Eloise Goldsmith, Common Dreams

Acquiescing to pressure from the Trump administration, the Canadian government announced on Sunday that the country will rescind the digital services tax, a levy that would have seen large American tech firms pay billions of dollars to Canada over the next few years.

The Sunday announcement from the Canadian government cited "anticipation of a mutually beneficial comprehensive trade arrangement" as the reason for the rescission.

"Today's announcement will support a resumption of negotiations toward the July 21, 2025, timeline set out at this month's G7 Leaders' Summit in Kananaskis," said Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the statement.

The digital services tax impacts companies that make over $20 million in revenue from Canadian users and customers through digital services like online advertising and shopping. Companies like Uber and Google would have paid a 3% levy on the money they made from Canadian sources, according to CBC News.

The reversal comes after U.S. President Donald Trump on Friday blasted the digital services tax, calling it a "direct and blatant attack on our country" on Truth Social.

Trump said he was suspending trade talks between the two countries because of the tax. "Based on this egregious Tax, we are hereby terminating ALL discussions on Trade with Canada, effective immediately. We will let Canada know the Tariff that they will be paying to do business with the United States of America within the next seven day period," Trump wrote. The United States is Canada's largest trading partner.

Payments from tech firms subject to the digital services tax were due starting on Monday, though the tax has been in effect since last year.

"The June 30, 2025 collection will be halted," and Canada's Minister of Finance "will soon bring forward legislation to rescind the Digital Services Tax Act," according to the Sunday statement.

"If Mark Carney folds in response to this pressure from Trump on the digital services tax, he proves he can be pushed around," said Canadian journalist Paris Marx on Bluesky, speaking prior to the announcement of the rescission. "The tax must be enforced," he added.

"Carney chickens out too," wrote the author Doug Henwood on Twitter on Monday.

In an opinion piece originally published in Canadian Dimension before the announcement on Sunday, Jared Walker, executive director of the progressive advocacy group Canadians for Tax Fairness, wrote that all the money generated for the tax could mean "more federal money for housing, transit, and healthcare transfers—all from some of the largest and most under-taxed companies in the world."

Walker also wrote that the digital service tax could serve as a counterweight to the so-called "revenge tax" provision in Trump's sprawling domestic tax and spending bill.

Section 899, called "Enforcement of Remedies Against Unfair Foreign Taxes," would "increase withholding taxes for non-resident individuals and companies from countries that the U.S. believes have imposed discriminatory or unfair taxes," according to CBC. The digital services tax is one of the taxes the Trump administration believes is discriminatory.

"If 'elbows up' is going to be more than just a slogan, Canada can't cave to pressure when Donald Trump throws his weight around," wrote Walker, invoking the Canadian rallying cry in the face of American antagonism when it comes to trade.

"But this slogan also means the Carney government has to make sure it is working on behalf of everyday Canadians—not just the ultra-rich and big corporations that are only 'Canadian' when it's convenient," Walker wrote.

A top Trump official on Monday announced a plan to end a rule that protects tens of millions of acres in the National Forest System and which would clear the way for road development and timber production on those lands—news that elicited alarm from conservation and environmental groups.

U.S. Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins announced that the Trump administration plans to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which has for decades protected 58.5 million acres of forests from timber harvesting and road construction.

Rollins called the rule overly restrictive and added that the move "opens a new era of consistency and sustainability for our nation's forests. It is abundantly clear that properly managing our forests preserves them from devastating fires and allows future generations of Americans to enjoy and reap the benefits of this great land."

The environmental law group Earthjustice took issue with wildfire prevention being used to justify the rollback.

"While the Trump administration has suggested that wildfire risk is an underlying reason for these sweeping policy changes, rolling back the roadless rule actually threatens to cause more fires. That's because fire ignitions are far more likely in roaded landscapes," said Drew Caputo, the group's vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans, in a statement on Monday.

Rollins made the announcement at the annual meeting of the Western Governors' Association. Hundreds of protestors gathered outside of the building where the event was taking place in Santa Fe, New Mexico in order to denounce efforts that might lead to federal public lands being privatized, according to The Associated Press.

The roadless rule covers areas including the Tongass National Forest in Alaska. In 2019, during the first Trump administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture codified a regulatory framework that exempted Tongass from the roadless rule. Former President Joe Biden undid that change while he was in office.

Idaho and Colorado have adopted state roadless area rules that supersede the boundaries of the federal roadless rule boundaries for those states, according to the USDA's website, which appears to mean that not all of the 58.5 million acres would be impacted if the Trump administration goes through with this change.

