Latest news with #post-CivilWar
Boston Globe
4 days ago
- Politics
- Boston Globe
The Trump administration is showing us its white nationalism
It should shock no one that such a post comes from an administration that has spent the months since President Trump's second inauguration touting its use of draconian immigration tactics. What else would you expect from an administration that is asking DHS's Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents to conduct widespread raids, building concentration camp-like detention facilities like the so-called Alligator Alcatraz in the Florida Everglades, and swiftly whisking immigrants — many who have lived, worked, and helped build communities in the country for years — off to countries where they have no connection or where they face deadly threats? Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up And yet media coverage of these atrocities, as well as policy discussions and advocacy calls to action, often avoid saying the not-at-all-quiet part out loud: In the eyes of this administration, being a non-white person, whether or not you were born on US soil but particularly if you or your parents were not, renders you presumptively un-American. So why aren't we just calling this what it is? Advertisement I suspect it has a lot to do with this country's long and tortured history on race relations, and discussions thereof. My 52 years of being Black in America have taught me that few things make Americans, particularly white Americans, more uncomfortable than talking plainly about racism in America and the forces that advance it — especially when those forces include the government. Advertisement Yes, we can dismiss social media posts like this as tone-deaf or ahistorical, as many comments on the post have, and just move on. But closing our eyes and ears to the administration's white nationalist agenda won't make it go away. Especially not when the agenda is being put on full display. The post itself is like historical Wite-Out, erasing the complex, difficult, and brutal truth of western expansion. Nowhere does it acknowledge the It also conveniently omits the Black Americans who enlisted in Buffalo Soldier regiments, often as an escape from enslavement and post-Civil War brutality in the South, only to find themselves engaged in bloody battles — all in the name of protecting white frontiersmen and their ill-gotten gains. And that is not even to speak of others, like Advertisement The post reminds me of the many Confederate monuments that are still found across the nation. They are hailed, falsely, as an homage to history. But they really are a warning for those in the present: This country has a long history of deciding who the real Americans are, and if you are Black, brown, or from a predominately Black or brown country, that doesn't include you. Remember when The post, perhaps by no coincidence, came as DHS touted the recently passed budget's infusion of cash into draconian immigration efforts, including plans to replicate Alligator Alcatraz in other states, and an announcement that detained immigrants will no longer be granted bond hearings. Anyone not seeing the connection by this point is being willfully blind. But who is speaking truth to this in a clear way? Democrats? No. Most of mainstream media? Uh-uh. Even academics who are otherwise dissenting to every aspect of the administration? Haven't seen it. But you can. To your lawmakers. To your neighbors. To your local news organizations in op-eds and letters to the editor. To your neighbors and family. To anyone who will listen. Complacency and silence create fertile ground for white nationalism. Be clear about what the administration is sowing, and do all you can to spoil the crop. Kimberly Atkins Stohr is a columnist for the Globe. She may be reached at
The Hill
10-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
America's greatest threats come from within
On July 4, President Trump signed into law his 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' a sprawling piece of legislation with a staggering price tag. It will add a projected $3 trillion to $4 trillion to the national debt. Having just celebrated our independence, it is worth reflecting on what truly threatens America's future — and it's not just external enemies or fleeting culture wars. It is, rather, the unchecked growth of our federal deficits and the unraveling of the civic fabric that once bound us together. Our national debt currently exceeds $36 trillion. If current projections hold, that number could soar to almost $60 trillion in just 10 years. Financial experts, such as Bridgewater's Ray Dalio, have sounded the alarm warning that sustained interest rates between 5 percent and 7 percent could consume more than half of the federal budget. Indeed, the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that interest on the debt alone could exceed military spending by 2028 and reach $1.6 trillion annually by 2034. This isn't just an abstract concern. A weakened fiscal posture poses a threat to every American household. Higher bond yields signal declining confidence in our stewardship, leading to higher borrowing costs across the board. That means more expensive mortgages, car loans, student debt and business financing. Younger Americans, who had no voice in the decisions that created this debt, will bear the heaviest burden. In our recent book, 'What's Right with America,' we