Ailia Zehra, Alternet

In an article for the Los Angeles Times published Tuesday, columnist Jonah Goldberg argued that President Donald Trump’s claims of emergency powers to impose tariffs reflect a dangerous strain of “Caesarism” – the age-old tendency of republics to surrender extraordinary authority to one man in the name of solving crises.

Titled "Donald Trump isn't a dictator, but his goal may actually be worse," the article drew a historical parallel between Julius Caesar’s rise from temporary problem-solver to “dictator for life” and Trump’s efforts to justify sweeping trade powers under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977.

The law, Goldberg noted, was designed for true national emergencies, not economic policy disputes – yet Trump has invoked it to impose tariffs on countries such as Brazil and Canada.

In one case, he punished Brazil over the prosecution of a political ally, and in another, he used a pro-free trade ad from Canada as justification for new tariffs.

“These are not emergencies,” Goldberg writes, likening Trump’s reasoning to Caesar’s manipulation of the Roman Republic’s temporary dictatorship.

By framing trade deficits as existential threats, he argues, Trump is pushing a “Caesarist argument” — that unchecked presidential power is necessary to protect the nation.

"Some — like Cincinnatus, George Washington or Abraham Lincoln — can resist, but all you need is one lesser mortal to be granted undue power for the whole experiment in republican government to come crashing down. This was the history of republics until 1789, which is why Benjamin Franklin commented after the constitutional convention, that the drafters had given us 'a republic, if we can keep it.'"

Goldberg also criticized congressional Republicans for enabling Trump’s approach by weakening their own oversight powers under IEEPA, which originally required Congress to review presidential actions every six months.

In doing so, he argued, they have ceded one of the Constitution’s key safeguards against executive overreach.

A social media exchange between Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and conservative activist Riley Gaines ignited a firestorm among MAGA Republicans on Monday.

Gaines, a former collegiate swimmer and vocal critic of transgender women in women's sports, shared a photo on the social platform X of Ocasio-Cortez with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani (D) at a rally in New York held Sunday.

Gaines wrote, "We're being destroyed from within."

Ocasio-Cortez reacted to her post and wrote, "Maybe if you channeled all this anger into swimming faster you wouldn’t have come in fifth."

The remark referenced Gaines's fifth-place finish at the 2022 NCAA Swimming Championships, where she tied with transgender swimmer Lia Thomas.

Sen. Tommy Tuberville (R-AL), a staunch ally of Gaines' and advocate for legislation aimed at restricting transgender women from competing in women's sports, criticized Ocasio-Cortez's comment.

In a post reacting to Ocasio-Cortez's remarks, Tuberville wrote, "What happened to 'support all women' @AOC? @Riley_Gaines_ is a 5x SEC Champion and 12x NCAA All-American. Not to mention she’s a patriot who has fought every day for women and girls. Meanwhile, AOC thinks 'women’s rights' just means abortion."

Mamdani, a 34-year-old democratic socialist, energized nearly 13,000 supporters at a rally in Forest Hills, Queens, on Sunday. The event, under the slogan “New York Is Not For Sale,” featured prominent endorsements from Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez.

Mamdani, who is leading in the polls, emphasized his platform focused on rent freezes, universal childcare, affordable housing and expanded education.

President Donald Trump's critics are accusing him of transforming government power into an instrument of retaliation, arguing that his administration’s pursuit of “retribution” against perceived enemies signals a departure from legal norms and erodes institutional independence.

In an article for The New Republic published Sunday, Paul Starr, a professor of Sociology at Princeton University, argued that Trump’s focus on revenge is not just a personal obsession but a political strategy rooted in a broader cultural reaction against decades of social change.

"The air is thick with talk of revenge, and it’s not limited to Donald Trump’s personal vendetta against individual enemies like James Comey, Letitia James, and John Bolton," the article read.

Starr wrote that Trump’s call for “retribution” against his enemies and the institutions he claims have “betrayed” his followers reflects a deep current of resentment within American politics.

Trump’s threats and acts of retaliation, Starr said, have helped him consolidate control over the Republican Party and intimidate other institutions.

