is also the guy who suspended one state attorney for saying he wouldn’t pursue abortion cases and another because, he claimed, she wouldn’t enforce state law.
“State attorneys have a duty to prosecute crimes as defined in Florida law,” he said. “Not to pick and choose which laws to enforce based on his personal agenda,” adding that those outlaw prosecutors were “basically saying that they didn’t want to enforce statutes that the Legislature had done.”
Yet when James Uthmeier said he wouldn’t enforce a statute passed by the Legislature, namely, Florida’s 2018 law forbidding anyone under 21 to buy a long gun, the governor shrugged.
He said that law is unconstitutional anyway and that Uthmeier’s stance was a “good-faith position.”
What’s the difference? The two state attorneys he suspended are Democrats.
Besides, as Floridians all know, the sacred right to pack heat matters more than actual human beings like the two people killed by a white supremacist Trumper on the FSU campus in April.
Unfortunately for us, DeSantis and his enablers aren’t particularly troubled by a bit of violence, as long as it’s perpetrated by the right people.
While he initially criticized the Jan. 6 riot, calling it “unacceptable,” he soon fell in line with MAGA-speak, denying there was an “insurrection” of any kind and defending Trump’s role in what was clearly an attempted coup.
So what if a few Capitol police got roughed up? They were on the wrong side.
In Florida, we like cops to be on the right side, making sure Marxists, environmentalists, feminists, BLM radicals, LGBTQ-types, and other outside agitators get what’s coming to them.
And, according to the governor, citizens can play cop, too.
In advance of the No Kings protests on June 14, DeSantis decreed that any patriotic, God-fearing, Trump-voting motorist who felt threatened or even just mildly inconvenienced by those freaks marching in one of the 70-odd demonstrations across Florida had his permission to give ’em a little automotive nudge.
“If you drive off and you hit one of these people, that’s their fault for impinging on you,” he said. “You don’t have to sit there and just be a sitting duck and let the mob grab you out of your car and drag you through the streets.”
DeSantis clearly cut con law class the day they discussed freedom of assembly.
Something in the water?
You begin to wonder if there’s something about Florida that encourages a complete disregard not just of decent behavior but of the rule of law.
Maybe it’s some kind of mosquito-borne illness? Maybe the toxic algae choking our waters emits a foul miasma that clouds the brain’s moral center?
Maybe it’s a fish problem, you know, rotting from the head down?
In any case, scofflaws flock to Florida like rats to a burger joint dumpster.
We’ve a long history of criminality: Al Capone hung out in Miami Beach, and Charles Ponzi sold worthless swampland to rubes dreaming of a life in “paradise.”
It’s no surprise the current occupant of the White House, a casino-bankrupting grifter with 34 felony convictions, chose Palm Beach County as his home.
For a brief period in history — way back there, from the 1960s to the 1990s — Florida was known as a good-government state, with leaders such as Reuben Askew, Bob Graham, and Lawton Chiles, who promoted education, conservation, and transparency.
Again, quaint.
In the past couple of decades, however, we’ve elected such prize porkers as a governor whose company perpetrated a huge Medicare and Medicaid fraud and an attorney general who saw nothing untoward in taking a $25,000 campaign contribution from Donald Trump then dropping an investigation into his shady “university.”
Rick Scott is now a U.S. senator; Pam Bondi is now the attorney general of the United States.
Bondi’s busy demonstrating how much she learned in Florida, doing her damnedest to destroy the separation of powers enumerated in the Constitution.
She’s suing every single federal judge in the state of Maryland for having the brass-faced gall to issue orders insisting on due process for people the Trump regime wants to deport.
Doing their job, in other words.
Lawyers or lawless?
Meanwhile, back down here in the sunniest state with the shadiest government, DeSantis and Uthmeier are back with a brand new bad idea: “Alligator Alcatraz,” a huge ICE detention camp in the Everglades.
The state seized the land from Miami-Dade County to park a 5,000-bed facility bang in the middle of the state’s greatest environmental treasure.
Who cares if it’s legal? It sure ain’t moral.
Despite the state’s claims that the place won’t hurt the surrounding wetland ecosystem (apparently 5,000 people in housing pods won’t create any run-off and all the trucks and buses transporting people and supplies will not make a mark upon the land), it’s an assault on a vulnerable and irreplaceable place.
Remember that the next time you hear DeSantis’ bleating how he wants to “save” the Everglades.
DeSantis, Bondi, and Uthmeier may call themselves lawyers, but they are lawless.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump got played as NATO finally figures him out
Claiming that Donald Trump is a sociopath has become so common it’s pretty much a cliché these days. That said, most people don’t know what sociopathy is or what they can expect from — or how to identify — a sociopath.
