Jon Queally, Common Dreams

President Donald Trump, a documented liar, appeared to confirm in a televised interview that aired Tuesday night that the US military deployed a “secret sonic weapon” against Venezuelan and Cuban soldiers during the Jan. 3 raid in Caracas that killed scores of people, including civilians.

Asked about the existence or use of such a “sonic weapon” by NewsNation‘s Katie Pavlich—and whether Americans should be concerned about it—Trump responded, “No one else has it. We have weapons that no one knows about. It’s probably better not to talk about it, but we have amazing weapons. It was an amazing attack.”

This is not the first time the White House has hinted at the idea that such a weapon was used in the assault on Venezuela—an operation which resulted in the unlawful kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

On Jan. 10, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt shared an English-language translation of a purported interview with a Venezuelan “security guard loyal to Maduro,” who described the night of the assault by US forces.

In the interview, the veracity of which cannot be independently verified and reeked to some as a clear example of US-generated propaganda or counterintelligence, the guard described “a massacre” by US personnel who, he said, “launched something—I don’t know how to describe it... it was like a very intense sound wave. Suddenly I felt like my head was exploding from the inside. We all started bleeding from the nose. Some were vomiting blood. We fell to the ground, unable to move.”

It’s no secret that the US military has been developing sonic weapons, which can use sound waves or focused microwaves to cause pain or discomfort to those targeted. Such “directed energy weapons” have been referred to simply as “pain rays,” but go by various names, depending on the technology being used.

According to a detailed look at the US military’s development and use of such weapons and the speculation surrounding the Venezuela assault, TWZ‘s Joseph Trevithick reports that it “should be reiterated that there is currently no evidence to substantiate the claim that the US military used a ‘sonic weapon’ during Operation Absolute Resolve. At the same time, this is hardly the first time American forces are alleged to have employed mysterious, less-than-lethal, and/or non-kinetic capabilities.”

However, the outlet noted, “if any unit would have an exotic directed energy weapon used to disable adversaries during an assault, it would be Delta Force,” the special forces branch that led the attack on Maduro’s compound.

President Donald Trump was ripped by humanitarians and anti-war voices on Sunday after he again threatened Cuba by saying the US military would be used to prevent oil and other resources from reaching the country, threats that come just over a week after the American president ordered the unlawful attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores.

In a social media post Sunday morning, Trump declared:

Cuba lived, for many years, on large amounts of OIL and MONEY from Venezuela. In return, Cuba provided “Security Services” for the last two Venezuelan dictators, BUT NOT ANYMORE! Most of those Cubans are DEAD from last weeks U.S.A. attack, and Venezuela doesn’t need protection anymore from the thugs and extortionists who held them hostage for so many years. Venezuela now has the United States of America, the most powerful military in the World (by far!), to protect them, and protect them we will. THERE WILL BE NO MORE OIL OR MONEY GOING TO CUBA - ZERO! I strongly suggest they make a deal, BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE. Thank you for your attention to this matter. President DJT

Cuba’s President Miguel Diaz-Canel rejected Trump’s latest comments and threat of military force, saying the island nation was ready to defend itself.

“Cuba is a free, independent, and sovereign nation. Nobody dictates what we do,” Diaz-Canel said in a social media post. “Cuba does not attack; it has been attacked by the US for 66 years, and it does not threaten; it prepares, ready to defend the homeland to the last drop of blood.”

Progressive critics of the US president were also quick to hit back. Medea Benjamin, co-founder of the anti-war group CodePink, said the “true extortionist” in this situation is Trump himself as she detailed the mutual benefit of the relationship between the Venezeulan and Cuban governments over recent decades:

“What is extortion?” Benjamin asks. “It’s what Donald Trump is doing: taking over those oil tankers, confiscating 30-50 million tons of oil—that is extortion. And saying to Venezuela, ‘We’re going to run your country.” Donald Trump is the greatest extortionist our country has seen.“

Reuters reports Sunday, citing shipping data, that Venezuela has been Cuba’s “biggest oil supplier, but no cargoes have departed from Venezuelan ports to the Caribbean country since the capture” of Maduro.

Speaking with CBS News on Sunday, Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-Fla.) said that Trump’s threats to strangle the people of Cuba by enforcing a resource blockade was “like magical” in her ears and those of her right-wing constituents who live in Miami’s large community of Cuban exiles.

Welcoming Trump’s efforts to bully Cuba into submission, Salazar claimed that Cuba’s government is “hanging by a threat,” she said, before correcting herself, “a thread, I should say.”

Oddly—but notably—Salazar continued her remarks by saying it was Cuba that has been an “immense” threat to the United States as she described it as a nation “with no water; they have no electricity; they have no food—nothing. So if you think Maduro is weak, Cuba is even weaker. And now they do not have one drop of oil coming from Venezuela.”

But progressive voices opposed to Trump’s authoritarian violations of international law, his bullying of allies and enemies alike with claims that the US can do whatever it likes in the name of national security and claims of national interest are warning that the threats against Cuba and other nations represent a chilling development that must be met with international opposition and condemnation.

“The US blockade of Cuba is the longest-standing act of collective punishment in the world,” said David Adler, co-general coordinator of Progressive International, pointing to Trump’s remarks. “It is condemned by the entire international community every year at the UN. And now, the US president is doubling down on this cruel and illegal punishment. Enough.”

“This is an emergency,” Progressive International explained in a dispatch last week, warning about Trump’s overt hostility toward Cuba, Colombia, Mexico, and other nations in the wake the US attack on Venezuela and the kidnapping of Maduro and Flores.

“The United States is rapidly escalating its assault on the Americas—and the principle of self-determination at large,” warned the international advocacy group. “Under the banner of the Monroe Doctrine, Donald Trump and his cronies are leading a campaign of imperial aggression that stretches from Caracas to Havana, Mexico City to Bogotá.”

According to the dispatch:

What we are witnessing today is class struggle played out through imperial violence. The United States stands as the political and military instrument of capital: Big Oil bankrolling politics; arms manufacturers profiting from destruction; and financial power thriving on plunder and permanent war. These sections of capital pay for the policies they desire and are richly rewarded. The share prices of US oil majors soared around 10% following Maduro’s kidnapping, representing a return of around $100 billion on an investment of $450 million in the last US elections.