Starr added that Trump’s appeal to revenge resonates with supporters who feel disempowered by the liberal and progressive movements that reshaped American life since the mid-twentieth century. The social revolutions that advanced racial equality, women’s rights, LGBTQ rights, and secular values, he argued, disrupted long-standing hierarchies and provoked backlash among those who saw their traditional privileges eroded.

"For years he had been telling his followers that they had been betrayed by the nation’s leaders on diversity policies, trade, immigration, foreign wars, and much else. He would be their instrument for a historic settling of scores," Starr said of Trump.

Trump’s promise of payback, Starr wrote, channels those grievances into a demand for the restoration of lost status and dominance.

Tracing the roots of this backlash, Starr noted that earlier Republican leaders like Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan courted conservative resentment but did not seek to overturn liberal reforms entirely.

Nixon’s policies, he observed, often extended the liberal project, while Reagan’s conservatism, though economically transformative, stopped short of a full social counterrevolution.

Starr argued that the decisive shift toward Trump-style politics emerged in the 1990s, when the conservative movement and Republican Party increasingly turned to fear and aggression as organizing principles. In that evolution, he argued, the politics of revenge became central to the identity of the American right.

"There have been other dark times in America’s past and other dangers we have faced and overcome. We need the courage and determination that others before us have shown in leading the country through darkness to the other side," he concluded.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Roger Keller Jr. openly admitted at the arraignment of New York Attorney General Letitia James (D) Friday that the prosecution in her federal case is still sorting through what evidence it has.

“I am going through the discovery right now,” he told U.S. District Judge Jamar Walker (an appointee of former President Joe Biden), per a report published in NOTUS.

The admission came as James – who pleaded not guilty in Norfolk, Virginia on Friday – faced a courtroom that pressed the government for clarity and timeliness on its preparations.

"Normally, prosecutors fully investigate a case before pursuing an indictment and know well exactly what evidence exists to support criminal charges. However, this case is anything but normal," the report read.

When Keller sought until mid-November to complete evidentiary disclosures, the judge rejected the request.

“Waiting nearly a month after an indictment is not consistent with how we operate here,” Walker said.

Further remarks exposed the government’s lack of readiness, according to the report.

Keller proposed a two-week trial and estimated eight to ten witnesses. James’ defense lawyer, Abbe Lowell, countered he’d “be shocked” if there were that many.

When asked whether the pretrial services report had been received, Keller stuttered and turned to a colleague: “We have not, your honor… Oh, we have?”

"Do you need a moment?" the judge asked, referring to the lawyer's lack of preparation.

The hearing lasted under an hour and underscored that the team prosecuting James appears to be assembling its case as it moves forward.

The report noted that observers believe this mirrors another recent prosecution in Virginia – that of former FBI Director James Comey – in which the government admitted it was “just getting our hands around discovery.”

Meanwhile, James appeared before a supportive crowd after her arraignment, and accused the justice system of being used as “a tool of revenge.”

Former White House press secretary Sean Spicer took aim at Senate Republicans after Democrats blocked a bill that would have guaranteed pay for military and federal workers during the ongoing government shutdown.

“Senate Republicans should be embarrassed by how bad they’re messaging this,” Spicer, who served as Trump’s first press secretary, said Friday on his podcast, in remarks highlighted by The Daily Beast.

“They should have been out on the steps last night with military members and Border Patrol," Spicer said.

The measure, known as the Shutdown Fairness Act of 2025, was introduced by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and fell short of the 60 votes needed to advance, with a final tally of 54-45.

It would have ensured continued pay for “excepted” federal employees, including active-duty troops, TSA agents, park rangers, air traffic controllers and Border Patrol officers.

Spicer accused Republicans of failing to defend their position forcefully, calling their actions “literally the lamest response” he had ever seen.

“The idea that they voted and bolted is an embarrassment to the Republican Party,” he added.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) dismissed the bill as a “ruse,” arguing it would give Trump budget director Russell Vought undue authority.

“We will not give Donald Trump a license to play politics with people’s livelihoods,” Schumer said.

Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.) said he’d be “apoplectic” if former President Joe Biden acted the same way President Donald Trump is regarding recent military operations in Venezuela and the Caribbean Sea – a rare public rebuke from a member of Trump’s own party.

Speaking Friday on C-SPAN’s Ceasefire program, Lankford criticized the Trump administration for ordering strikes on Venezuelan vessels without first consulting Congress.

“The administration needs to give insight into Congress. That’s part of it,” he said. “If this was happening with this level of insight under the Biden administration, I’d be apoplectic."

Lankford appeared with Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), who also expressed surprise that the attacks — ten since September — were revealed through media reports rather than briefings.

“I serve on the Intelligence Committee. [Coons] serves as a senior Democrat on defense. This is typical consultation,” Lankford said, emphasizing that lawmakers should at least be informed before such actions occur.

While Lankford said he supports cracking down on drug trafficking, he urged Trump to involve Congress. “We’re not his opponent on this,” he said. “We’re an ally … but we need to be able to have a voice on it as a co-equal branch.”

Earlier on Friday, the U.S. military carried out a strike on Friday targeting a vessel allegedly operated by the Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua that, according to Defense Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, was engaged in drug-trafficking activities in the Caribbean Sea.

Hegseth stated that the operation resulted in the deaths of six people.

Since early September, the Trump administration has carried out at least five to seven military strikes on vessels near Venezuela, resulting in at least 21 to 32 deaths.

The U.S. claims the boats were tied to narcotics trafficking networks and “narco-terrorists,” part of its self-described campaign in the Caribbean.

However, independent observers including a team of experts commissioned by the United Nations Human Rights Council have lambasted the operations, saying the strikes amount to “extrajudicial executions," because they took place in international waters without transparent legal basis or evidence publicly shared.

A former red state chief election official who once alleged that the CIA rigged the 2020 presidential race is now playing a central role in the Justice Department’s (DOJ) controversial investigation into that same election — a move that critics say deepens fears of political retribution within federal agencies.

Democracy Docket reported Thursday that Andrew McCoy “Mac” Warner, who served as West Virginia’s Republican secretary of state until earlier this year, has emerged as a senior attorney in DOJ’s Civil Rights Division.

“His work appears to be part of a dangerous cross-government unit aimed at exacting retribution against President Donald Trump’s perceived enemies,” the report noted.

According to the report, Warner is involved in the “Interagency Weaponization Working Group,” a secretive unit created to carry out President Donald Trump’s executive order targeting alleged “weaponization” of the federal government.

Since joining the department, Warner has reportedly taken steps to advance voting restrictions and investigate false claims surrounding 2020 — including demanding access to voting machines used that year.

The report highlighted a memo from the Missouri Association of County Clerks and Election Authorities said Warner contacted local officials to “physically inspect and perhaps take physical custody” of Dominion machines, but the requests were denied.

Association president Sherry Parks said such access “would be illegal under state law.”

Warner has continued to push for stricter voting rules in his federal roles, per the report.

At a May meeting of the Election Assistance Commission’s Board of Advisors, he urged adoption of Trump’s order requiring “documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote.”

Warner’s past as West Virginia’s top election official was marked by efforts to restrict voter access and promote election conspiracy theories.

During a 2023 debate, he claimed, “The CIA interfered in the 2020 election and stole it from President Trump.”

The Rev. Tony Suárez, an evangelical pastor who once advised President Donald Trump and publicly backed his 2016 campaign, said Wednesday he no longer plans to endorse political candidates, citing frustration with divisive politics and the Trump administration’s hardline immigration stance.

Speaking at the Religion News Service symposium “God, Government and the Algorithm” in New York City, Suárez, vice president of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, said he now hopes to focus on “policy, not personality.”

“I don’t know that I’ll endorse any more candidates after this go-round,” Suárez said, per a Religion News Service report.

“I’d like to talk more about concepts and ideas and policy more than, ‘How dare you vote for that man?’ or ‘How dare you vote for that woman?’”

Suárez, who has voted for Trump three times, said he once believed the president supported immigration reform. But he now blames White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller for policies that created fear in Hispanic churches.

