Heather Cox Richardson's Blog, page 27
June 30, 2025
June 29, 2025
June 29, 2025
There are four political stories people should know about tonight.
First, President Donald Trump’s tariff war and weaker consumer spending translated to a contraction of 0.5% in the U.S. economy in the first quarter, even more of a drop than the 0.2% economists expected. The economy Trump inherited from President Joe Biden led the world in productivity.
Second, John Hudson and Warren P. Strobel of the Washington Post reported today that intercepted communications showed that senior Iranian officials said the U.S. attacks on Iran’s nuclear facilities caused less damage than they had expected and that they wondered why the strikes were so restrained.
Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo also called out that at a press conference in the Netherlands last Wednesday, Trump said he had given Iran permission to bomb a U.S. air base in Qatar in retaliation for the U.S. strikes on Iran’s nuclear weapons program sites. “They said, ‘We’re going to shoot them. Is one o’clock OK?’ I said it’s fine,” Trump said. “And everybody was emptied off the base so they couldn’t get hurt, except for the gunners.”
Marshall expressed astonishment that this admission has attracted very little attention. He suggested that, if it is true, it represents “the most shocking dereliction of duty one could imagine for the commander-in-chief,” and he wondered how Republicans would have reacted if a Democratic president had said he had let “a foreign adversary fire on an American military installation.”
Third, Jeff Stein of the Washington Post reported today that the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill makes the biggest cut ever to programs for low-income Americans. Those cuts have made many Republicans skittish about supporting the measure.
After Trump attacked him yesterday for not supporting the budget reconciliation bill, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) has announced he will not run for reelection next year, indicating his unwillingness to face a primary challenger backed by Trump. This puts the seat in play for a Democratic pickup.
In a statement, Tillis said: “In Washington over the last few years, it’s become increasingly evident that leaders who are willing to embrace bipartisanship, compromise, and demonstrate independent thinking are becoming an endangered species.” He wrote: “I look forward to having the pure freedom to call the balls and strikes as I see fit and representing the great people of North Carolina to the best of my ability.”
Tonight, Tillis told the Senate: “What do I tell 663,000 people in two years or three years, when President Trump breaks his promise by pushing them off of Medicaid because the funding’s not there anymore, guys?... [T]he effect of this bill is to break a promise.”
Fourth, the Senate parliamentarian has told senators that several of the provisions added to the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill violate the rules for budget reconciliation bills. Those provisions include the ones added to the bill to win the support of Republican senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska.
Today, Trump pushed Republican senators to ignore the Senate parliamentarian, who judges whether proposed measures adhere to Senate rules. Trump posted on social media: “An unelected Senate Staffer (Parliamentarian), should not be allowed to hurt the Republicans Bill. Wants many fantastic things out. NO! DJT.”
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office today said the tax cuts in the budget reconciliation bill the Republican senators are trying to pass will increase the national debt by $3.3 trillion over the next ten years despite the $1.2 trillion in cuts to Medicaid, Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the National Institutes of Health, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and other programs over the same period. Senator Raphael Warnock (D-GA) called the measure “Robin Hood in reverse…stealing from the poor in order to give to the rich, this massive transfer of wealth from the bottom to the top…. This is socialism for the rich.”
Trump has demanded the measure’s passage by July 4, in part because the Department of Homeland Security has blown through its budget and needs the supplemental funding the bill will provide. That funding adds an astonishing $45 billion for migrant detention by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to the current budget of $3.4 billion over the next five years, and $14.4 billion for transportation and removal on top of the current annual budget of $750 million.
After Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) tried to slow the passage of the measure by forcing a reading of the entire 940-page bill in the Senate, senators will begin voting tomorrow on amendments in a procedure known as a “vote-a-rama” in which Democratic senators will put Republicans on the record on controversial issues.