The government serves its donors, so aggression can proceed without consent. Public opinion has repeatedly shown opposition to U.S. military action in Venezuela — a gap between elite appetite and popular will bridged by force, not democracy.

Venezuela — like many nations before it — represents a different possibility: that the popular classes might govern themselves, control their resources, and chart a future beyond imperial command. And that possibility represents an existential threat to empire.

The group said Sunday’s latest threat by Trump against Cuba—openly saying that the US military might will be used to prevent life-sustaining resources from reaching the island nation—should be seen for what it is: a coercive “threat to strangle Cuba of critical energy and resources” at the end of a barrel of a gun.

“Through manipulation, coercion, and now direct military action,” the group warns, the US government under Trump “has made absolutely clear its intention to dominate Latin America.”

With more such events set for Sunday, hundreds of demonstrations took place in cities large and small across the United States on Saturday to denounce the killing of Renee Nicole Good by a federal immigration enforcement officer last week in Minneapolis.

The wave of “ICE Out for Good” protests arrives as a consolidated expression of outrage directed at President Donald Trump for his authoritarian tactics, cruel policies, and a lawlessness seemingly without end. Just a day after Good was killed in Minnesota, two other people were shot and wounded by federal agents in Portland, Oregon.

“Renee Nicole Good and the Portland victims are just the most recent victims of ICE’s reign of terror,” said the 50501 movement, one of the groups behind the weekend protests, said in a statement. “ICE has brutalized communities for decades, but its violence under the Trump regime has accelerated.”

The killing of Good by Jonathan Ross, a 10-year veteran of the Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) agency, came just days after Trump’s unlawful military attack on Venezuela which culminated in the arrest of President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. Many who protested Saturday noted that the two events are deeply related as they epitomize the increasingly violent nature of the president’s second term.

Also notable is how the act of war against Venezuela and the killing of Good bookended the fifth anniversary of the Trump-backed insurrection that took place on January 6, 2021. While many marked that occasion with solemn remembrances, the Trump administration released a fabricated version of the day that was denounced as Orwellian and gaslighting of the highest form.

As Mother Jones’ David Corn wrote on Thursday: “The military assault on Venezuela, the shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE agent, the launch of the White House’s new revisionist website about January 6—these three events convey a powerful and unsettling message from Donald Trump and his crew: Violence is ours to use, at home and abroad, to get what we want.”

Saturday’s protests—organized by the Not Above the Law Coalition, MoveOn, the ACLU, Indivisible, and others—took place from Minneapolis to New York and from Chicago to Los Angeles. Demonstrations and rallies also took place in Portland, Oregon as well as Portland, Maine, with hundreds of events and rallies in smaller cities and communities nationwide.

More details about the events, including a growing list of Sunday’s demonstrations and rallies, is available here.

“It feels like maybe we’re hitting a tipping point,” 49-year-old Ben Person, who marched in Minneapolis, told the New York Times.

“We’re here to say f--k Trump, abolish ICE, arrest Jonathan Ross, impeach [Homeland Security Secretary] Kristi Noem, and bring justice to anyone who’s ever been wronged by the patriarchy and fascist communities,” another demonstrator in Minneapolis told Status Coup News.

“The shootings in Minneapolis and Portland were not the beginning of ICE’s cruelty, but they need to be the end,” said Deirdre Schifeling of the ACLU. “These tragedies are simply proof of one fact: the Trump administration and its federal agents are out of control, endangering our neighborhoods, and trampling on our rights and freedom. This weekend, Americans all across the country are demanding that they stop.”

At a rally in Portland, Maine on Saturday evening, Troy Jackson, the Democratic former president of the State Senate now running for governor, said the killing of Good in Minneapolis made clear to him that such violence against regular citizens could indeed happen anywhere:

For one demonstrator in Minneapolis, the imperial and authoritarian drive of the Trump administration reminded him of the galactic villains of the Empire in the Star Wars series:

The organizers of the weekend protests said that public shows of dissent will remain key in the coming days, weeks, and months.

“We will resist the government’s attacks by building community, by documenting atrocities, by protesting nonviolently, by showing kindness and solidarity at all times,” said Pablo Alvarado, co-executive director of the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, another of the organizing groups.

“We will meet them in the streets, in the courts, at the day labor corners. We will meet them everywhere. And we will win. We are not afraid or discouraged. And we will not be defeated,” Alvarado added. “The more we stand together as a community of determination and love, the harder it will be for them to divide and destroy us.”

Speaking with reporters on Friday about the killing of Renee Nicole Good by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross in Minneapolis earlier this week, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said the violence exposes a key contrast about the nation she wants to live in and the vision espoused by Vice President JD Vance, who has been outspoken in his demonization of the victim while defending the actions of Ross.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” said the New York Democrat to a gaggle of reporters outside the Capitol Building. “And that is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

The specific question was asked by CBS News’ Patrick Maguire who asked for Ocasio-Cortez’s reaction to Vance claiming that the killing of Good was “a tragedy” of her “own making.” In comments in the White House briefing room on Thursday, a day after the shooting, Vance said it was “preposterous” for anyone to criticize the actions of Ross.

Vance, along with President Donald Trump and other White House officials, have repeatedly tried to deny what video evidence of the shooting clearly shows: that Good was presenting no imminent threat to the officer, did not “target” him with her vehicle, and was not—as officials claimed—fully blocking the street from passing vehicles prior to her killing.

Vance on Thursday also falsely asserted that ICE agents like Ross have “absolute immunity” for their actions, a claim that legal experts—as well as prosecutors in Minnesota—have said is simply not true.

In her remarks to reporters on Friday, Ocasio-Cortez lamented what she called “extrajudicial killings” by ICE agents on the streets of America, exceeding their mandates and empowered by a huge influx of funding provided by the Trump administration and Republican lawmakers this year.

Ocasio-Cortez said it “shows the danger we are in,” when Trump claims, like he did in an interview with the New York Times this week, that he will only be constrained by his “own morality,” suggesting Congress and the judiciary are not obstacles to his power.

“We have a Republican majority that has decided to completely abdicate its power to the president,” she said. “I think it’s up to the American people to ensure that we take away power from those who do not use it well.”

In contrast to Republicans who say ICE agents operating in cities across the country are “just doing their jobs,” Ocasio-Cortez said, “I would not say that assassinating a young mother of three in the street is part of ICE’s mandate.” She encouraged people not to take her word for it, but to “watch the video for yourselves.”