"The roadless rule is one of the country's conservation success stories, safeguarding singular natural values across nearly 60 million acres of America's great forests," said Garett Rose, a senior attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Great Outdoors Campaign Director Ellen Montgomery at Environment America similarly said that "the roadless rule is the most effective conservation rule on the books at protecting mature and old-growth forests."

"Once again, the Trump administration is ignoring the voices of millions of Americans to pursue a corporate giveaway for his billionaire buddies. Stripping our national forests of roadless rule protections will put close to 60 million acres of wildlands across the country on the chopping block," said Sierra Club's forest campaign manager, Alex Craven, in a statement on Monday. "That means polluting our clean air and drinking water sources to pad the bottom lines of timber and mining companies—all while pursuing the same kind of mismanagement that increases wildfire severity."

Caputo at Earthjustice made some of these same points and indicated his organization is ready to sue over the move. "If the Trump administration actually revokes the roadless rule, we'll see them in court," he said.

The move follows a March executive order from U.S. President Donald Trump directing Rollins and the secretary of the U.S. Department of Interior to take steps to increase timber production.

The Supreme Court on Monday temporarily lifted a lower court order that had required the Trump administration to give migrants the chance to challenge their deportation to a country other than their nation of origin, clearing the way for resumption of such removals and prompting a strongly worded dissent from the three liberal justices.

The conservative majority behind the ruling did not offer a rationale for the order, but said that the preliminary injunction handed down by a district court judge in April is stayed, pending appeal.

"Totally unexplained Supreme Court ruling on 3rd-country deportations will produce widespread confusion in lower courts. Did the court object to nationwide aspect? Think judges lacked jurisdiction? Something else? Who knows?" wrote Politico's senior legal affairs reporter Josh Gerstein, offering a prediction of what's to come.

Trump administration efforts to deport immigrants to countries they are not from has become one of the most contentious aspects of U.S. President Donald Trump's crackdown on immigration.

In May, the Trump administration put eight men, most of whom are not from South Sudan, on a flight said to be headed to that country, though the flight instead landed in Djibouti. The men have been held in Djibouti since. U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy told Trump administration officials that they "unquestionably" violated a court order he issued in April when it attempted to carry out those third-country deportations to South Sudan.

The Supreme Court's order stays that ruling from Murphy issued in April, which directed the Trump administration not to deport immigrants to nations other than their home countries without giving them adequate notice to raise concerns that they might face danger if sent there.

However, "in an order Monday, Murphy said the eight men in Djibouti remain protected from immediate removal despite the Supreme Court's ruling, referencing another order he had issued last month—separate from the one put on hold by the Supreme Court," according to ABC News.

In a blistering dissent, Sotomayor wrote that the ruling exposes "thousands to the risk of torture or death" and comes down on the side of the Trump administration even though it had violated the lower court's order. Sotomayor was joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson

"The government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard," she wrote in her dissent.

"Apparently," she continued, "the court finds the idea that thousands will suffer violence in farflung locales more palatable than the remote possibility that a District Court exceeded its remedial powers when it ordered the government to provide notice and process to which the plaintiffs are constitutionally and statutorily entitled. That use of discretion is as incomprehensible as it is inexcusable."

Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin called the ruling a victory on Monday. "DHS can now execute its lawful authority and remove illegal aliens to a country willing to accept them," she said in a statement. "Fire up the deportation planes."

A Friday letter signed by several Democratic lawmakers representing New York and addressed to U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem accuses Immigration and Customs Enforcement of "continued obstruction of lawful congressional oversight visits," citing recent failed attempts by lawmakers to access an ICE field office at 26 Federal Plaza, an area where they suspect immigrants are being held for multiple days.

"Congressional oversight is essential to bring transparency to the conduct of the Department of Homeland Security," the letter states. "Given the overaggressive and excessive force used to handcuff and detain elected officials in public, DHS's refusal to allow members of Congress to observe the conditions for immigrants behind closed doors begs the obvious question: What are you hiding?"

The letter is also addressed to Todd Lyons, ICE's acting director.

26 Federal Plaza is the same building where Democratic mayoral candidate and New York City Comptroller Brad Lander was arrested by federal agents on Tuesday. Lander was released later that same day.

The signatories on the letter are Democratic New York Reps. Dan Goldman, Jerrold Nadler, Adriano Espaillat, Nydia Velázquez, Ritchie Torres, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Grace Meng, Gregory Meeks, and Yvette Clarke.

According to The New York Times, which was first to report on the letter, the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza has a field office "where immigration authorities have typically held a few dozen immigrants at a time for a few hours before transferring them to detention centers."

However, the Times reported last week that an immigrant who had stayed on the 10th floor recounted hundreds of migrants sleeping on the floor.