identified two critical threats to our national future, one economic and one social. The first is the growing fiscal irresponsibility of our federal government. The second, perhaps more insidious, is the erosion of civility — the social glue that makes self-governance possible in a diverse republic. Civility isn't about agreeing on everything. It's about preserving the space where disagreement can occur with respect. That space is shrinking. Too often, discourse is dominated by extremes. Pundits profit from outrage, politicians cater to their bases rather than the country, and social media rewards division instead of dialogue. According to Pew Research in September 2023, 84 percent of Americans say that political debate has become less respectful. Meanwhile, Gallup reports that trust in government and media remain near historic lows. Ironically, if Trump (or any leader) genuinely seeks lower interest rates, the path isn't through pressuring the Fed or issuing tax cuts we can't afford. It's through fiscal discipline. As high earners, we know from experience that long-term economic health depends more on low borrowing costs and stable markets than marginal tax breaks. We would welcome higher tax rates if they were accompanied by a balanced budget and a credible plan to reduce the debt. Still, we remain cautiously optimistic. Why? Because this isn't the first time America has faced a moment of excess. History shows that we eventually course-correct. Whether through the post-Civil War reconstruction, the response to the Great Depression, or the fiscal discipline of the late 1990s, Americans have consistently risen to the challenge when stakes are high. This moment might spark the reckoning we need — a bipartisan awakening rooted in courage, creativity and a shared sense of responsibility. The growing fiscal crisis may be what finally forces leaders the left and the right to prioritize the long-term national interest over short-term political gain. Restoring fiscal discipline will also require restoring civility. There can be no meaningful reform without conversation. And conversation requires that we see one another not as enemies but as fellow citizens. That's not a naive plea for unity. It's a pragmatic necessity. We cannot govern effectively or build a sustainable future on a foundation of contempt. America's strength has never come from government alone. It comes from the ingenuity of its people and the resilience of its institutions — ordinary Americans who serve, build, invent and give. They are the honest stewards of the American dream. And their spirit gives us hope. The future is not predetermined. If we can summon the political will to enact commonsense fiscal reform and rebuild our civic culture, there's no reason why America's next chapter can't be more prosperous and more unified than the last. But the clock is ticking. It's time to step up. Paul Johnson is a businessman and former mayor of Phoenix. Larry Aldrich, a lawyer, served as CEO of media and healthcare companies. They co-authored 'What's Right with America—And How We Can Keep It That Way!'
Los Angeles Times
24-06-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Newsom v. Trump judge orders L.A. troop deployment records handed over
The Trump administration must turn over a cache of documents, photos, internal reports and other evidence detailing the activities of the military in Southern California, a federal judge ruled Tuesday, handing a procedural victory to the state in its fight to rein in thousands of troops under the president's command. Ordering 'expedited, limited discovery,' Senior District Judge Charles R. Breyer of the federal court in San Francisco also authorized California lawyers to depose key administration officials, and signaled he might review questions about how long troops remain under federal control. The Department of Justice opposed the move, saying it had 'no opportunity to respond.' The ruling follows a stinging loss for the state in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals last Thursday, when an appellate panel struck down Breyer's temporary restraining order that would have returned control of the troops to California leaders. Writing for the court, Judge Mark R. Bennett of Honolulu said the judiciary must broadly defer to the president to decide whether a 'rebellion' was underway and if civilians protesting immigration agents had sufficiently hampered deportations to warrant an assist from the National Guard or the Marines. Bennett wrote that the president has authority to take action under a statute that 'authorizes federalization of the National Guard when 'the President is unable with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States.'' But neither court has yet opined on California's other major claim: that by aiding immigration raids, troops under Trump's command violated the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, which forbids soldiers from enforcing civilian laws. Shilpi Agarwal, legal director of the ACLU of Northern California, argued the White House is abusing the post-Civil War law — known in legal jargon as the PCA — by having soldiers support Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations. 'There isn't a dispute that what the National Guard is doing right now is prohibited by the PCA — legally it absolutely has to be,' said Agarwal. 