“Watch that video for yourself and you will see a woman trying to back up her vehicle and leave a volatile scene—and she was met with three bullets to the face,” the lawmaker said. “Any law enforcement officer in the country, worth their salt, can tell you that is not how you handle that situation.”

Ocasio-Cortez and Vance are both seen as leading possible contenders for their respective parties when it comes to the presidential race in 2028.

“Vance, who may see himself pitted against [Ocasio-Cortez] in a general election,” said journalist Ryan Grim on Friday, “will deeply regret—I hope in his heart, but certainly politically—trashing Renee Good as ”deranged“ while valorizing his killer, who called her a ‘fuckin’ bitch’ after shooting her through her side window.”

Released Friday, and posted on social media by Vance, video footage taken from Ross’ own phone, which was holding and filming with in the moment leading up to the shooting, Good’s final words to recorded were not those of an angry or “deranged” person, but a smiling local citizen who said to Good, “It’s fine, dude. I’m not mad at you.”

Advocates for refugees in the United States continued to raise alarm Friday after President Donald Trump moved quickly to exploit the murder of one National Guard soldier and the wounding of another—allegedly shot by a national from Afghanistan who worked for the US military and CIA during the war there before seeking asylum in the US—by issuing a sweeping ban against asylum-seekers and halting all immigration from what he termed “all Third World countries” in response to Wednesday’s shooting in Washington, DC.

“Regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s nationality, religion or specific legal status,” said Matthew Soerens, a vice president with the faith-based World Relief, speaking with the Associated Press, “we urge our country to recognize these evil actions as those of one person, not to unfairly judge others who happen to share those same characteristics.”

Shawn VanDiver, president of the San Diego-based group AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the US during the war in Afghanistan, explained to the AP that many people in the Afghan refugee community that he knows are terrified by the tone which has been set by Trump after the shooting, afraid to leave their homes for fear of being snatched up by federal agents or otherwise targeted.

“They’re terrified. It’s insane,” VanDiver told AP. “People are acting xenophobic because of one deranged man. He doesn’t represent all Afghans. He represents himself.”

Advocates for refugees in the United States continued to raise alarm Friday after President Donald Trump moved quickly to exploit the murder of one National Guard soldier and the wounding of another—allegedly shot by a national from Afghanistan who worked for the US military and CIA during the war there before seeking asylum in the US—by issuing a sweeping ban against asylum-seekers and halting all immigration from what he termed “all Third World countries” in response to Wednesday’s shooting in Washington, DC.

“Regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s nationality, religion or specific legal status,” said Matthew Soerens, a vice president with the faith-based World Relief, speaking with the Associated Press, “we urge our country to recognize these evil actions as those of one person, not to unfairly judge others who happen to share those same characteristics.”

Shawn VanDiver, president of the San Diego-based group AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the US during the war in Afghanistan, explained to the AP that many people in the Afghan refugee community that he knows are terrified by the tone which has been set by Trump after the shooting, afraid to leave their homes for fear of being snatched up by federal agents or otherwise targeted.

“They’re terrified. It’s insane,” VanDiver told AP. “People are acting xenophobic because of one deranged man. He doesn’t represent all Afghans. He represents himself.”

On Thursday, it was announced that Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, deployed with the National Guard under orders from Trump, had died from her injuries while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remained in critical condition in a local hospital.

While heartbreak and mourning were widely shared for the victims of the shooting, Trump’s xenophobic response to the violent assault, including his racist social media posts on Truth Social that critics said echoed white nationalist rhetoric, proved, for many observers, once again his shortcomings as a national leader during times of crisis, but also as a human being.

“The perpetrator should face accountability, but the entire Afghan community must not be punished due to the actions of one individual,” said Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, on Thursday. “That would be terribly unjust and complete nonsense. Cool heads must prevail.”

Arash Azizzada, co-director of Afghans For A Better Tomorrow, which long-opposed the US war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and continues to advocate on behalf of the Afghan-American community, condemned Trump for “using this tragedy as a pretext to demonize, criminalize, and target an entire community. Exploiting a single incident to cast suspicion on Afghans—people who have already endured decades of displacement and America’s forever wars—is both irresponsible and cruel.”

Azizzada also pointed out how the alleged gunman now in police custody, identified as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, “worked alongside US Special Operations forces and served in a CIA-backed covert paramilitary group known as ‘Zero Units’ that functioned outside the purview of any accountability and has a documented history of widespread human rights abuses against Afghan civilians over two decades.”

“We both condemn the violence by one individual on the streets of Washington, DC, as well as the violence perpetrated by the US in Afghanistan and elsewhere,” said Azizzada. “America must confront the decades of violence it inflicted on Afghanistan and acknowledge that its forever wars are a major reason why Afghans seek safety here. Blaming refugees for the consequences of those actions is unjust, and we call for the promises to Afghans to be honored, not abandoned.”

Journalist Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, put it this way: “The idea that we should freeze all migration because one of the CIA’s death squad recruits went on a rampage is absurd. Smarter would be to stop training death squads.”

Evacuate Our Allies, a group that advocates on behalf of Afghans who helped the US during the war and now seeking to resettle, expressed deep sympathies for the victims of the shooting and their families and condemned the “reprehensible attack.” The group also denounced the “alarming vilification of an entire community based on the actions of a lone individual.”

“No community, Afghan or otherwise, should be judged, demonized, or collectively punished for the behavior of one person,” the group said. “Such narratives cause real harm, inflame tensions, and overlook the truth: one individual does not represent millions. Collective blame is not only unjust but dangerous. It undermines the immense sacrifices our nation’s Afghan allies made, sacrifices that cost many their safety, their homes, their loved ones, and, in too many cases, their lives.”

Advocates for refugees in the United States continued to raise alarm Friday after President Donald Trump moved quickly to exploit the murder of one National Guard soldier and the wounding of another—allegedly shot by a national from Afghanistan who worked for the US military and CIA during the war there before seeking asylum in the US—by issuing a sweeping ban against asylum-seekers and halting all immigration from what he termed “all Third World countries” in response to Wednesday’s shooting in Washington, DC.