In their letter, lawmakers highlight federal statute that stipulates that DHS may not use funds in order to prevent a member of Congress from "entering, for the purpose of conducting oversight, any facility operated by or for the Department of Homeland Security used to detain or otherwise house aliens."

DHS recently issued new guidance placing more limits on lawmakers' ability to visit ICE facilities—a move that has been met with criticism. The new rules say that ICE requests members of Congress give at least 72 hours advance notice for a visit to its facilities, rather than 24 hours. Also, the guidance states that ICE field offices, like the one at 26 Federal Plaza, are not subject to federal law that dictates congressional oversight.

"In any rational interpretation, the law gives us access not only to detention centers, but to any immigration enforcement facility housing detainees—no matter what ICE chooses to call the facility," wrote Adriano Espaillat, the chair of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus and a signatory on the Friday letter, reacting to the new guidance on Wednesday.

DHS's new guidance states that "ICE field offices are not detention facilities and fall outside of the Sec. 527 requirements. ICE does not house aliens at field offices."

In their letter, the lawmakers take issue with this assertion. They say that ICE Deputy Field Director Bill Joyce recently confirmed that some individuals have been held at 26 Federal Plaza for multiple days. The Times also reported that Joyce said this during a short encounter with Reps. Goldman and Nadler, when the two were denied access to the 10th floor this week.

Earlier this month, Espaillat and Velázquez said they were denied access when they came to the building.

In a statement shared with the Times, DHS Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin reiterated that 26 Federal Plaza is not a detention center. "These congressional members do not have the authority to disrupt ongoing law enforcement activities and sensitive law enforcement materials," she told the outlet.

The letter includes several demands, including that DHS rescind "guidance or instructions suggesting that ICE field offices are exempt from Section 527 oversight," reaffirm that members of Congress can conduct unannounced oversight visits where people are detained, including field offices where individuals are held overnight, direct field office personnel to comply with the law regarding congressional oversight access.

New York State's highest court on Wednesday ruled against city retirees who had sought to block an effort by Mayor Eric Adams' administration to move them onto a for-profit, privatized Medicare Advantage plan.

In a unanimous decision, New York Court of Appeals Judge Shirley Troutman wrote that petitioners in the case are not entitled to "promissory estoppel" cause of action, the argument that the retirees throughout their employment with the city were promised traditional Medicare benefits when they retired.

According to Gothamist, "the court also ruled that the retirees did not have a legally binding promise from the city that their coverage would remain unchanged." The Wednesday ruling overruled a state Supreme Court judge’s decision that had prevented the Adams administration from making the switch, though the Court of Appeals said there were still issues in the case that should be sent back down to the Supreme Court, a lower court in New York's state system.

Medicare Advantage plans are run by private health insurers who receive money from the federal government to provide Medicare-covered services. Medicare Advantage enrollment around the country is growing, though the Medicare Advantage system has been accused of offering poor care and boosting corporate profits. A 2022 investigation by The New York Times found that major health insurers have exploited Medicare Advantage to juice their profits by billions of dollars.

The move to switch the city's 250,000 retirees to Medicare Advantage stems from a 2018 agreement between leaders in city government and major public employee unions to cut $600 million from the city's healthcare spending, according to the outlet The City.

"While we are disappointed in the ruling by the Court of Appeals, the solution to protecting seniors' healthcare has always been with the City Council and the mayor," said Marianne Pizzitola, leader of the Organization of Public Service Retirees, which opposes the switch.

"The City of New York should never, ever be screwing over retirees—and neither should the courts. Nobody will ever want to work for New York City again. Zero trust. Medicare Advantage is a bait and switch scam & betrayal. Enough! City Hall clearly doesn't care about retirees," wrote Justin Brannan, New York City Council Finance Committee Chair and Democratic candidate for city comptroller, in response to the ruling.

U.S. Congressional Black Caucus Chair Yvette Clarke, a Democrat from New York, said on Tuesday that U.S. President Donald Trump's moves to send in National Guard troops and Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles rise to the level of impeachable offenses.

Protests began on Friday to oppose federal immigration raids on workplaces.

Clarke made the remarks while speaking at a Tri-Caucus press conference on Tuesday that was convened to address Trump's recent actions around the protests. The Tri-Caucus includes the Congressional Black Caucus, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus.

Asked by a reporter if she believes Trump's actions around the Los Angeles protests rise to the level of impeachable offenses, Clarke said: "I do. I believe it is. I definitely believe it is, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it."

According to an NBC News write-up of her remarks, Clarke also said that "this president has crossed the line" and called Trump's decision to deploy Marines to Los Angeles a "waste of taxpayer dollars."

On Monday, a day before the press conference, Clarke released a statement calling Trump's deployment of Marines an "authoritarian escalation unlike any before in American history."

