Jon Queally, Common Dreams

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."

President Donald Trump's latest attack on the working class was delivered in the form of an executive order late Thursday that seeks to strip the collective bargaining rights from hundreds of thousands of federal government workers, a move that labor rights advocates said is not only unlawful but once again exposes Trump's deep antagonism toward working people and their families.

The executive order by Trump says its purpose is to "enhance the national security of the United States," but critics say its clear the president is hiding behind such a claim as a way to justify a broadside against collective bargaining by the public workforce and to intimidate workers more broadly.

"President Trump's latest executive order is a disgraceful and retaliatory attack on the rights of hundreds of thousands of patriotic American civil servants—nearly one-third of whom are veterans—simply because they are members of a union that stands up to his harmful policies," said Everett Kelley, president of the 820,000-member American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the nation's largest union of federal workers.

"The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we’ve fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being." —Liz Shuler, AFL-CIO

The far-reaching order, which cites the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act as the source of his presidential authority, goes way beyond restricting collective bargaining and union representation at agencies with a national security mandate, but instead tries to ensnare dozens of federal agencies and classifications of federal workers who work beyond that scope.

According to the Associated Press, the intent of the order "appears to touch most of the federal government."

AFL-CIO president Liz Shuler responded with disgust to the order, pointing out that the move comes directly out of the pre-election blueprint of the Heritage Foundation, which has been planning this kind of attack against the federal workforce and collective bargaining for years, if not decades.

"Straight out of Project 2025, this executive order is the very definition of union-busting," said Schuler in a Thursday night statement. "It strips the fundamental right to unionize and collectively bargain from workers across the federal government at more than 30 agencies. The workers who make sure our food is safe to eat, care for our veterans, protect us from public health emergencies and much more will no longer have a voice on the job or the ability to organize with their coworkers for better conditions at work so they can efficiently provide the services the public relies upon."

Shuler said the order is clearly designed as "punishment for unions who are leading the fight against the administration's illegal actions in court—and a blatant attempt to silence us."

The White House practically admitted as much, saying in a statement that "Trump supports constructive partnerships with unions who work with him; he will not tolerate mass obstruction that jeopardizes his ability to manage agencies with vital national security missions." In effect, especially with a definition of "national security" that encompasses a vast majority of all government functions and agencies, the president has told an estimated two-thirds of government workers they are no longer allowed to disagree with or obstruct his efforts as they organize to defend their jobs or advocate for better working conditions.

Describing the move as "bullying tactics" by Trump and his administration, Kelley said the order represents "a clear threat not just to federal employees and their unions, but to every American who values democracy and the freedoms of speech and association. Trump’s threat to unions and working people across America is clear: fall in line or else."

"These threats will not work. Americans will not be intimidated or silenced. AFGE isn't going anywhere. Our members have bravely served this nation, often putting themselves in harm’s way, and they deserve far better than this blatant attempt at political punishment," he added.

Both AFGE and the AFL-CIO said they would fight the order tooth and nail on behalf of federal workers—and all workers—who have a right to collective bargaining and not to be intimidated for organizing their workplaces, whether in the public or private sector.

"To every single American who cares about the fundamental freedom of all workers, now is the time to be even louder," said Shuler. "The labor movement is not about to let Trump and an un-elected billionaire destroy what we've fought for generations to build. We will fight this outrageous attack on our members with every fiber of our collective being."

Kelley said AFGE was "preparing immediate legal action" in response to Trump's order, and vowed to "fight relentlessly to protect our rights, our members, and all working Americans from these unprecedented attacks."

A former top advisor and strategist for President Donald Trump said Tuesday that secretive efforts are ongoing to prop him up for a third presidential run in three years time, with not-so-cryptic remarks that included "we'll have a couple of alternatives" and "we've had greater long shots than Trump 2028."

Appearing on journalist Chris Cuomo's NewsNation podcast, far-right mouthpiece Steve Bannon demurred when asked if he had ambitions to run for president himself, replying: "No, and I'm a firm believer that President Trump will run and win again in 2028, so I've already endorsed President Trump."