“Regardless of the alleged perpetrator’s nationality, religion or specific legal status,” said Matthew Soerens, a vice president with the faith-based World Relief, speaking with the Associated Press, “we urge our country to recognize these evil actions as those of one person, not to unfairly judge others who happen to share those same characteristics.”

Shawn VanDiver, president of the San Diego-based group AfghanEvac, a group that helps resettle Afghans who assisted the US during the war in Afghanistan, explained to the AP that many people in the Afghan refugee community that he knows are terrified by the tone which has been set by Trump after the shooting, afraid to leave their homes for fear of being snatched up by federal agents or otherwise targeted.

“They’re terrified. It’s insane,” VanDiver told AP. “People are acting xenophobic because of one deranged man. He doesn’t represent all Afghans. He represents himself.”

On Thursday, it was announced that Specialist Sarah Beckstrom, deployed with the National Guard under orders from Trump, had died from her injuries while Staff Sgt. Andrew Wolfe, 24, remained in critical condition in a local hospital.

While heartbreak and mourning was widely shared for the victims of the shooting, Trump’s xenophobic response to the violent assault, including his racist social media posts on Truth Social that critics said echoed white nationalist rhetoric, proved for many observers once again his shortcomings as a national leader during times of crisis, but also as a human being.

“The perpetrator should face accountability but the entire Afghan community must not be punished due to the actions of one individual,” said Richard Bennett, the UN special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, said Thursday. “That would be terribly unjust and complete nonsense. Cool heads must prevail.”

Arash Azizzada, co-director of Afghans For A Better Tomorrow, which long-opposed the US war in Afghanistan in the wake of 9/11 and continues to advocate on behalf of the Afghan-American community, condemned Trump for “using this tragedy as a pretext to demonize, criminalize, and target an entire community. Exploiting a single incident to cast suspicion on Afghans—people who have already endured decades of displacement and America’s forever wars—is both irresponsible and cruel.”

Azizzada also pointed out how the alleged gunman now in police custody, identified as 29-year-old Rahmanullah Lakanwal, “worked alongside US Special Operations forces and served in a CIA-backed covert paramilitary group known as ‘Zero Units’ that functioned outside the purview of any accountability and have a documented history of widespread human rights abuses against Afghan civilians over two decades.”

“We both condemn the violence by one individual on the streets of Washington, DC as well as the violence perpetrated by the US in Afghanistan and elsewhere,” said Azizzada. “America must confront the decades of violence it inflicted on Afghanistan and acknowledge that its forever wars are a major reason why Afghans seek safety here. Blaming refugees for the consequences of those actions is unjust and we call for the promises to Afghans to be honored, not abandoned.”

Journalist Ryan Grim, co-founder of Drop Site News, put it this way: “The idea that we should freeze all migration because one of the CIA’s death squad recruits went on a rampage is absurd. Smarter would be to stop training death squads.”

Evacuate Our Allies, a group that advocates on behalf of Afghans who helped the US during the war and now seeking to resettle, expressed deep sympathies for the victims of the shooting and their families and condemned the “reprehensible attack.” The group also denounced the “alarming vilification of an entire community based on the actions of a lone individual.”

“No community, Afghan or otherwise, should be judge, demonized, or collectively punished for the behavior of one person,” the group said. “Such narratives cause real harm, inflame tensions, and overlook the truth: one individual does not represent millions. Collective blame is not only unjust but dangerous. It undermines the immense sacrifices our nation’s Afghan allies made, sacrifices that cost many their safety, their homes, their loved ones, and, in too many case, their lives.”

Hundreds of people in New York City gathered on Sunday in Union Square with calls to “Tax the Rich” as they showed their support for the progressive agenda of mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani, the democratic socialist elected earlier this month, who will take the helm of the nation’s largest city on January 1.

The “Tax the Rich — Seize Our Future” event was co-sponsored by the New York City chapter of the Democratic Socialists of America, Housing Justice For All and NYS Tenant Bloc, Jewish Voice for Peace NYC, UAW Region 9A, the Invest in Our New Coalition, and others.

The groups are backing Mamdani’s call for universal childcare, free public buses, a rent freeze, and city-operated grocery stores in the city, all of which will be made more possible with revenue raised by increased taxes on the city’s wealthiest individuals and for-profit companies.

“Zohran Mamdani’s cost-of-living agenda has the support of the masses of working-class New Yorkers—but winning an ambitious affordability agenda cannot be won with one mayor alone,” said the NYC-DSA in a post about the “Tax the Rich” event on their website. “To build the universal public goods we deserve, we need to ensure the wealthiest individuals and corporations in our state are paying their fair share in taxes.”

It will take a movement to push Albany to put working New Yorkers before billionaire donors and tax the rich,” said Danny Zaldes, a DSA member and organizer, as he called on others to join the effort.

“As we know, power concedes nothing without a demand,” declared Democratic state Sen. Jabari Brisport (D-25) during his speech at the rally, “and today we demand to tax the rich!”

The rally served as the launch of a new campaign by coalition members behind the event, one aimed at making sure that Mamdani maintains grassroots support even as he takes charge of the city’s municipal government in the New Year.

In order to fund his transition and maintain that popular support, Mamdani has asked supporters and donors to crowdfund for the transition and has created a nonprofit entity to mobilize on behalf of his progressive vision for the city going forward.

On Sunday, Mamdani’s office said it has raised approximately $1 million in just 10 days, coming from over 12,00 individuals with an average gift of $77.

Contrasting the money raised with that of previous administrations, a statement from Mamdani’s office said that “during Mayor Eric Adams’ transition, he had just 884 individual donors, with an average donation of more than $1,000, and former Mayor Bill de Blasio had 820 individual donors, with an average donation of $2,392.”

As it readies to take on the most powerful interests in the city, as well as some of the wealthiest people on the planet who call New York City home, Mamdani said in a statement that the support of working people will be crucial to his administration’s success.

“None of this would have been possible without everyday New Yorkers willing to spare $5, $10, or $20 to help build a government that will deliver for working people,” said the mayor-elect. “I’m grateful for every dollar New Yorkers have contributed to make this vision of an affordable, more livable city a reality.”

The campaign said the money will be used primarily for recruiting and retaining during the transition period as the administration takes shape.

“More than 12,000 New Yorkers are contributing to this transition to turn the page on the politics of the past and build a new era for New York City,” said Elana Leopold, executive director of Mamdani’s transition, in a statement. “Thanks to New Yorkers’ support, we will be ready on day one with top talent in place and ready to deliver.”