I did a deep dive into Trump’s childhood and history to discover the roots of his behavior — and how we can deal with it and repair America from it — in my newest book The Last American President: A Broken Man, a Corrupt Party, and a World on the Brink.
What I found was fascinating and provides an easy way for people with no training in psychology to identify not only Trump’s problem but to figure out who else in their lives may incline toward sociopathy (CEOs are particularly notorious; some suggest it’s what makes them ruthless but successful).
The easy way to describe sociopathy to a lay person is to explain that if young children were tested for the condition they’d often test positive, which is referred to by professionals (and the DSM) as “Antisocial Personality Disorder” (ASPD).
That’s because their personalities are still developing and they haven’t yet fully developed empathy, impulse control, or a stable sense of morality, traits that are still emerging during childhood and adolescence.
This is why clinicians are careful not to diagnose children with sociopathy or ASPD outright; instead, they may diagnose Conduct Disorder, especially if the child shows persistent patterns of aggression, deceit, or cruelty. If these behaviors continue into adulthood, and particularly if they begin before age 15, the diagnosis may later shift to ASPD/sociopathy.
According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), adults with ASPD or sociopathy display a consistent and persistent set of characteristics. Those include a pervasive pattern of disregard for the rights of others; chronic violation of social norms, rules, and laws; deceitfulness, impulsivity, and aggression; and a near-complete lack of remorse or empathy.
But the simplest way to explain this is to simply note that adult sociopaths usually tend to act like young children. Consider Trump’s public behavior. He:
— Ignores or apparently doesn’t care about the rights of other people or the impact of his actions on others. He’ll send non-criminals to a hellhole concentration camp in El Salvador or deport them to South Sudan, even though it may be a death sentence — and is certainly an open door to torture — apparently without a second thought or twinge of conscience.
— Defies social norms, bragging about sexually assaulting women and how he could murder somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it.
— Ignores or tries to get around laws and court orders with apparent delight.
— Lies about those actions and decisions that hurt others or even damage our nation.
— Makes things up on the fly, chronically lying when it’s not even remotely necessary.
— Bullies judges, lawmakers, people who work for him, and anybody he considers disloyal.
— Almost never, ever admits errors or wrongdoing and is so constantly wrapped up in himself that he doesn’t know how to experience what others are feeling.
This is the behavior of a child who’s not yet been socialized, and in Trump’s case it’s rooted deep in his childhood, having been raised by a troubled father and a distant mother.
The leaders of Europe’s NATO countries appear to have figured this out (as did Putin, Musk, and the Saudis, Emiratis, and Qataris before them); when Trump showed up in The Netherlands this week, they lavished him with praise and positive attention, instead of shunning and implicitly or subtly ridiculing him like they did five years ago.
His response was exactly what they wanted; reconsidering aid to Ukraine and suddenly changing his position to embrace the US’s commitment to the mutual defense provisions embodied in Article 5 of the organization’s charter.
This doesn’t mean that Americans should coddle Trump’s tantrums, demands for revenge, and petty grievances. He will always and obsessively be preoccupied with getting his own childish needs met, and at the top of that list is avoiding discomfort and complexity.
Like the bully he is, when he’s seriously confronted — at least so far — he’ll back down (TACO) if the confrontation threatens to consume lots of his time, trouble, or money. This is why consistent and ferocious opposition to his most puerile actions is absolutely necessary.
History teaches us that when self-centered national leaders aren’t constrained by their own people, the results are usually tragic. During his first presidency, Trump had largely surrounded himself with normal adults who succeeded in moderating his behavior and restraining his worst impulses.
This time, however, he’s succeeded in surrounding himself with people just as pathetically child-like, morally and developmentally, as he is. They’ll lie, cheat, or bully on his behalf, as we’ve recently seen with the public statements of many of his most senior officials.
As we’ve seen with their attacks on and arrests of a state judge, member of Congress, US Senator, and Newark’s Mayor, among others, when a troubled man like Trump succeeds in surrounding himself with other people who share his developmental stunting — and has disposed of “the adults in the room” — the results can be horrific.
The next three-and-a-half years will be both critical and dangerous for the future of democracy in our republic both because of Trump’s psychopathology and the willingness (or even enthusiasm) of the people around him to facilitate his infantile rages and desires.
In the book — and in future articles here — I lay out a variety of ways Americans can deal with this national mental health crisis and the consequences with which it hits average working class people. The first and most important step, though, is to identify his disability and spread the word.