When Cuomo pressed Bannon on the existence of term limits that would bar Trump from seeking a third term, Bannon said, "We're working on it. I think we’ll have a couple of alternatives, let’s say that. We’ll see what the definition of term limit is."

"We've had greater long shots than Trump 2028 and we've got a lot of stuff we're working on there," Bannon added. "We're not prepared to talk about it publicly, but in a couple months I think we will be."

Trump and his far-right allies have suggested repeatedly that the president would seek to stay in power beyond what is made possible in the U.S. Constitution, including the 22nd Amendment which expressly forbids the president serving more than two terms.

As Noah Bookbinder, president of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said last week: "The 22nd Amendment is clear: No president can be elected to a third term."

After weekend reporting indicated President-elect Donald Trump is actively thinking about avenues to privatize the U.S. Postal Service, progressives decried any such efforts and once again directed their ire on the much-reviled Postermaster General, appointed to run the USPS during Trump's first term.

Citing people familiar with recent talks within the incoming team's camp, the Washington Post reported Saturday that Trump is "keen" for a privatization scheme that would hand the USPS over to for-profit, private interests.

According to the Post:

Trump has discussed his desire to overhaul the Postal Service at his Mar-a-Lago estate with Howard Lutnick, his pick for commerce secretary and the co-chair of his presidential transition, the people said. Earlier this month, Trump also convened a group of transition officials to ask for their views on privatizing the agency, one of the people said.

Told of the mail agency's annual financial losses, Trump said the government should not subsidize the organization, the people said. The people spoke on the condition of anonymity to reflect private conversations.

Trump's hostility to government programs that serve the public interest—including Medicare, Social Security, public education, and consumer protection agencies—is well-documented.

"The United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."

Trump's attacks on the Postal Service, including his blessing of the 2020 appointment of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, a former logistics industry executive, sparked alarm about Republican desires to gut the agency from the inside out.

While calls to fire DeJoy from the USPS top leadership post persisted during the last year of Trump's first term and remained constant during Biden's time in office, he remains Postmaster General despite repeated accusations that his ultimate aim is to diminish the agency to such an extend that it will be more possible to justify its dismantling.

While the Post's reporting on Saturday stated that Trump's "specific plans for overhauling the Postal Service" in his upcoming term "were not immediately clear," it did quote Casey Mulligan, who served as a top economic advisor during the last administration, who touted the private sectors performance compared to a Postal Service he claimed was too slow and costly.

"We didn't finish the job in the first term, but we should finish it now," said Mulligan.

Progressive defenders of the Postal Service, in response, denounced any future effort to privatize the agency, one of the most popular among the U.S. public.

"The Post Office is in our constitution," said Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) on Saturday. "There is no way we let Donald Trump privatize it. Fire his former pick for postmaster, DeJoy, and let a real professional run it like it should be run. The first priority is delivering mail. Cut the Pentagon's bloat if you want to save money."

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner also defended the USPS, saying that "72% of Americans approve of the U.S. Postal Service, it's how many seniors receive medication, especially in rural areas."

Progressive critics of right-wing attacks on the Postal Service have noted for years that the "financial performance" issues are a direct result of the "burdensome and unnecessary" pre-funding of liabilities mandated by the 2006 Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act, which forces the USPS to pay billions each year towards future postal worker retirement benefits.

"No matter what your partisan stripe," said Micah Rasmussen, director of the The Rebovich Institute for New Jersey Politics at Rider University, "we should be able to agree the United States Postal Service is a crucial asset that was built and is owned by all of us, and there is zero mandate from the public to turn it over to an oligarch."

Striking union members who work for the aerospace giant Boeing reached a tentative contract agreement Saturday after nearly 6 weeks on the picket line demanding better wages and benefits.

The International Association of Machinists (IAM) and Aerospace Workers District 751, which has been on strike since September 13, announced the breakthrough in a statement and Boeing also confirmed that a deal had been reached.

The tentative agreement—which will have to receive a majority from union members before finalized—includes a 35% wage increase over four years of the contract, a larger signing bonus of $7,000, guaranteed minimum payouts in a new annual bonus program, and increased contributions to worker 401(k) retirement plans.