Far-right podcaster and former top presidential advisor Steve Bannon told a crowd of aspiring conservative staffers on Capitol Hill this week that the job of Republicans between now and the midterm election next year is to seize complete control of government institutions and turn as many of President Donald Trump’s executive orders as possible into law as a way to avoid politic defeat in the coming years and, ultimately, keep MAGA loyalists from being tried and sent to jail.

“I’ll tell you right, as God as my witness, if we lose the midterms and we lose 2028, some in this room are going to prison,” Bannon told the crowd Wednesday at an awards event hosted by the Conservative Partnership Academy. This group offers training and certifications to aspiring right-wing ideologues working in politics and government.

Bannon, who has already served time in prison for refusing to submit to a congressional subpoena related to his role as a top aide to Trump during his first term, included himself among those who might be targeted if Republicans lost power.

In his remarks, Bannon said Tuesday’s election results in New York City, Virginia, New Jersey, and elsewhere—where Democrats swept the GOP—should be seen as a warning to Trump’s MAGA base, but called for an intensification of the agenda, not a retreat.

“They’re not gonna stop,” Bannon said of Democrats and progressives aligned against Trump’s authoritarian push and Republican economic policies that have focused on lavishing ever-larger tax cuts for corporations and the rich while gutting government programs, including cuts to Medicaid, food assistance for the poor, devastating environmental policies, and dismantling of healthcare subsidies leading to a surge in monthly premiums for millions of families.

Trump’s opponents, warned Bannon, are “getting more and more and more radical, and we have to counter that.”

His advice to Republicans in power and the right-wing movement that supports them is to counter “with more intense action” and more “urgency” before it’s too late. “We’re burning daylight,” Bannon said. “We have to codify what Trump has done by executive order.”

In what seemed like a reference to Trump’s recent talk of going “nuclear” on the filibuster in the US Senate and other efforts, Bannon said, “We have to get beyond these structural barriers” in Washington, DC, that he believes are hindering the president from consolidating his power even further.

Speaking about discussions behind the scenes, Bannon said he has been in touch with Republicans in the Senate who he says are asking him to go through for them what he means and that in the coming days people may be surprised by who “in the conservative movement” are coming around to his thinking, mentioning “institutionalists” like Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as those he’s been speaking with.

“These are what I would call heavy-hitters on the limited-government constitutionalists, in our movement,” Bannon said of other unnamed individuals, “and they’re about to come out in the next couple of days and make this argument because I said, ‘Look, we have to understand that if we don’t this to the maximum—the maximalist strategy—now, with a sense of urgency, and in doing this, seize the institutions... if we don’t do this now, we’re going to lose this chance forever, because you’re never going to have another Trump.”

In an interview with Politico following Tuesday’s elections, Bannon said the win by democratic socialist Zohran Mamdani to become New York City’s next mayor “should be a wakeup call” to Trump’s right-wing nationalist movement. “These are very serious people,” Bannon said of Mamdani and others who support his affordability agenda that focuses on the needs of working people, “and they need to be addressed seriously.”

As such, Bannon called for the Justice Department, the State Department, and the Department of Homeland Security to target Mamdani specifically by going after his US citizenship and calling for him to be deported. Mamdani is a naturalized US citizen who came to the United States with his parents when he was seven years old.

As the video clip of Bannon’s remarks about jail time if the Republicans lose in the upcoming elections made the rounds online Thursday, reactions were predictable along partisan lines.

“Steve Bannon motivating Democratic voters,” said Aviel Roshwald, a Georgetown University professor of history with a focus on nationalist movements.

Bannon’s call for “seizing the institutions” has been a mainstay on his popular War Room podcast for months, but critics warn that his open embrace of the demand should not make it any less shocking or worrisome.

“He’s preparing his audience to see violence and institutional takeover as ‘necessary.’ And he’s counting on Democrats and independents being too divided or too polite to call it what it is,” warned Christopher Webb, a left-leaning political writer on his Substack page last month.

Bannon and his allies, continued Webb, “do not give a damn about the law, the Constitution, or democracy. They only care about control. And if we keep treating their words as ‘just talk,’ it will be too late when it stops being talk.”

He concluded: “This isn’t going to end well.”

Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker is warning top lieutenants of President Donald Trump’s violent and unlawful immigration enforcement policies that they will not always have the protection of presidential immunity and that lawmakers in the future will seek to hold them to account for their behavior, including unlawful orders given at the behest of the president.

With episodes of violent raids, unlawful search and seizures, and the mistreatment of immigrants, protesters, journalists, and everyday citizens, Pritzker, in a Thursday evening interview on MSNBC, specifically named White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, border czar Tom Homan, and Gregory Bovino, the Customs and Border Patrol commander operating in the Chicago area, as people whose actions will not be forgotten.

“All these people need to recognize, you may have immunity because Donald Trump’s willing to pardon anybody who’s carrying out his unlawful orders,” said Pritzker, “but you’re not going to have it under another administration.”

Pritzker said that all the people serving the president, “including all the way down to ICE agents, can be held accountable when there’s a change in administration that’s willing to hold them accountable when they break the law.”

Calling out Miller in particular, the governor charged that the xenophobic Trump advisor, who has been a leading champion and director of the harsh crackdown measures and federal deployments in Los Angeles, Washington, DC, Chicago, and elsewhere, has “clearly ordering people to break the law.”

Critics and legal experts have said the deployments themselves are unconstitutional, and the heavy-handed tactics of agents have resulted in numerous violations of civil liberties and constitutional protections.

Miller should know, said Pritzker, that “it may be three years from now that he is held accountable, but I think it’s important for them to know that whatever they do now, it’s not like we’re going to forget and it’s not like we don’t have a record of what they’re doing.”

On Thursday, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee Rep. Jeremy Raskin (D-Md.) led a letter from Democrats on the committee demanding that the Trump administration “immediately end its unlawful and violent enforcement campaign in the Chicagoland region, warning that the Administration’s actions are undermining public safety, violating constitutional rights, and destabilizing communities.”