"This all started with peaceful protests against the inhumane kidnapping of our immigrant neighbors. The LAPD had largely contained this situation before it was exacerbated by National Guardsmen whom the president illegally seized control over," said Clarke, referencing the Los Angeles Police Department. "And now, under the pretense of crushing the very chaos he created, the president has ordered 700 active-duty Marines to engage in so-called law enforcement, which they have no legal or ethical right to conduct."

Two House Democrats have launched impeachment efforts this year, though they have not gained traction with the broader Democratic caucus.

Trump was impeached twice by the House of Representatives during his first term, but in both cases he was acquitted by the Senate. Both chambers of Congress are now controlled by the Republican Party.

U.S. President Donald Trump on Saturday ordered the deployment of National Guard troops to quell anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement protests in Los Angeles, prompting a response from the coalition behind upcoming nationwide protests planned to counter Trump's Washington, D.C. military parade on June 14.

The coalition organizing the "No Kings" national day of action accused the Trump administration of "escalating tensions" in a statement released Sunday.

Generally, the U.S. military is not supposed to take part in civilian law enforcement except in times of emergency. Trump on Saturday invoked a federal law that, according to The Guardian, empowers the president to call part of California's National Guard into federal service. California's Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom objected to this move.

Protests began on Friday following reports that federal immigration agents were carrying out raids in Los Angeles.

In their statement, the coalition denounced Trump's decision to call National Guard members into federal service, and wrote that "people are peacefully and lawfully protesting the administration's abuses of power and the abduction of their neighbors by ICE."

"Instead of listening, the Trump administration is escalating tensions," the coalition wrote. "Against the guidance of local leaders, they are deploying military force to suppress free speech. They do not care about our safety—it's about silencing opposition. It's a blatant abuse of power designed to intimidate families, stoke fear, and crush dissent."

Law enforcement has acted with force against protestors, including using tear gas and flash bangs, according to CNN. And according to the Los Angeles Times, overnight into Monday businesses were vandalized and burglarized, capping a period of unrest that saw protestors set cars on fire, in addition to other acts of vandalism.

Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass on Sunday denounced the lawbreaking, but also laid blame on the Trump administration, according to the LA Times.

"What we're seeing in Los Angeles is chaos that is provoked by the administration," Bass said, according to the outlet. "When you raid Home Depot and workplaces, when you tear parents and children apart, and when you run armored caravans through our streets you cause fear and you cause panic."

In concluding their statement about Trump's deployment of the National Guard, the coalition behind "No Kings" struck a defiant tone. "From major cities to small towns, we'll rise together and say: we reject political violence. We reject fear as governance. We reject the myth that only some deserve freedom," they wrote.

The groups say that more than 1,800 rallies are planned for Saturday and that the events are guided by a commitment to nonviolent protest. In the statement, the group also said that organizers with "No Kings" are trained in de-escalation tactics and plan to work closely with local partners to ensure actions are peaceful.

Leah Greenberg, co-executive director of Indivisible, one of the groups behind "No Kings," has said that the aim is to "create contrast, not conflict."

Over 150 progressive organizations, watchdogs, climate groups, and other entities are partners on the "No Kings" rallies.

See the full list of planned events and locations here.

New York City mayoral candidate and state Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani responded forcefully on Tuesday to comments from a Republican New York City councilmember, who the day prior took issue with Mamdani's politics and called for him to be deported.

Late Monday, New York City Councilmember Vickie Paladino, who represents a section of Queens, wrote from her nongovernmental X account: "Let's just talk about how insane it is to elect someone to any major office who hasn't even been a U.S. citizen for 10 years—much less a radical leftist who actually hates everything about the country and is here specifically to undermine everything we've ever been about."

Paladino ended the social media post with the word, "Deport."

Mamdani, a democratic socialist, is a U.S. citizen. He was born in Uganda and moved to New York City with his family when he was 7. In 2018, he became naturalized as an American citizen. If elected, he would become New York City's first Muslim mayor.

Paladino made the comments in response to a 2019 post from Mamdani, in which he said he was excited to vote for Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who at that time was running in the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. He had not been able to cast a ballot when Sanders ran in 2016 because he was not at that time a citizen, he said in the post.

"Death threats. Islamophobic bigotry. Now a sitting councilmember calling for my deportation. Enough. This is what [President Donald] Trump and his sycophants have wrought," wrote Mamdani on X in response to Paladino. "It's an assault on the values of our city and our Constitution. Will Cuomo condemn this or will that upset his MAGA donors?"