“I don’t blame President Trump as much as I blame Stephen Miller,” he said. “I’m not a Stephen Miller fan. I’m very frustrated with him, and I hold him responsible for a lot of the ideology.”

The Tennessee pastor said both parties have failed Latino voters on immigration, accusing Democrats of “empty promises” and Republicans of refusing to “come to the table of reason.”

Suárez added that the supplicant attitude around Trump’s movement made him uncomfortable. “It becomes borderline idolatry,” he said. “I can’t participate in it.”

The standoff over the federal shutdown has exposed deep fractures within the GOP, particularly around health care — a longstanding vulnerability for Republicans.

The New York Times highlighted in a report Sunday that while Democrats insist they will not support a spending deal without extending the expiring tax credits under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) that safeguard coverage for millions, Republicans are split between ideology and electoral reality.

On one end, hard-line conservatives still press to eliminate the ACA outright; on the other, pragmatists recognize that wiping it out without a credible replacement could inflict “a political disaster” on their party, per the report.

The shutdown has forced the GOP into a public tug-of-war over what to do with a law they largely oppose but cannot realistically undo without major risk.

House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) insisted the dispute is not about health care, calling Democrats’ insistence on subsidies a “red herring” that distracts from the funding fight.

At the same time, top Republicans such as House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) pledged to vote against extending the credits, arguing they would “bail out insurance companies,” even as many recipients live in GOP-held districts.

At least 14 House Republicans and several senators signaled they would support a renewal of the credits through 2027, recognizing what some advisers called “a potential political catastrophe for the G.O.P.” if coverage were lost.

The report noted that the broader dynamic reveals why the party remains stuck. Even though Republicans have long pledged to “repeal and replace” the ACA, they have repeatedly failed to articulate what “replace” means in practice. The 2017 Senate health care bill collapsed amid conservative-moderate splits, leaving GOP leaders without an alternative mapped out.

According to the report, Democrats "have forced the G.O.P. to wrestle publicly with its divisions about what to do with the health care law, which most Republicans revile but many recognize would be impossible to unravel without bringing political disaster to their party.”

In an article for CNN published Thursday, Aaron Blake, a senior political reporter for the outlet, argued that conservative podcast host Joe Rogan’s recent surprise at the severity of President Donald Trump’s deportation policies may reflect a broader realization among Americans that Trump is going further than many expected in his second term.

Blake used Rogan’s remarks as a jump-off point to explore the disconnect between Trump’s campaign rhetoric and how his policies are now playing out in practice — even among those who supported or endorsed him.

Rogan, who publicly endorsed Trump ahead of the 2024 election, recently expressed alarm over televised scenes of aggressive deportation tactics.

“I really thought they were just going to go after the criminals,” Rogan said. “I did not ever anticipate seeing that on TV on a regular basis.”

Blake noted that while Trump was clear about his hardline immigration stance during both campaigns, even supporters like Rogan appear unprepared for the intensity and scope of the policies now being enacted. The CNN reporter pointed to polling data to argue that many Americans, including independents and even some Republicans, didn’t fully grasp how far Trump would go.

A CBS News-YouGov poll found only 52 percent of Americans believe Trump is doing what he promised during the campaign, with 48 percent saying he’s doing “different things.” Among independents, 53 percent say Trump isn’t following through on his campaign promises. These figures suggest that a significant share of voters did not anticipate the full extent of his agenda.

According to Blake, public opinion appears to be rapidly shifting.

The percentage of Americans who say Trump is doing what he promised has declined over time — from 70 percent in February to 52 percent this month. Blake argued that these numbers reflect growing discomfort with how far Trump has gone.

“That would suggest large numbers of people have gradually come to believe this wasn’t what the country signed up for,” he wrote.

Blake also underscored how even predictions that Trump might use the Justice Department against political foes or issue sweeping pardons for Jan. 6 rioters underestimated the scale of those actions. While many expected some level of this behavior, the extent has gone beyond what polls showed most thought “very likely.”

A June Pew Research Center poll backs this up, with 48 percent of Americans saying Trump’s actions were worse than they expected, compared to just 20 percent who said they were better.