According to a statement from Raskin’s office:

For months, personnel from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have employed military-style tactics in enforcement operations across Chicago, spreading fear, chaos, and violence. Such extreme enforcement tactics have only escalated since the Administration’s announcement of Operation Midway Blitz in September. In early October, President Trump went further, federalized the National Guard—over the objections of Illinois Governor JB Pritzker—and ordered troops to Illinois to enable these unlawful and unconstitutional assaults on Chicagoland residents.

In October alone, DHS personnel have shot two people and publicly advanced self-serving narratives that were immediately contradicted by body camera and surveillance footage, handcuffed an Alderperson at a hospital checking on the welfare of a constituent being detained by ICE, indiscriminately deployed tear gas in front of a public school and against civilians and local law enforcement, placed a handcuffed man on the ground in a chokehold, shot a pastor in the head with a pepper ball, thrown flashbang grenades at civilians, and raided an entire apartment complex and reportedly zip-tied U.S. citizens, children, and military veterans for hours.

In a letter addressed to Trump, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, and Acting Director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement Todd Lyons, the 18 Democratic members of the committee, including Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García, who represents the Chicagoland district, said, “The Administration claims the mantle of law and order, yet its actions in the Chicagoland
area demonstrate it is a catalyst for lawlessness and dysfunction.”

“Violently abusing residents, kidnapping parents and children and disappearing them into detention facilities without access to basic necessities, and illegally deploying the militaryagainst a great American city,” the letter continues, “does nothing to make anyone safer—in fact, it jeopardizes the safety and well-being of every community members.”

Demanding a halt to the attacks by federal agents in Chicago, the lawmakers said “[t]he American people want a common- sense approach to public safety and immigration, not violent tactics that traumatize and destabilize communities. They want leadership, not theater. We urge you to step back from the brink and use your positions to enhance public safety, instead of undermining it.”

Nearly 600 nonprofits, labor unions, charitable organizations, and advocacy groups in the United States have issued an open letter directed at the administration of President Donald Trump that calls for an end to the exploitation of Charlie Kirk’s recent murder by saying it is both “un-American and wrong to use this act of violence as a pretext for weaponizing the government to threaten” groups, individuals, or “any class of people” in the wake of a lone crime which they had nothing to do with and have condemned unequivocally.

In the days following Kirk’s assassination in Utah, allegedly carried out by a lone gunman identified as Tyler Robinson, whose exact political ideology and motivations remain murky, Trump himself and many of his top lieutenants in the executive branch—including Vice President JD Vance, White House advisor Stephen Miller, and Attorney General Pam Bondi—have sought to blame what they characterize as the broad “radical left” for the violent attack.

But in their open letter published Thursday evening, the vast coalition of groups—including the ACLU, Public Citizen, Common Cause, Communication Workers of America, the Sunrise Movement, and Veterans for Peace—said Trump’s “perceived enemies” that he and his GOP allies have named or suggested as responsible for Kirk’s killing “did not commit this murder, and the vast powers of the government should not be abused to threaten their constitutionally-protected free speech and other rights.”

“Political violence has targeted those of every political persuasion and of no political persuasion,” the groups said, reiterating.

Under direct threat from FCC chairman Brendan Carr, ABC on Wednesday suspended late-night comedian Jimmy Kimmel and took his show off the air for remarks he made about the right-wing reaction to Kirk’s killing. Trump on Thursday doubled down with the attack on free speech by saying broadcasters perhaps should have their licenses pulled if they are too critical of him.

“As we’ve said before, the assassination of Kirk was a tragedy for his family and a danger for the nation,” said Lisa Gilber, co-president of Public Citizen. “It is unconscionable to exploit this dangerous political moment to further divisions and violate rights, when what we desperately need right now is to lower the temperature of our discourse and bring the country together.”

With a broad GOP underway to stifle free speech, the coalition warns of a very dangerous road if the federal government’s powers are turned on people or groups whose only alleged infraction is expressing an opinion that those in power dislike.

“This moment of tragedy does not call for exploiting a horrific act to further deepen our divides and make us less safe,” the letter concludes. “It calls for unity–unity against violence and unity of purpose as Americans.”

Democratic Texas state Rep. Nicole Collier was forced to spend the night Monday inside the Texas State Capitol building in Austin after she refused to sign a "permission slip" to accept the mandatory escort by the Department of Public Safety imposed on Democrats by the Republicans who control the chamber.

Republican House Speaker Dustin Burrows announced the restrictions on members of the Democratic caucus earlier in the day after Democrats returned after a two-week hiatus out of state to prevent quorum in the House as a way to block a controversial mid-decade redistricting effort by the GOP that aims to hand the party up to five more seats in midterm congressional elections next year as a favor to President Donald Trump.

CNN reports that a majority of the Democrats in the caucus "complied with the law enforcement escort, showing reporters what they called 'permission slips' they received to leave the House floor and pointing to the officers escorting them around the Capitol."

But not Collier, who represents the Fort Worth area in District 95.

"I refuse to sign. I will not agree to be in DPS custody," Collier said. "I'm not a criminal. I am exercising my right to resist and oppose the decisions of our government. So this is my form of protest."

In a video posted Monday night from inside the chamber, Collier explained why she refused to sign for the escort and lashed out at her Republican colleagues for their continued assault on the rule of law.

"My constituents sent me to Austin to protect their voices and rights," said Collier in the video. "I refuse to sign away my dignity as a duly elected representative just so Republicans can control my movements and monitor me with police escorts. My community is majority-minority, and they expect me to stand up for their representation. When I press that button to vote, I know these maps will harm my constituents—I won't just go along quietly with their intimidation or their discrimination."

Fellow Democrats, both inside and beyond Texas, championed Collier's stand and condemned the GOP for their latest authoritarian stunt.

"In the face of fascism, [Rep.] Nicole Collier is a hero," said state Rep. Ana-María Rodríguez Ramos (D-102), chair of the Texas Legislative Progressive Caucus.

Seth Harp, a Democrat running for Congress in Florida this cycle, accused Texas Republicans of "just absolutely destroying the 4th amendment," which bars unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. "It's essentially kidnapping and taking a hostage," Harp added.

"Hey GOP," he asked, "exactly how much do you hate the Constitution?"

Rep. Jasmine Crocket (D-TX), who previously served in the state's legislature, also condemned the move by Burrows and his fellow Republicans.

"Let me be clear: LOCKING Rep. Nicole Collier inside the chamber is beyond outrageous," Crockett declared in a social media post Monday evening.