"With the help of Acting U.S. Secretary of Labor Julie Su, we have received a negotiated proposal and resolution to end the strike, and it warrants presenting to the members and is worthy of your consideration," IAM's negotiating committee said in a message to members on Saturday.

The union said it plans to hold a ratification vote as early as Wednesday and that a 50%+1 majority is all that's needed to approve the deal.

"The fact the company has put forward an improved proposal is a testament to the resolve and dedication of the frontline workers who've been on strike—and to the strong support they have received from so many," the machinists union said.

"Like many workers in America, IAM members at Boeing have sacrificed greatly for their employer, including during the pandemic when these workers were reporting to the factory as executives stayed at home,” they wrote. “These workers deserve to have all of those sacrifices recognized.”

The former longtime president of the International Brother of Teamsters, James P. Hoffa, called out his successor Sean O'Brien late Thursday over the powerful union's announcement earlier in the week that it would effectively sit on the sidelines of this year's presidential election by refusing to endorse either Kamala Harris or Donald Trump.

"This is a critical error and frankly, a failure of leadership by Sean O'Brien," Hoffa said in a statement. "This election is too important for our union not to do its duty. We must take a stand for working Americans. There is only one candidate in this race that has supported working families and unions throughout their career, and that is Vice President Kamala Harris."

Before retiring as leader of the Teamsters in 2022, Hoffa—whose father was the high-profile union leader Jimmy Hoffa who went mysteriously missing in 1975—served as president for over two decades. O'Brien, known for his brash style and was roundly criticized for speaking at this year's Republican National Convention, took over as Teamsters president the same year Hoffa left.

"In the Teamsters' messy handling of a presidential endorsement, O’Brien has appeared weak, short-sighted, and feckless."

On Wednesday, as Common Dreams reported, the Teamsters announced they would withhold an endorsement after polling of its members showed that neither Harris nor Trump had overwhelming support.

Due to Trump's pronounced and consistent hostility to organized labor and fealty to the corporate class, however, most major unions have treated his potential return to the White House as an existential threat to working people and their families.

As veteran labor reporter Steven Greenhouse wrote this week for Slate:

Trump is an unarguably anti-union candidate. He once said he'd sign a national right-to-work law, he's denounced prominent labor leaders like UAW president Shawn Fain, and he's embraced extremely anti-union business leaders including Elon Musk. Trump recently launched a missile at organized labor's heart by praising the idea of firing striking workers (even though that is illegal under federal law). Three days after O'Brien—in an unusual step for a union leader—spoke at the Republican National Convention to urge the GOP to be nicer to labor, Trump kicked unions in the teeth in his acceptance speech by mocking the United Auto Workers.

Following the announcement by the Teamsters' national leadership, a slew of Teamster locals across the nation, including in key battleground states, rushed their endorsements of Harris out the door.

"Teamsters regional councils—representing hundreds of thousands of members and retirees—in Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada and western Pennsylvania—endorsed Harris" just hours after O'Brien's announcement, reported the Washington Post's labor correspondent Lauren Kaori Gurley.

"Separately," Gurley added, "powerful local Teamsters unions in Philadelphia; New York City; Long Beach, Calif.; and Miami—as well as the union's National Black Caucus and a group of retirees—have endorsed Harris and urged members to vote for her."

In his statement endorsing the Democratic ticket, William Hamilton, president of the Pennsylvania Conference of Teamsters, said: "In the 45 years the PA Conference of Teamsters has been in existence, it is extremely rare to have a pro-labor candidate for president and a pro-labor candidate for vice president running together. Kamala Harris and Tim Walz are exactly that team."

What stood out to Greenhouse about the nature of the Teamsters' internal polling, which did show broad support for Trump, comes back around to what Hoffa termed a "failure of leadership" when it comes to O'Brien. He wrote:

That internal survey showing so many Teamsters backing Trump highlighted something else: The union’s leadership must have done a dreadful job informing and educating rank-and-file members about how hugely anti-union Trump is and how aggressively anti-union and anti-worker Trump's first administration was (and appointees were). Also, Teamster leaders evidently also failed to explain to rank-and-file members that Harris has fought for policy after policy strongly backed by the Teamsters and other unions, including the Protecting the Right to Organize Act, which is the labor movement’s No. 1 legislative priority and would make it considerably easier for the Teamsters and other unions to organize. Trump opposes the PRO Act. Harris also supported the Bipartisan Infrastructure Act, the CHIPS Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, which together will create hundreds of thousands of good-paying union jobs for Teamsters and other union members. Harris, unlike Trump, also supports increasing the pathetically low $7.25-an-hour federal minimum wage to at least $15.