Former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo is Mamdani's main opponent in the Democratic mayoral primary, which will take place on June 24. Cuomo has consistently been the clear front-runner in the contest, though a recent poll from from Emerson College Polling, PIX11, and The Hill showed Mamdani cutting into Cuomo's lead.

Cuomo did respond in a statement that was sent to The New York Times. "The Republican answer to everything, including the common cold, is deportation and it has to stop," he said.

Paladino, who is staunch supporter of Israel and has denounced pro-Palestine student activism, largely doubled down on her remarks on Tuesday. A statement put out by Paladino's office said that she "stands by" her statement, but acknowledged that Mamdani "has clearly achieved U.S. citizenship and thus is not eligible for deportation."

The statement brings up the fact that Mamdani helped found a chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine while in college and says that her office has received threats from "Zohran's violent supporters."

Calling his agenda laced with "antisemitism, Marxism, and Anti-Americanism," Paladino said in the statement that "his candidacy and this incident underscore the need for the deportation efforts currently being undertaken by the Trump administration, particularly on our college campuses where these ideas metastasize, so that we can prevent any future Zohran's from taking root in America."

The arrest of an immigrant woman originally from Hong Kong by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has sent shockwaves through a small Missouri town that overwhelmingly backed U.S. President Donald Trump in the last presidential election.

Trump has made a crackdown on immigration a centerpiece of his administration.

The woman, whose legal name is Ming Li Hui, spoke on a Monday episode of The New Republic's "The Daily Blast" podcast from jail in Springfield, Missouri, and told listeners that she wants to stay in the United States with her children.

"Please protect me. I'm so sorry. I have a poor English. I don't know. I just want to [be with] my family with my children, stay here in the U.S. for freedom and have [a] better life," she said, according to a transcript of the episode.

Hui has lived in Kennett, Missouri for 20 years, where she works at a local pancake and waffle house and has raised a family. She has three children, including one 14-year-old autistic son.

Hui, who goes by Carol, was arrested by ICE officers in April when she traveled from her home in Kennett, Missouri to St. Louis, Missouri for an appointment at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that she expected would just be to renew her employment authorization document, according to St. Louis Public Radio. The news of her detention was first reported by the Delta Dunklin Democrat in early May.

According to a subsequent New York Times story, she was summoned abruptly to the appointment, and her partner voiced suspicion about the appointment. But "I didn't want to run," Hui told the paper from jail following her arrest. "I just wanted to do the right thing."

Eighty percent of voters in Dunklin County, Missouri—where Kennett is located—cast a ballot for Trump in the last presidential election.

"I voted for Donald Trump, and so did practically everyone here," said Vanessa Cowart, a church friend of Hui's, according to The Times. "But no one voted to deport moms. We were all under the impression we were just getting rid of the gangs, the people who came here in droves."

Others, though not all, in Kennett expressed outrage that Hui was detained by ICE and is now in jail, per the Times. Her church organized a prayer vigil for her and has sent meals to her family, and her bosses held a fundraiser for her which they called "Carol Day."

"In Kennett, some residents said they had implored state and national Republican lawmakers representing the area to intervene to stop Ms. Hui's deportation, but had gotten mostly cursory responses," the Times reported.

Hui's lawyer, Raymond Bolourtchi, who also spoke on TNR's podcast, has filed an emergency request that her deportation to Hong Kong be stayed and a request to re-open her closed immigration case.

Bolourtchi told TNR that Hui came to the U.S. in 2004 and then "ultimately ended up in removal proceedings, or in deportation proceedings, because she overstayed her visa and the government made certain allegations that were really negative based on her original marriage."

Hui paid an American citizen $2,000 to enter a fake marriage that she hoped would grant her permanent resident status, per the Times, a decision she has said she regrets, according to her lawyer. That marriage ended in divorce in 2009.

After ending up in removal proceedings, Hui presented an application for asylum to an immigration court, which was denied, according to Bolourtchi. Her appeal went all the way up to the U.S. Court of Appeals, where it was dismissed. With those appeals exhausted, she was placed in an "order of supervision," per her lawyer. It was under an order of supervision that she was granted an employment authorization.

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday cleared the way for the Trump administration to end, for now, legal protections for more than 500,000 Haitian, Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan migrants with a ruling that liberal Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson blasted in a dissent as deeply harmful.

The decision puts on hold a ruling from U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, who in April issued a stay on the Trump administration's move to end a humanitarian program extended to this group under former U.S. President Joe Biden. The ruling means the immigrants are at risk of being deported under President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort, even as the core legal issues in the case continue to play out in lower courts.

The unsigned order from the Supreme Court focuses on the so-called CHNV parole program, which allows certain individuals from those four nations to apply for entry into the U.S. for a temporary stay, so long as they have a U.S.-based sponsor, go through security vetting, and meet other conditions. In some cases, beneficiaries of the program work in the U.S.