"Forcing elected officials to sign 'permission slips' and take police escorts to leave? That's not procedure," she said. "That's some old Jim Crow playbook. Texas Republicans have lost their damn minds."

Internal documents obtained by The Washington Post and reported on Tuesday reveal a secret Pentagon plan by the Trump administration to create a standing force of military personnel that could be rapidly deployed to U.S. cities or communities to quell public protests or any situation President Donald Trump deems "domestic civil unrest."

The proposal to create what it dubs a "Domestic Civil Disturbance Quick Reaction Force"—which evidence shows has been under serious consideration by the administration over recent months—would utilize existing statute, including invocation of Title 32, to authorize the deployment of specialized National Guard units anywhere in the country within hours, according to the documents.According to the Post:

The plan calls for 600 troops to be on standby at all times so they can deploy in as little as one hour, the documents say. They would be split into two groups of 300 and stationed at military bases in Alabama and Arizona, with purview of regions east and west of the Mississippi River, respectively.

"This isn't normal!!!" declared one social media user, a U.S. Navy veteran, in response to the reporting.

The leaked documents detailing the plan, which the Post noted "represents another potential expansion of [Trump’s] willingness to employ the armed forces on American soil," comes just a day after the president sparked serious concerns (and local protests) by deploying National Guard troops in the city of Washington, D.C. and announcing a federal takeover of the D.C. police force.

Civil liberties advocates and critics of Trump's growing authoritarianism warn the president is raising "a trial balloon" to see just how much he can get away with when it comes to deploying U.S. soldiers onto the nation's streets.

Coupled with the D.C. takeover, Tuesday's revelations about the Pentagon's more expansive plan served to increase those fears, especially in the light of looming political battles regarding gerrymandered districts for next year's congressional elections and growing disgust with the broader Trump policy agenda.

"If people aren't allowed to peacefully protest and the elections are being rigged through gerrymandering and voter suppression, how are Americans supposed to respond when they figure out their lives are being actively destroyed by a corrupt, fascist government?" asked Wisconsin state Rep. Chris Larson, a Democrat.

"The U.S. military should never be used against peaceful civilians," said Larson. "The criminal president who thinks it's cool can f--k all the way off."

Joseph Nunn, an attorney at the Brennan Center for Justice specializing in the domestic use of the U.S. military, told the Post that the lawfulness of the proposal is far from clear and that the creation of such a force would be deeply troubling.

"You don't want to normalize routine military participation in law enforcement," Nunn warned. "You don't want to normalize routine domestic deployment."

"When you have this tool waiting at your fingertips, you're going to want to use it,” he added. "It actually makes it more likely that you're going to see domestic deployments—because why else have a task force?"

New reporting based on a leaked briefing memo from a recent meeting between high-level officials at the Department of Homeland Security and the Defense Department sparked fresh warnings on Saturday about the Trump administration's internal plans to increase its domestic use of the U.S. military.

According to Greg Sargent of The New Republic, which obtained the memo, the document "suggests that Trump's use of the military for domestic law enforcement on immigration could soon get worse."

The "terrifying" memo—which the outlet recreated and published online with certain redactions that concealed operational and personnel details—"provides a glimpse into the thinking of top officials as they seek to involve the Defense Department more deeply in these domestic operations, and it has unnerved experts who believe it portends a frightening escalation."

Circulated internally among top Trump officials, TNR reports the memo was authored by Philip Hegseth, the younger brother of U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth. The younger sibling, though lesser known by the public than his controversial brother, currently serves as a senior adviser to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and acts as DHS liaison officer to the Pentagon.

The meeting between DoD and DHS officials and the memo centers on Philip Hegseth's push for closer collaboration between the two departments, especially with regard to operations on the ground, like those that happened earlier this year in Los Angeles when National Guard units and later U.S. Marines were deployed in the city to help Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents and local law enforcement put down local protests sparked by raids targeting immigrants and workers.

As Sargent noted in a social media post:

Strikingly, the memo says straightforwardly that what happened in Los Angeles is the sort of operation that may be necessary "for years to come." As one expert told me: "They see Los Angeles as a model to be replicated."

"To Make America Safe Again, DHS and DoD will need to be in lockstep with each other, and I hope today sets the scene for where our partnership is headed," states the memo, which also compares transnational criminal gangs and drug cartels to Al Qaeda.

Lindsay Cohn, an associate professor at the U.S. Naval War College, was among the experts TNR spoke with who called that comparison particularly worrying. "The conflation of a low-level threat like transnational criminal organizations with Al Qaeda, which was actually attempting to topple the United States government, is a clear attempt to use excessive force for a purpose normally handled by civil authorities," said Cohn.

Sociology professor Kim Lane Scheppele, a scholar who studies the rise of autocracy at Princeton University, was among those who raised alarm in response to the published reporting and the contents of the memo.

"Here it comes," wrote Kim Lane Scheppele. "The worst we've been waiting for."

According to TNR:

The memo outlines the itinerary for a July 21 meeting between senior DHS and Pentagon officials, with the goal of better coordinating the agencies' activities in "defense of the homeland." It details goals that Philip Hegseth hopes to accomplish in the meeting and outlines points he wants DHS officials to impress on Pentagon attendees.

Participants listed comprise the very top levels of both agencies, including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and several of his top advisers, Joint Chiefs chairman Dan Caine, and NORTHCOM Commander Gregory Guillot. Staff include Phil Hegseth and acting ICE commissioner Todd Lyons.

"Due to the sensitive nature of the meeting, minimal written policy or background information can be provided in this briefing memo," the memo says.

Joseph Nunn, counsel for the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told TNR it was "disturbing to see DHS officials pressuring the U.S. military to turn its focus inward even further." Nunn added that the memo suggests that "military involvement in domestic civilian law enforcement" is set to become "more common" if the policy recommendations put forth by Phillip Hegseth take hold.

Following publication of his reporting, Sargent said he wanted to flag something specific for readers.

"It looks plausible that the Hegseth brothers are trying to push military leaders further on involving military in domestic law enforcement," he noted. "Two experts I spoke with read the memo that way. There may be a bigger story here to get."

New survey data out Friday shows that Republicans are wrong if they remain unconcerned about public sentiment as it relates to the evisceration of Medicaid or healthcare support systems that would result from passage of their colossal legislation now making its way through Congress—a bill that, if passed, would see coverage stripped from an estimated 11-16 million people in the coming years.