'Going out with ICE officers into the community and playing a role in individual ICE raids really feels like what the Posse Comitatus Act was designed to prohibit.' In his June 12 order, Breyer wrote that charge was 'premature,' saying that there was not yet sufficient evidence to weigh whether that law had been broken. The 9th Circuit agreed. 'Although we hold that the President likely has authority to federalize the National Guard, nothing in our decision addresses the nature of the activities in which the federalized National Guard may engage,' Bennett wrote. 'Before the district court, Plaintiffs argued that certain uses of the National Guard would violate the Posse Comitatus Act ... We express no opinion on it. Now, California has permission to compel that evidence from the government, as well as to depose figures including Ernesto Santacruz, Jr., the director of the ICE field office in L.A., and Maj. Gen. Niave F. Knell, who heads operations for the Army department in charge of 'homeland defense.' With few exceptions, such evidence would immediately become public, another win for Californians, Agarwal said. 'As the facts are further developed in this case, i think it will be come more abundantly clear to everyone how little this invocation of the National Guard was based on,' she said. In its Monday briefing, the Trump administration argued that troops were 'merely performing a protective function' not enforcing the law. 'Nothing in the preliminary injunction record plausibly supports a claim that the Guard and Marines are engaged in execution of federal laws rather than efforts to protect the personnel and property used in the execution of federal laws,' the Justice Department's motion said. The federal government also claimed even if troops were enforcing the law, that would not violate the Posse Comitatus Act — and if it did, the Northern District of California would have only limited authority to rule on it. 'Given the Ninth Circuit's finding, it would be illogical to hold that, although the President can call up the National Guard when he is unable 'with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States,' the Guard, once federalized, is forbidden from 'execut[ing] the laws,'' the motion said. For Agarwal and other civil liberties experts, the next few weeks will be crucial. 'There's this atmospheric Rubicon we have crossed when we say based on vandalism and people throwing things at cars, that can be justification for military roaming our streets,' the lawyer said. 'There was more unrest when the Lakers won the Championship.'
New York Post
14-06-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
The 21 cases left for the Supreme Court to decide, including transgender care
The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. 7 The Supreme Court has 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May. REUTERS Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. 7 The oldest unresolved case stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law on transgender youth AP 7 The court is weighing the case amid other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, such as which bathrooms they can use, and pushes to keep transgender athletes from playing in girls' sports. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. 7 Protesters confront law enforcement outside of a federal building and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detention center in Los Angeles. Getty Images These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. 7 A majority of the court last month expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. REUTERS The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. 7 LGBTQ+ veterans hold signs protesting the ban on transgender military members as they march in the World Pride parade in Washington, DC on June 7. Nathan Posner/Shutterstock The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. 7 The case about Louisiana congressional maps involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court. AP Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
Yahoo
14-06-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
What's left for the Supreme Court to decide? 21 cases, including state bans on transgender care
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is in the homestretch of a term that has lately been dominated by the Trump administration's emergency appeals of lower court orders seeking to slow President Donald Trump's efforts to remake the federal government. But the justices also have 21 cases to resolve that were argued between December and mid-May, including a push by Republican-led states to ban gender-affirming care for transgender minors. One of the argued cases was an emergency appeal, the administration's bid to be allowed to enforce Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to U.S.