"When Sean O’Brien ran to be president of the mighty Teamsters union, he promised to be a strong leader," concluded Greenhouse. "But in the Teamsters' messy handling of a presidential endorsement, O'Brien has appeared weak, short-sighted, and feckless."

Crucially, he added, O'Brien "failed to provide strong leadership on one of his most important tests: to get his union’s rank-and-file and board to reject anti-union Trump" and embrace the Harris, the clear pro-worker candidate in the race.

If Trump ultimately wins, Greenhouse said, the snub of Harris may be something O'Brien and the Teamsters "end up regretting because a second Trump administration will probably be even more of a danger to unions (and democracy) than the first one."

"There is only one answer to the threat we face as a nation. The answer is solidarity."

That is the core message directed at the American working class from the United Auto Workers (UAW) in a new ad that frames the nation's current political battle as one between organized workers and the billionaire and corporate classes.

"We stand at a historic crossroads in this country right now," says UAW president Shawn Fain to begin the 2-minute video. "And it's clear Donald Trump represents the billionaire class—that's his base."

"We let working-class people lead the fight."

Calling Trump a "scab" who will "ruthlessly fight for a vision of America in which the wealthy rule everyone and everything, and the working class is left behind and forced to settle for the scraps," Fain argues that "what we win or lose now" will ultimately impact "whether we go forwards or backwards for a generation—everything is at stake."

"In the wealthiest country in the world, working class people shouldn't have to scrape to get by, paycheck to paycheck," Fain says before championing the UAW's historic strike last year in which the union's members stood up to the Big Three automakers—and won historic contracts.

"We united the entire working class," he added, "that's the winning formula."

"The dream of a man like Donald Trump is that the vast majority of working class people will remain divide," says Fain. "They divide us by race. They divide us by gender, by who we love, or where we were born. That's the game of the wealthy, divide and conquer."

The UAW's framing accumulated praise Friday and into the weekend from progressives who share the idea that working-class solidarity remains the key to defeating the fascist threat posed by Trump and that also must serve as the foundation for enacting the vision of more equal, just, peaceful, and sustainable society.

"This is brilliant. It's also true," said author and social justice activist Naomi Klein in response to the ad. "It's also the message we need to be sending non-stop."

Andy O'Brien, a columnist for The Bollard magazine, reacted with: "Holy shit this ad is powerful."

Fain's speech that acts as the narrative of the new video was delivered last month when the UAW leader spoke at the national convention of the American Postal Workers Union (APWU) in Detroit.

"In the wealthiest country in the world, working class people shouldn't have to scrap to get by, paycheck to paycheck."

The UAW has endorsed the Democratic presidential ticket of Kamala Harris and Tim Walz. Meeting with the candidates earlier this week at a local union hall in Wayne, Michigan, Fain said, "To me, this election is real simple. It's about one question, a question we've made famous in the labor movement: Which side are you on?"

"On one side, we've got a billionaire who serves himself and his billionaire buddies. He lies, cheats, and steals his way to the top. He is the lapdog of the billionaire class," said Fain. "On the other side, we've got a badass woman who has stood on the picket line with working-class people. Kamala Harris is a champion of the working class."

Though not featured in the new ad, Fain also told the APWU members in July that the key to the UAW's victory against the Big Three was that "we let working-class people lead the fight" against management.

"We gave our members the information, we gave them the tools, and we gave them the courage to stand up for themselves," he said. Like the broader concept of working-class solidarity, he said, that's the "winning formula" for workers and their families to take control of their economic and political destinies.

"If you follow those core principles," he told the postal service workers, "you will not lose. And I guarantee you, the UAW will have your back every step of the way."