According to new KFF Health Tracking Poll released Friday, anxiety is high among voters, across the political spectrum, about the negative impacts resulting from cuts to Medicaid or reductions in support for marketplace insurance plans supported by the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

"Most of the public is worried about the consequences of significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending, including among many groups that would be directly impacted by the cuts," KFF noted in its release of the new survey data. "Partisanship drives these attitudes to a certain extent, but about two-thirds or more of Republicans enrolled in Medicaid and those with lower incomes are worried that Medicaid spending reductions would hurt their families and their communities."

KFF added that most adults in the country, based on the poll's findings, "are worried significant reductions in federal Medicaid spending will lead to more uninsured people and will strain healthcare providers in their communities. About 7 in 10 adults (72%) are worried that a significant reduction in federal funding for Medicaid would lead to an increase in the share of uninsured children and adults in the U.S., including nearly half (46%) who are 'very worried' and 1 in 4 (25%) who are 'somewhat worried.'"

KFF notes that more than a quarter of Medicaid enrollees in the country are Republican, including 1 in 5 who identify with President Donald Trump's far-right MAGA movement. At the same time, nearly half of likely ACA marketplace enrollees identify as Republican.

The new poll results, as The Washington Post notes:

The findings illustrate the political perils of upending the public health insurance program as Senate Republicans feud over Medicaid cuts. As they face pressure to slash spending to finance President Donald Trump's sweeping tax and immigration legislation, they risk alienating their own supporters who depend on the program.

"Medicaid is really a popular program, and a large majority of Americans do not want to see decreases in spending," Liz Hamel, director of public opinion and survey research at KFF, told the Post. "These findings reflect that many people, whether or not they rely on Medicaid, see it as vital to their communities."

Tony Carrk, executive director of the progressive watchdog group Accountable.US, said Friday that Republicans in the Senate would be wise to stick to their public promises that Medicaid would not be cut or harmed, specifically referencing Sens. Josh Hawley of Missouri, Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Missouri's Eric Schmitt.

"Now is the time for these Senators to practice what they preach," said Caark. "A vote for the current bill is a vote to take away their constituents' healthcare—full stop."

"If these senators do the right thing, they will save the healthcare of millions of people from Alaska to Maine," he added. "But if they throw their support behind this bill, not only will they have lied to the American people, they will be ripping healthcare from those who need it the most, while the richest Americans—including many of them—could financially benefit."

Last week, Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) sparked fury when she said at a town hall, in response to a constituent warning that "people will die" if Medicaid cuts went through, that "we all are going to die."

On Capitol Hill this week, the advocacy group Social Security Works tried to catch up with Ernst about the comments, but she would not respond to questions.

"By the way," the group later posted, "Iowans are PISSED about sacrificing their Medicaid for a billionaire tax handout" and pointed to a local protest in Ernst's home state where community members rallied against cuts.

Citing a new study showing that more than 50,000 people a year will die prematurely if the Medicaid cuts proposed by Republicans goes through, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), said, “In the wealthiest country in the world, we should be guaranteeing health care to all as a human right, not taking health care away from millions of seniors and working families to pay for tax breaks for billionaires. As the Ranking Member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, I will be doing everything that I can to see that this disastrous bill is defeated."

A single paragraph buried deep in a spending bill that passed the GOP-controlled House of Representatives earlier this month is causing growing concern among democracy watchdogs who warn the provision will make it so only the well-to-do would be in a good position to launch legal challenges against a Trump administration that has shown over and over again its disdain and disregard for oversight or judicial restraint of any kind.

Coming just about half-way through what President Donald Trump has dubbed the Republican Party's so-called "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—which progressive critics point out is a giant giveaway to the nation's wealthiest at the expense of the working class and the common good—the language in question is slight, but could have far-reaching impacts.

"This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."

On Saturday, Human Rights Watch (HRW) noted in a detailed social media thread how the provision "hasn't gotten nearly enough scrutiny" from lawmakers or the public.

A recent piece by USA Today columnist Chris Brennan put it this way:

One paragraph, on pages 562 and 563 of the 1,116-page bill, raised alarms for reasons that have nothing to do with America's budget or safety-net programs or debt. That paragraph invokes a federal rule for civil court procedures, requiring anyone seeking an injunction or temporary restraining order to block an action by the Trump administration to post a financial bond. Want to challenge Trump? Pay up, the provision said in a way that could make it financially prohibitive for Americans to contest Trump's actions in court.

HRW details how the provision, if included in the final legislation, "would make it more expensive to fight Trump's policies in court by invoking a federal rule that effectively punishes anyone willing to stand up against the administration."

Anyone seeking a legal action that would involve an injunction request against a presidential order or policy, the group said, would to face a much larger barrier because Republicans would make it so that anyone challenging Trump in court in this way would "have to pay up in the form of a posted bond—something many people can't afford to do. That means only the wealthy will be able to even attempt to challenge the most powerful man in the country."

Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, was among the first to highlight the buried provision, calling it both "unprecedented" and "terrible" in a May 19 essay in which he argued that the ultimate effect of the provision is to shield members of the administration from contempt of court orders through the extraordinary limit on those who can bring challenges in the first place. Chemerinsky writes:

By its very terms this provision is meant to limit the power of federal courts to use their contempt power. It does so by relying on a relatively rarely used provision of the Rules that govern civil cases in federal court. Rule 65(c) says that judges may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order "only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained." But federal courts understandably rarely require that a bond be posted by those who are restraining unconstitutional federal, state, or local government actions. Those seeking such court orders generally do not have the resources to post a bond, and insisting on it would immunize unconstitutional government conduct from judicial review. It always has been understood that courts can choose to set the bond at zero.

Given his critique, Chemerinsky argued, "There is no way to understand this except as a way to keep the Trump administration from being restrained when it violates the Constitution or otherwise breaks the law. The House and the Senate should reject this effort to limit judicial power."

Human Rights Watch appeared to agree with the profound dangers to the rule of law if the provision survives to Trump's desk for signature.

"This is yet another sign of Trump's brazen attempts to stop the judicial branch from holding him accountable," the group warned. "This is what autocrats do. Consolidate power, increase the penalty for objecting, ultimately making it more difficult—eventually impossible—to challenge them."