Not only is that the first step toward constraining him and those around him, but it’ll also help voters avoid electing more troubled man-babies to public office in the future.
Keep reading...
Show less
Trump moves to dismantle democracy — and silence the judges who defy him
The hardest part of my nights usually occurs around 3 am when my brain starts obsessing about upsetting things, such as what Trump is doing to America.
I’m sure many of you are like me. Our days are filled with all sorts of distractions, but in the wee hours of the morning, we tend to drift back to big and often terrifying realities.
Last night I couldn’t get out of my head that Trump is intent on abolishing the two branches of the government with the constitutional duty to constrain him.
As every American school kid learns, the U.S. Constitution establishes three branches of government that are supposed to check and balance each other.
Every school kid, that is, except Donald Trump and the people around him who have been usurping congressional authority and going to war against the judiciary.
Trump and his lackeys want there to be only one branch of government — the executive branch, under Trump.
Congress has now all but disappeared because it’s controlled by Republican zombies who will say and do whatever Trump wants.
This leaves the federal judiciary as the only remaining check on Trump. So far, federal courts have paused about 80 of Trump’s executive orders until judges have an opportunity to hear arguments and sift through evidence at full trials.
But even this is too much for the dictator-in-chief.
On Friday, a majority of the Supreme Court — at the prodding of Trump’s Justice Department — decided that federal judges could pause executive actions only for the specific plaintiffs that bring a case. (Previously, any of the nation’s more than 1,000 judges in its 94 district courts could issue nationwide injunctions that immediately halted government policies across all 50 states.)
On Tuesday, Trump and his lackeys filed a lawsuit against 15 federal judges who serve on the bench in Maryland, seeking a court order that would block them from making any ruling that might “interfere” in “the president’s powers to enforce the nation’s immigration laws.”
Beyond these are Trump’s personal attacks against federal judges who rule against him, calling them “monsters” who want America to “go to hell,” and “radical left lunatics” or worse — even demanding their impeachment.
These attacks have incited some Trump followers to threaten the lives of federal judges and their families. Threats have surged in recent months, including bomb threats and swatting incidents.
For Trump and his lackeys, all who push back against what they want to do — including federal judges — are considered the “opposition.” Attorney General Pam Bondi even accuses federal judges of “meddling in our government.”
But the federal judiciary is not an opposing party. It’s an inherent part of the government. Federal court rulings don’t “interfere” in a president’s powers. They determine what those powers are. Federal judges don’t “meddle” in government. They are a vital part of government.
We were supposed to have learned this in school. Apparently Trump and his coterie — including Trump’s appointees to the Supreme Court — never learned it. Or now that they’re in power, have erased it from their minds.
If all of this makes you pessimistic, I understand. The immediate future does look bleak.
But please do not become cynical. Don’t lose hope. Don’t give up the fight.
Pessimism is different from cynicism. Pessimists believe an outcome will be bad. But cynics don’t even try for a different outcome because they’ve lost all hope.
Trump and his lackeys want us to be cynical because then we’ll stop fighting. If we stop fighting, they win everything — not just the entire government but our entire society.
It looks dark today, but it will not remain dark. The Caligula on the Potomac is getting nowhere on tariffs. Inflation threatens. The vast majority of Americans oppose his plan to cut Medicaid and give the rich a huge tax cut. His popularity continues to plummet. He is facing mounting opposition from the rest of the world.
Do not succumb to cynicism. We must keep fighting. Too much is at stake. We will prevail.
Robert Reich is a professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/.
Keep reading...
Show less
John Roberts' Supreme Court will have blood on its hands within a week
No, the Supreme Court did NOT strike down birthright citizenship in the decision handed down Friday, Trump v. Casa et.al. Instead, the Republican majority voted to purposefully sidestep the merits and substance of the birthright citizenship question and decided to treat the case as a procedural issue.
The result of the 6-3 ruling along partisan lines? The Roberts court just gave Trump unfettered power to continue s---ting on the Constitution.
As a 30-year federal litigator, I am outraged. I don’t see how the rule of law can survive this decision, especially at a time when our executive is so clearly and demonstrably unhinged.
What the partisan majority did
Focusing on equitable authority to issue injunctions instead of the 14th Amendment right to birthright citizenship, the Roberts court elevated procedure over substance.
As explained in the dissent, the majority opinion “ignores entirely whether the President’s Executive Order (on birthright citizenship) is constitutional, instead focusing only on the question whether federal courts have the equitable authority to issue universal injunctions. Yet the (Executive Order’s) patent unlawfulness reveals the gravity of the majority’s error and underscores why equity supports universal injunctions as appropriate remedies in this kind of case.”