—
Notes:
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-biden-administration-handed-over-a-strong-economy/
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/29/megabill-byrd-alaska-megabill-parliamentarian-00431730
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/29/trump-tax-medicaid-snap/
https://www.nbcnews.com/lo politics/congress/senate-republican-bill-trump-agenda-vote-rcna215713
https://politizoom.com/trump-guns-for-the-parliamentarian-after-murkowskis-ploy-flops/
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/senate-debate-trump-one-big-beautiful-bill/
Bluesky:
acyn.bsky.social/post/3lsrzv5n74n2x
gerardomarti.bsky.social/post/3lsqvlks5ac24
June 28, 2025
Last night just before midnight, Republicans released their new version of the omnibus budget reconciliation bill. It is a sign of just how unpopular this bill is that they released the new version just before midnight on a Friday night, a time that is the graveyard of news stories.
Over the course of today, the contours of the revised measure have become clearer. Democratic challenges and the Senate parliamentarian convinced Republican senators to remove policy provisions from the bill that either were especially incendiary or did not meet the rules for budget reconciliation bills. Those challenges preserved the Consumer Finance Protection Board, limited a rule that prevented states from regulating artificial intelligence, prevented the selling off of public lands, eliminated vouchers for religious schools, and so on.
Despite these changes, the final measure retains its original structure.
That structure tells us a lot about the world today’s Republican lawmakers envision. The centerpiece of the bill remains its extension of the 2017 tax cuts for wealthy Americans and corporations, making those tax cuts permanent. The tax structure in the measure funnels wealth from the poorest Americans to the top 1%.
According to Alyssa Fowers and Hannah Dormido of the Washington Post, the Senate slashed the apparent cost of the bill by using a new method to calculate the numbers. Under the traditional way of estimating the cost of a bill, the new measure would add $4.2 trillion to the national debt. But using the gimmick of ignoring the tax extensions by saying they are simply a continuation of policies already in place, the Senate claims the bill will cost $442 billion, just a tenth of what the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office calculates.
According to immigration scholar Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, the measure also provides an additional $45 billion for Immigration and Customs Enforcement to detain migrants, on top of the current annual budget of $3.4 billion. It adds $14.4 billion for transportation and removal on top of the current annual budget of $750 million. It also adds $8 billion for new ICE hires and retention. Reichlin-Melnick notes that this budget will give ICE more money for detention than it gives the entire U.S. Bureau of Prisons.
The Department of Homeland Security reflected the heart of this budget today, when it posted on social media an image of four alligators wearing ICE hats—an apparent reference to the construction of a migrant detention facility in the Everglades in Florida—with the comment: “Coming soon!”
To offset some of the tax cuts in the measure, the Senate bill cuts $930 billion out of Medicaid—more than the House bill cut—and, according to Ron Wyden (D-OR), makes additional cuts to Medicare and the Affordable Care Act. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the measure will cause 11.8 million Americans to become uninsured, almost a million more than would have lost health insurance under the House version.
In Politico today, Meredith Lee Hill reported that “[e]very major health system in Louisiana is warning [House] Speaker Mike Johnson [R-LA] and the rest of the state’s congressional delegation that the Senate [Republicans’] planned Medicaid cuts ‘would be historic in their devastation.’” The Senate’s revised measure will hurt healthcare and undermine the state’s budget, they wrote. But “[t]hese economic consequences pale in comparison to the harm that will be caused to residents across the state, regardless of insurance status, who will no longer be able to get the care that they need.”
Tonight, fifty-one senators voted to advance the bill with forty-nine opposing it. Republicans Thom Tillis of North Carolina and Rand Paul of Kentucky voted with the Democrats to stop the bill from moving forward. Tillis has been clear that he could not support the bill’s cuts to Medicaid. Immediately, Trump said he would back a primary challenger to Tillis, saying he would be “looking for someone who will properly represent the Great People of North Carolina.”