Blake noted that Trump’s long-standing habit of making extreme promises — and then sometimes not following through — gave supporters leeway to assume he might not act on his most provocative pledges. Now, as those promises are being realized, public reaction is shifting.

Federal Reserve Governor Stephen Miran, appointed by President Donald Trump, said Wednesday the U.S. economy has lost momentum, challenging the administration’s repeated claims of strength.

In an appearance at CNBC’s Invest in America Forum, Miran said the labor market has weakened. He pointed to uncertainty stemming from policy decisions — including tax changes and trade measures — as a key drag on growth.

“The economy was weaker in the first half of the year versus where it was last year,” Miran told CNBC, in remarks highlighted by the Daily Beast.

While avoiding direct criticism of Trump, Miran highlighted administration-driven factors, including a record tax hike and ongoing trade disruptions, as contributors to the downturn.

“Yes, the labor market continued to weaken in the first half of the year,” he said. “I think part of that was due to uncertainty over policy. We might have had the biggest tax hike in history, so maybe there were firms that were holding off on investing until the tax hike was done.”

Miran’s remarks contrast with Trump’s public messaging.

As recently as last week, the president claimed, “America has the best economy we’ve ever had,” and insisted he had “defeated inflation.” Independent data and consumer sentiment show otherwise, with inflation remaining steady and prices — including groceries — continuing to rise, partly due to tariffs imposed during Trump’s second term.

Speaking further on those tariffs, Miran suggested they contributed to a chilling effect on investment.

“We also had the biggest rearrangement to global trading policy in half a century,” he said. “While those deals were being negotiated and while people were waiting to see where tariff rates would shake out, it wouldn’t surprise me if people held off on making some decisions. I do think uncertainty contributes to some of the weakness we saw in the first half of the year.”

Recent developments have worsened the outlook. China’s announcement of new export restrictions, seen as retaliation for Trump’s proposed 100 percent tariffs on all Chinese imports, has reignited trade tensions.

“There’s now more downside risks than there was a week ago, and I think it’s incumbent upon us as policymakers to recognize that should get reflected in policy,” Miran said.

Like Trump, Miran has advocated for interest rate cuts. On Wednesday, he said two more cuts “sounds realistic."

In a split from earlier rulings, Florida’s 1st District Court of Appeals on Wednesday turned down a bid by Republicans to alter how county commissioners are elected in Alachua County — a move that would have significantly shifted the region’s political balance.

PBS affiliate WUFT TV reported that the challengers, including former state Senator Keith Perry (R) and three co‑plaintiffs, had asked the court to block the county from electing its five commissioners through a so-called at‑large system, in which every voter in the county votes for all commissioners. The appeal supported maintaining or restoring single‑member districts, where only voters in a given district cast ballots for their respective commissioner.

Because of Wednesday’s decision, unless the Florida Supreme Court steps in, next year’s commission elections in Alachua will proceed under the existing system — a model in which Democrats have long held sway.

Ken Cornell, vice chair of the county commission and a Democrat, told reporters, per the report, that the ruling helps safeguard citizens from fragmented representation.

He argued that under district systems, “they had no representation, because they couldn’t go to another commissioner because they weren’t represented by another commissioner.”

He added that district elections tend to narrow the scope of issues commissioners focus on, turning governance into horse‑trading over countywide priorities.

The report highlighted that the legal battle traces back to a 2022 state law mandating district elections in Alachua County, backed by then‑Rep. Chuck Clemons and Perry, which passed narrowly by voter referendum.

The law required that commissioners be elected by voters in each district rather than countywide.

In 2024, voters overwhelmingly approved a switch back to at‑large elections by more than 70 percent. But opponents sued, claiming the ballot description was illegal.

A circuit court judge agreed, finding that the ballot language failed to conform to statutory requirements; nonetheless he allowed the election to proceed.

Republican plaintiffs argued that the at‑large system makes it nearly impossible for GOP candidates to win in the county

Perry testified that “we’ve had two Republicans elected to the county commission since Reconstruction,” both serving only one term, and said the dominance of Democratic and student voters in Gainesville further obstructs Republican prospects.