What the Republican majority did was far worse — and far more dangerous — than ending birthright citizenship:
Held: Universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts. The Court grants the Government’s applications for a partial stay of the injunctions entered below, but only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue. Pp. 4–26.
Translation: they struck down nationwide injunctions, the main tool federal courts have used to stop Trump from bulldozing the Constitution. Their shameful decision is NOT limited to the birthright citizen question; it applies without limitation. It gives Trump license to trammel every law, every clause, and every amendment to the Constitution.
Writing for the partisan 6-3 majority, Coney-Barrett continued:
The Court’s early refusals to grant relief to nonparties are consistent with the party-specific principles that permeate the Court’s understanding of equity. “[N]either declaratory nor injunctive relief,” the Court has said, “can directly interfere with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with respect to the particular federal plaintiffs.” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 931. In fact, universal injunctions were conspicuously nonexistent for most of the Nation’s history. Their absence from 18th and 19th century equity practice settles the question of judicial authority.
It's Dobbs déjà vu all over again
Just as these same partisan hacks did in Dobbs to erase abortion rights that had been in existence for 50 years, they are erasing the history of nationwide injunctions, focusing on what happened in the 1700s and 1800s instead of the last 100 years.
Nationwide injunctions have been used in the U.S. for over 60 years. They are the strongest and surest remedy to keep elected officials from violating federal law or the Constitution. Now, in service to Trump, that remedy has been removed, that protection for the little guy has been erased.
From Sotomayor’s dissent: “The gamesmanship in this request is apparent and the Government makes no attempt to hide it. Yet, shamefully, this Court plays along. A majority of this Court decides that these (birthright) applications, of all cases, provide the appropriate occasion to resolve the question of universal injunctions and end the centuries-old practice once and for all. In its rush to do so the Court disregards basic principles of equity as well as the long history of injunctive relief granted to non-parties.”
Translation: Everyone who wants to stop Trump from illegally harming them now has to sue, and appear personally before the court, or join a class action, which can take years to certify. I defended class actions for over 15 years — they are an expensive, time-consuming and cumbersome way to try to fight back against the government.
Sotomayor ‘s outrage is also palpable. She continues: “In partially granting the Government’s remarkable request, the Court distorts well-established equitable principles several times over. A stay, this Court has said, “‘is not a matter of right,’” but rather “‘an exercise of judicial discretion….For centuries, courts have “close[d] the doors” of equity to those “tainted with inequitableness or bad faith relative to the matter in which [they] seek relief… Yet the majority throws the doors of equity open to the Government in a case where it seeks to undo a fundamental and clearly established constitutional right. The Citizenship Order’s patent unlawfulness is reason enough to deny the Government’s applications.”
Hear, hear. I second, third, fourth and fifth amendments that. This horrific, legally absurd, and grossly partisan decision comes just as Trump’s goons are becoming more and more violent.
They are physically tackling Democrat officials to the ground. Bored ICE agents on power trips are attacking brown people on the streets, in parking lots, in restaurants, beating them in front of their children.
The Roberts court is aware of what Trump is doing; the justices don’t live in caves and presumably are well-read. They know exactly what is happening, but have shamefully chosen to look away and let Trump do his worst AFTER they gave him immunity to break criminal laws.
Justice Jackson’s dissent hit it hard: “The Court’s decision to permit the Executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law. It is important to recognize that the Executive’s bid to vanquish so-called “universal injunctions” is, at bottom, a request for this Court’s permission to engage in unlawful behavior. When the Government says “do not allow the lower courts to enjoin executive action universally as a remedy for unconstitutional conduct,” what it is actually saying is that the Executive wants to continue doing something that a court has determined violates the Constitution— please allow this. That is some solicitation. With its ruling, the majority largely grants the Government’s wish. But, in my view, if this country is going to persist as a Nation of laws and not men, the Judiciary (had) no choice but to deny it.
The Roberts Court will will have blood on its hands within the week. This decision will be cited in history books explaining how the fall of America’s rule of law converted the world's strongest democracy into a fascist autocracy.
That is if history books are even allowed in five years.
Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25+ year federal trial attorney specializing in 1st and 14th A defense. Her Substack, The Haake Take, is free.
Keep reading...
Show less
Copyright © 2025 Raw Story Media, Inc. PO Box 21050, Washington, D.C. 20009 |
Masthead
|
Privacy Policy
|
Manage Preferences
|
Debug Logs
For corrections contact
corrections@rawstory.com
, for support contact
support@rawstory.com
.