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. Secretary of Homeland Security to "[t]erminate all categorical parole programs," including CHNV.

"The court has plainly botched this assessment today. It requires next to nothing from the government with respect to irreparable harm" wrote Jackson in her dissent, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. "And it undervalues the devastating consequences of allowing the government to precipitously upend the lives of and livelihoods of nearly half a million noncitizens while their legal claims are pending."

Friday's ruling is the second time this month that the Supreme Court has permitted the Trump administration to halt a program aimed at protecting immigrants who leave their home countries for humanitarian reasons. Earlier in May, the court issued an unsigned order allowing Trump to cancel Temporary Protected Status protections specifically extended to 350,000 Venezuelans immigrants while the legal case winds its way through lower courts.

The court's decision on Friday is a temporary order and litigation is still playing out, but it signals that a majority of the justices think the Trump administration is likely to prevail in the case, according to The New York Times.

"Respondents now face two unbearable options," according to Jackson's dissent. Jackson wrote that immigrants in the program could either choose to leave the U.S. and potentially confront dangers in their home countries, and other adverse outcomes, or "risk imminent removal at the hands of government agents, along with its serious attendant consequences."

"The court allows the government to do what it wants to do regardless, rendering constraints of law irrelevant and unleashing devastation in the process," she concludes in the dissent.

Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, wrote: "an incredibly devastating decision which simply ignores the human costs and blesses the Trump admin's stripping of status of hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally."

Josh Gerstein, a legal reporter at Politico, wrote that the ruling "may spell trouble for Ukrainians/Afghans with similar status."

A petition sponsored by two national progressive organizations is urging the Democratic National Committee to convene an emergency meeting of all its members in order to chart "truly bold action" against U.S. President Donald Trump and his "cronies."

The petition, which was sent to Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin this week and circulated by the groups RootsAction and Progressive Democrats of America, has 7,000 signers, according to a Wednesday statement. It also includes more than 1,500 individual comments from petition signers.

One petition signer, Andrea Helene Hansen of Hudson, New York, wrote: "As a lifelong Democrat (and I'm now 77 years old), I'm looking for an alternative since my party is failing me (and others of the boomer generation). WAKE UP!"

"Doing the same old thing (or nothing) nets the same dismal results. Time to represent your voters that want you to fight Trump and GOP and overwhelmingly support progressive programs," wrote Anne Eisinger of Auburndale, Florida.

Recent polling and the success of Sen. Bernie Sanders' (I-Vt.) "Fighting Oligarchy" tour—with appearances by other key progressives including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)—this spring suggest that a sizable portion of the Democratic base is keen to see Democrats pushing back forcefully against Trump.

The petition urges the DNC to convene the emergency meeting as soon as possible and make it fully open to the public.

"The predatory, extreme, and dictatorial actions of the Trump administration call for an all-out commensurate response, which so far has been terribly lacking from the Democratic Party," the petition states. "It is time for the Democratic National Committee, as the organization tasked with responding to the concerns of Democrats, to heed the insights of progressive policy analysts and grassroots activists—and that should begin at this emergency meeting."

The text of the petition does not specify which insights the groups and petition signers would like the DNC to heed.

According to the petition, waiting until the DNC's next regular meeting in late summer would be "irresponsible."

In a Common Dreamsop-ed published Wednesday, RootsAction national director Norman Solomon highlighted anger directed at Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) after he decided to support a Republican spending bill in March, and Democratic congressional leadership's poor performance in recent polling.

"Four months into his job as the DNC's chair, Ken Martin has yet to show that the DNC is truly operating in real time while the country faces an unprecedented threat to what's left of democracy. His power to call an emergency meeting of the full DNC remains unused," wrote Solomon.

Meanwhile, the DNC recently took steps to void the elections of multiple DNC vice chairs, including gun reform activist David Hogg, who rankled DNC members earlier this year when he announced his intention to support primary challenges to "asleep-at-the-wheel" Democrats in safe-blue seats.

Despite concerns that it does not address U.S. President Donald Trump's ties to the crypto industry, 16 Democrats in the Senate voted with most Republicans on Monday to advance a bill that creates a regulatory framework for stablecoins, digital assets whose value is tied to traditional currency, such as the U.S. dollar, or a commodity like gold.

The industry-backed Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act passed a cloture vote, with support from Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), the original co-sponsor of the bill, Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.), Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.), Mark Warner (D-Va.), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-Del.), Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.), Ben Ray Luján (N.M.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.). The bill is now teed up for Senate debate.