He also claimed that at-large elections diluted Black voters’ influence in the city — asserting that those voters say the system disenfranchises them.

The three judges on the panel — Joseph Lewis, Stephanie Ray and Adam Tanenbaum — were respectively appointees of Republican Governors Jeb Bush, Rick Scott and Ron DeSantis.

To date, all five county commissioners are Democrats. The last Republican to serve, Sue Baird, left office in 2014.

Alachua County remains one of the few solidly Democratic strongholds in Florida — it was among just six Florida counties to vote against President Donald Trump in 2024.

A conservative Republican farmer from Idaho is making an unlikely appeal to President Donald Trump: “Do the right thing.” His call comes as his family farm struggles to survive amid labor shortages he blames on Trump-era immigration policies.

ABC News reported Wednesday that Shay Myers, general manager of Owyhee Produce, a third-generation farm in Parma, Idaho, is speaking out against the aggressive deportation tactics that have intensified under the Trump administration.

He says those policies are threatening the very foundation of the country’s food supply.

"My reality is, I love these people. I love the culture, and I love the effort that they make. And ethically, to continue to not fix this problem is absolutely completely wrong," Myers told the outlet.

"We as Americans try to do the right thing," Myers said. "Let's do the right thing."

Owyhee Produce is among many U.S. farms facing a crisis-level worker shortage, a problem Myers says is not about politics but survival.

With about 300 workers needed during harvest season — many of them on temporary H-2A agricultural visas — his farm is now scrambling to find enough help.

Of those workers, 90 percent are typically from Mexico and other countries.

"We would love to hire people from here. The reality is that we can't find the numbers of people here," Myers told ABC News.

"We're in a rural area, number one. Number two: This is hard work. It is difficult work, and there are lots of people that are not willing to do it." But even those who come to the U.S. legally are increasingly hesitant.

Mauricio Sol, a seasonal worker from Mexico, said fear is spreading among visa holders despite their legal status.

"We all come on the H-2A visa program, so we come all here legally by the season, just for the season, and then we go back to Mexico," Sol explained in his comments to the outlet.

"We usually get a lot of applications. We're not getting that many now because people are afraid of that, even when they are legally here, they're getting arrested for no reason," Myers said.

The report noted that the Labor Department recently issued a warning that aligns with Myers’ concerns, pointing to a potential food crisis caused by the disruption of the agricultural labor force.

A report submitted earlier this month warned that “the near total cessation of the inflow of illegal aliens combined with the lack of an available legal workforce, results in significant disruptions to production costs and [threatens] the stability of domestic food production and prices for U.S consumers."

Experts are sounding the alarm, too. James O’Neill, director of Legislative Affairs for the American Business Immigration Coalition, says the nation’s food economy is hanging in the balance. "It's absolutely impacting the labor force," O’Neill told ABC.

"Nationwide, the USDA's ag labor survey suggests that somewhere between 50 and 60 percent of our farm labor workforce is undocumented immigrants," O'Neill said.

"And if that's the case, if we were to deport them all overnight, then that's 60 percent of the workforce, meaning that's 60 percent of the supply that's not being met without a shift in demand," he added. "And I think anyone that understands economics knows that means higher prices for them at the grocery store."

Despite being a self-described conservative and Trump supporter, Myers said the situation on the ground forced him to speak out — especially because his political affiliation might help bridge the partisan divide on immigration.

"I have a voice, I have reach. I have people that will listen," he said.

“And because I am a conservative and a Republican, people assume that I would have a different perspective here, and this is my reality," Myers added.

House Democrats marched through the halls to Speaker Mike Johnson’s (R‑La.) office Tuesday evening, chanting in unison: “What is he afraid of? Epstein!” Their protest targets Johnson’s refusal to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D‑Ariz.), despite her election being certified by Arizona officials.

Grijalva, who won a special election to succeed her late father, said Tuesday she has been handed the keys to a congressional office only to find an empty shell.

“I just got keys, but the phone lines aren’t working. There is no internet, no computers. It’s just a space,” she said, per a Capitol Hill reporter.