-born children of parents who are in the country illegally. The court typically aims to finish its work by the end of June. Here are some of the biggest remaining cases: Tennessee and 26 other states have enacted bans on certain treatment for transgender youth The oldest unresolved case, and arguably the term's biggest, stems from a challenge to Tennessee's law from transgender minors and their parents who argue that it is unconstitutional sex discrimination aimed at a vulnerable population. At arguments in December, the court's conservative majority seemed inclined to uphold the law, voicing skepticism of claims that it violates the 14th amendment's equal protection clause. The post-Civil War provision requires the government to treat similarly situated people the same. The court is weighing the case amid a range of other federal and state efforts to regulate the lives of transgender people, including which sports competitions they can join and which bathrooms they can use. In April, Trump's administration sued Maine for not complying with the government's push to ban transgender athletes in girls sports. Trump also has sought to block federal spending on gender-affirming care for those under 19 and a conservative majority of justices allowed him to move forward with plans to oust transgender people from the U.S. military. Trump's birthright citizenship order has been blocked by lower courts The court rarely hears arguments over emergency appeals, but it took up the administration's plea to narrow orders that have prevented the citizenship changes from taking effect anywhere in the U.S. The issue before the justices is whether to limit the authority of judges to issue nationwide injunctions, which have plagued both Republican and Democratic administrations in the past 10 years. These nationwide court orders have emerged as an important check on Trump's efforts and a source of mounting frustration to the Republican president and his allies. At arguments last month, the court seemed intent on keeping a block on the citizenship restrictions while still looking for a way to scale back nationwide court orders. It was not clear what such a decision might look like, but a majority of the court expressed concerns about what would happen if the administration were allowed, even temporarily, to deny citizenship to children born to parents who are in the country illegally. Democratic-led states, immigrants and rights groups who sued over Trump's executive order argued that it would upset the settled understanding of birthright citizenship that has existed for more than 125 years. The court seems likely to side with Maryland parents in a religious rights case over LGBTQ storybooks in public schools Parents in the Montgomery County school system, in suburban Washington, want to be able to pull their children out of lessons that use the storybooks, which the county added to the curriculum to better reflect the district's diversity. The school system at one point allowed parents to remove their children from those lessons, but then reversed course because it found the opt-out policy to be disruptive. Sex education is the only area of instruction with an opt-out provision in the county's schools. The school district introduced the storybooks in 2022, with such titles as 'Prince and Knight' and 'Uncle Bobby's Wedding.' The case is one of several religious rights cases at the court this term. The justices have repeatedly endorsed claims of religious discrimination in recent years. The decision also comes amid increases in recent years in books being banned from public school and public libraries. A three-year battle over congressional districts in Louisiana is making its second trip to the Supreme Court Lower courts have struck down two Louisiana congressional maps since 2022 and the justices are weighing whether to send state lawmakers back to the map-drawing board for a third time. The case involves the interplay between race and politics in drawing political boundaries in front of a conservative-led court that has been skeptical of considerations of race in public life. At arguments in March, several of the court's conservative justices suggested they could vote to throw out the map and make it harder, if not impossible, to bring redistricting lawsuits under the Voting Rights Act. Before the court now is a map that created a second Black majority congressional district among Louisiana's six seats in the House of Representatives. The district elected a Black Democrat in 2024. A three-judge court found that the state relied too heavily on race in drawing the district, rejecting Louisiana's arguments that politics predominated, specifically the preservation of the seats of influential members of Congress, including Speaker Mike Johnson. The Supreme Court ordered the challenged map to be used last year while the case went on. Lawmakers only drew that map after civil rights advocates won a court ruling that a map with one Black majority district likely violated the landmark voting rights law. The justices are weighing a Texas law aimed at blocking kids from seeing online pornography Texas is among more than a dozen states with age verification laws. The states argue the laws are necessary as smartphones have made access to online porn, including hardcore obscene material, almost instantaneous. The question for the court is whether the measure infringes on the constitutional rights of adults as well. The Free Speech Coalition, an adult-entertainment industry trade group, agrees that children shouldn't be seeing pornography. But it says the Texas law is written too broadly and wrongly affects adults by requiring them to submit personal identifying information online that is vulnerable to hacking or tracking. The justices appeared open to upholding the law, though they also could return it to a lower court for additional work. Some justices worried the lower court hadn't applied a strict enough legal standard in determining whether the Texas law and others like that could run afoul of the First Amendment.