Back in February, a coalition of consumer groups and watchdogs warned that the bill would accelerate the "convergence of Big Tech and Big Finance" and is "a necessary prerequisite for future giveaways to the crypto industry."

In early May, the legislation faltered after several crypto-friendly Democrats raised concerns that it did not contain strong enough provisions around anti-money laundering, national security, and other issues.

Pro-crypto Democrats have said that the version of the bill that was considered on Monday contains a number of revisions that address those concerns, including more consumer protections and some limitations on Big Tech's ability to issue stablecoins.

However, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.)—the top Democrat on the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs—said on the Senate floor Monday that the bill's "basic flaws remain unaddressed," according to prepared remarks.

Warren is concerned, in particular, that the bill does not "rein in the president's crypto corruption."

" Trump and his family have already pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars from his crypto ventures and they stand to make hundreds of millions more from his stablecoin, USD1, if this bill passes," Warren said. "Passing this bill means that we can expect more anonymous buyers, big companies, and foreign governments to use the president's stablecoin as both a shadowy bank account shielded from government oversight and as a way to pay off the president personally."

USD1 is a stablecoin developed by the Trump family crypto firm, World Liberty Financial. A few weeks ago, it was announced that USD1 would be used for a $2 billion deal between an investment firm established by the government of Abu Dhabi, MGX, and the world's largest crypto exchange, Binance.

Warren on Monday also expressed concern that the bill, even with revisions, creates a relatively weak regulatory framework, and still allows Big Tech to create private currencies, among other objections.

"Democrats correctly deride Republicans for abetting Trump's endless, daily, sulfurous corruption. But given the chance to stand up to his crypto grift—perhaps the most reeking corruption in presidential history—too many Democrats instead yielded to another depravity, namely unprecedented political spending by a handful of crypto corporations and billionaires," said Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert on Monday, referencing election spending by the crypto industry.

In the last election cycle, crypto industry-supported super political action committees gave money to multiple senators who voted for cloture on Monday, including Slotkin and Gallego.

"No Democrats should be supporting Trump's self-enrichment," the grassroots progressive group Indivisible wrote on Tuesday on Bluesky.

The U.S. Department of Justice on Friday announced that it settled litigation centering on "forced-reset triggers," devices that allow semiautomatic rifles to fire faster, and which gun violence prevention groups warn effectively turn semiautomatic rifles into machine guns.

Some gun reform groups said on Friday that the move effectively legalizes machine guns.

The settlement allows the sale of forced-reset triggers. Under the terms of the settlement, a manufacturer of the device, Rare Breed Triggers, will be allowed to sell the devices but will not be allowed to design them for use in a pistol, according to the Department of Justice (DOJ). The company also agreed to enforce its patent to ward off infringement.

Under former President Joe Biden, some of the devices were classified by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives in 2022 as machine guns, which are illegal under federal law.

In 2023, the DOJ sued Rare Breed Triggers, leading to a ruling that blocked the company from selling the devices. Separately, the National Association for Gun Rights sued over the DOJ's classification of the devices as machine guns. Last year, a federal judge ruled in favor of the National Association for Gun Rights and struck down the ban.

According to the Friday announcement from the DOJ, the settlement resolves both of those cases, which were on appeal.

Brady, a gun violence prevention group, condemned the settlement and said in a statement on Friday that it "benefits the gun industry, circumvents gun laws, and paves the way for mass violence."

"The Trump Administration's secret settlement with the gun lobby to permit the sale of Forced Reset Triggers will turn already deadly firearms into weapons of mass destruction," said Kris Brown, the president of Brady. "This dangerous backroom deal is not only an astonishing abuse of power, but undermines decades of sensible government gun safety policy and puts whole communities at immediate serious risk."

"The Trump administration has just effectively legalized machine guns. Lives will be lost because of his actions," said Vanessa Gonzalez, vice president of government and political affairs at Giffords, another gun violence prevention group.

"This move puts our communities in danger. Machine guns have no place on our streets," wrote the group Everytown for Gun Safety on Friday.

The settlement aligns with an executive order signed by U.S. President Donald Trump in February, which directed the attorney general to look at orders, guidance, and other actions by entities in the executive branch to "assess any ongoing infringements" of rights under the Second Amendment.

"This Department of Justice believes that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right," said Attorney General Pam Bondi in a statement on Friday.

A plan reportedly under consideration by the Trump administration to send up to one million Gazans to the divided country of Libya was met with criticism on Friday and Saturday, with several observers calling it part of a plan to carry out ethnic cleansing.

On Friday, NBC News reported that the Trump administration has broached the plan with Libya's leadership, though no final agreement has been reached. NBC News' reporting relied on several unnamed sources "with knowledge of the effort."