Critics argue that Johnson’s delay defies precedent and is aimed at thwarting Grijalva’s ability to join a bipartisan discharge petition seeking to force a vote on the release of files related to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. That petition currently sits one signature shy of reaching the threshold needed to compel a vote, and Grijalva has pledged to lend her support.

Johnson denies the move is politically motivated, saying she will be sworn in “when the House returns to session” and insisting the delay has “nothing to do” with the Epstein files.

Opponents point to earlier instances this year when he promptly administered the oath to Republican members during pro forma sessions — something he has declined to do for Grijalva.

Meanwhile, Arizona's Democratic Attorney General Kris Mayes threatened Tuesday to sue Johnson over his refusal to swear in the elected Democrat.

In a demand letter sent upon formal certification of her election, Mayes urged Johnson to “seat Adelita without delay” and warned that her office is “keeping every option open to us, including litigation, to hold him accountable.”

The Supreme Court is set to hear Louisiana v. Callais on Wednesday, marking a rare re-argument in a voting rights dispute that could undermine one of the last protections against racial vote dilution in the U.S. The case centers on whether the court will allow Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, which bars practices that weaken minority voting power, to be challenged and effectively dismantled.

In an article for Slate Magazine published Tuesday, political strategist Max Flugrath argued that the Supreme Court’s decision to rehear the case signals a deliberate effort to dismantle Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act, a provision designed to protect against racially discriminatory districting.

"If the justices remove the Voting Rights Act, it will hand the Trump regime a powerful tool to permanently weaken fair representation," the article read.

Flugrath said by reopening arguments, the court’s conservative majority appears to telegraph an intent to strike down a core legal tool used to challenge maps that dilute the voting power of communities of color.

Flugrath warned that eliminating Section 2 would have sweeping consequences.

He said that combined with Republican gerrymandering efforts, its removal could enable the GOP to seize as many as 27 additional safe House seats — with at least 19 of those directly linked to the loss of Section 2 protections — locking in one‑party control of the House for decades, according to analyses from Fair Fight Action and Black Voters Matter Fund.

He noted that in Louisiana, the case began when a court ruled the state’s map unlawfully weakened Black voters’ influence, ordering legislators to redraw it to include a second majority-Black district.

When state lawmakers complied and produced a remedial map, Flugrath recounted, a group of non‑Black voters sued again, claiming that the remedy itself constituted unconstitutional racial discrimination.

Flugrath condemned the logic of that suit, calling its reasoning a twist on the very constitutional amendments designed to guard against racial exclusion. He observed that lower courts had accepted it, and that both Louisiana’s Republican leaders and original plaintiffs had pushed for overturning the ruling — though after the court agreed to rehear the matter, the same officials reversed course to ask the justices to invalidate Section 2 outright.

Flugrath cited Justice Clarence Thomas’ dissent from the rehearing order, which he said frames the choice as either allowing what Thomas calls “patent racial gerrymandering” or admitting that a Section 2 violation “is insufficient to justify a race‑based remedy.”

"The danger isn’t theoretical," the writer said.

He noted that Thomas is saying that even proven racial discrimination in political maps cannot justify race-conscious remedies. He also referred to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s suggestion that race‑based protections under Section 2 cannot persist indefinitely, indicating they may support stripping its authority.

Flugrath argued that if the court sides with the challengers, lawmakers who design maps to suppress minority participation could claim that race-conscious remedies themselves violate constitutional equal protection.

He described this as a new defense of discriminatory maps that would block challenges not only to congressional maps but also to redistricting in state legislatures, city councils and school boards nationwide.

Flugrath warned: "If the far-right justices’ reasoning prevails, politicians who gerrymander to silence voters of color will have a new defense: Fixing racial discrimination is discrimination itself. It’s an Orwellian logic that would make it nearly impossible to challenge unfair maps."

He added: "The result would essentially be a return to the pre-1965 Jim Crow playbook, masked in pseudo-constitutional language."

"Fair maps, free elections, and a representative Congress remain the most powerful tools we have to stop the Trump regime’s push for authoritarianism — but only if we use them," the writer concluded.