"This is absolutely categorically an ethnic cleansing and sending people to Libya of all places is unconscionable," wrote investigative journalist James Stout on Bluesky on Friday, in response to the reporting.

An unnamed spokesperson for the Trump administration told NBC News after publication that "these reports are untrue."

As part of the plan, the Trump administration may unfreeze billions of dollars of funds originally meant for Libya that the U.S. froze over ten years ago, the outlet reported.

"A decade and change after U.S. military intervention in Libya under Obama, a direct appeal from the Trump administration to make it a destination for a 21st century Trail of Tears," remarked Olúfẹ́mi O. Táíwò, the Georgetown University assistant professor and philosopher, referencing the forced displacement of indigenous people in the United States in the 19th Century.

Gregg Carlstrom, a Middle East correspondent for the The Economist, called the NBC News' reporting "insanity."

"Skeptical that there's a serious 'plan' here (rather than just spitballing). But the underlying premise is correct: the Trump administration has spent months approaching various countries to see if it could bribe them into helping out with the ethnic cleansing of Gaza," Carlstrom wrote in a post on X on Saturday.

NBC News also reported that the Trump administration has discussed multiple locations for resettling Palestinians in Gaza, and that the administration is considering Syria as a potential location.

In February, Trump floated a plan to "take over" Gaza and mused about permanently displacing Palestinians in Gaza. International law prohibits the forced deportation and transfer of civilians.

Israel has carried out a brutal military campaign on the Gaza Strip following a Hamas attack on Israel on October 7, 2023.

Observers pointed out that Libya is itself experiencing instability.

"This would be an expensive nightmare to practically implement, Libya is an active war zone with a current [population] of only 7 million and in no shape to absorb refugees, and American-led ethnic cleansing should be flatly unacceptable," wrote David Burbach, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College on Bluesky on Friday

In 2011, a U.S.-backed intervention toppled Libya's then leader, Muammar Gaddafi, which was followed by a six-year civil war between rival political factions. Currently, eastern Libya is controlled by Khalifa Hifter and a United Nations-recognized government lead by Abdul Hamid Dbeibah is in control in the west. While the humanitarian situation in the country has eased in recent years, largely due to a cease-fire implemented in 2020, the country still experiences outbreaks of violence.

As the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee on Wednesday voted along party lines to advance legislation that includes a measure which seeks to cut Medicaid funding for the abortion and healthcare provider Planned Parenthood, reproductive rights defenders are sounding the alarm on the impacts that such a move would have.

"This provision is about punishing Planned Parenthood health centers for providing abortion care, and threatening access to affordable birth control, wellness checkups, and cancer screenings for millions of people across the country in the process," said Alexis McGill Johnson, the president and CEO of Planned Parenthood, in a statement on Wednesday.

"It is indefensible how far abortion opponents, who claim to care about women and families, are willing to go to shut down health centers and line the pockets of billionaires and big corporations," McGill added.

The measure is part of a sweeping GOP spending and tax cuts bill currently making its way through Congress. The House Energy and Commerce Committee's portion of the legislation also includes cuts to Medicaid and takes back unspent funds from Inflation Reduction Act grant programs.

The outlet NOTUS reported Wednesday that the measure pertaining to Planned Parenthood would bar the organization from receiving federal funds, even via Medicaid payments. According to the 19th, the language of the measure does not specifically call out Planned Parenthood, but is crafted to apply to the organization.

The proposed cuts would impact Planned Parenthood's ability to offer services like birth control, cancer screenings, and pap smears. Medicaid is already barred from providing funds for abortion care, which only account for a small percentage of the services that Planned Parenthood's affiliates provide.

"It's no surprise that a goal of this reconciliation bill is to force Planned Parenthood health centers to shut down. Republicans have been trying—unsuccessfully—to shut down Planned Parenthood for decades," said Mini Timmaraju, president and CEO of Reproductive Freedom for All, an abortion rights and reproductive freedom group. "Plain and simple, this legislation will mean millions of people will have nowhere to go for basic health care."

"The sheer cruelty and enormity of their actions, and the harm they will inflict on the very people they were elected to represent, is unconscionable," Timmaraju continued.

Rachana Desai Martin, chief U.S. program officer at the Center for Reproductive Rights, on Tuesday denounced the fact that Trump has already frozen millions in funding for Planned Parenthood through the Title X program.

Planned Parenthood has said freezing that funding "effectively blocks people from getting birth control, STI testing and treatment, and lifesaving cancer screenings."

Speaking Tuesday, before the committee advanced its portion of the bill, Martin said that the Center for Reproductive Rights stands with Planned Parenthood and all reproductive healthcare providers and that "these baseless, politically motivated attacks against reproductive health care providers must stop."