After forcing changes to the measure through challenges accepted by the Senate parliamentarian, Democrats tonight called out Republicans for releasing the new bill in the middle of last night and then trying to call a vote on it in the middle of tonight. They are demanding that the entire 940-page bill be read on the Senate floor.
As the Republican attempt to hide the budget reconciliation bill suggests, it is enormously unpopular.
In 1890, the Republicans forced through Congress a similarly unpopular measure: the McKinley Tariff, the law President Donald Trump has spoken of as a model for his economic policies. Like today’s budget reconciliation bill, the McKinley Tariff skewed the country’s economy even more strongly toward the very wealthy, putting more money in the pockets of the richest Americans at the expense of the poorest.
The McKinley Tariff passed in a chaotic congressional session in May 1890, with members shouting amendments, yelling objections, and talking over one another. All Democrats voted against the measure, and when it passed in the House, Republicans cheered and clapped at their victory. “You may rejoice now,” a Democrat yelled across the aisle, “but next November you’ll mourn.”
Democrats were right. In the November 1890 midterm elections, angry voters repudiated the Republican Party, giving the Democrats a two-to-one majority in the House and preserving Republican control of the Senate only because three Republican senators had voted against the tariff.
More than creating a bad midterm for Republicans, though, the fight over the McKinley Tariff hammered home to ordinary Americans that the system was rigged against them. Since the 1880s, Americans had seen the rise of extraordinarily wealthy industrialists who built palaces on New York’s Fifth Avenue like Mrs. Alva Vanderbilt’s, which cost more than $44 million in today’s dollars. There, in 1883, she threw a famous costume ball where 1,200 guests, dressed as birds and hornets as well as knights and famous queens and kings, including Marie Antoinette, used golden spoons at their $25,000 meal.
The popular press closely followed the ball and the social competition that followed it. To workers surviving on pennies and farmers gouged by railroads, such lavish displays of wealth seemed not just outrageous but a sign that something had gone badly wrong in American society. Surely, they thought, a democratic government should not so obviously favor the wealthy.
The fight over the McKinley Tariff gave opponents proof that Congress was working for the rich. In the Alliance Summer of 1890, newspapers sprang up and speakers crisscrossed the plains reminding voters that the government was supposed to treat all interests equally. The famous farmers’ orator Mary Elizabeth Lease told audiences that “Wall Street owns the country…. It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street.” She told farmers to “raise less corn and more hell.”
They did. In the 1890 elections, Alliance members backed Democrats who supported their cause, and they elected forty-four members of Congress, three senators, and four governors and gained control of eight state legislatures. Members of both parties listened to the developing anger over economic injustice and shared the fears of Alliance members that democracy was collapsing under an oligarchy of industrialists.
Their insistence that a democratic government should not favor any specific sector of society but should work for the good of all resonated with voters across parties, and lawmakers, especially younger ones eager to build a following, listened.
By 1902, President Theodore Roosevelt, a Republican, was leading the demand for fair government. He called for a “square deal” for everyone. The Boston Globe explained: “‘Justice for all alike—a square deal for every man, great or small, rich or poor,’ is the Roosevelt ideal to be attained by the framing and the administration of the law. And he would tell you that that means Mr. [J.P.] Morgan and Mr. [J.D.] Rockefeller as well as the poor fellow who cannot pay his rent.”
—
Notes:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/parliamentarian-republican-bill.html
https://itep.org/analysis-of-tax-provisions-in-senate-reconciliation-bill/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2025/06/28/senate-big-beautiful-bill-cost-trump/
https://www.cbo.gov/publication/61533
W.A. Croffut, The Vanderbilts and the Story of Their Fortune (Chicago: Belford, Clarke & Company, 1886), pp. 190–197.
Boston Globe, March 26, 1883.
Boston Globe, August 27, 1902, p. 6.
X:
https://x.com/DHSgov/status/1939034194979455282
Bluesky:
repstansbury.bsky.social/post/3lspkhuknfc2o
reichlinmelnick.bsky.social/post/3lsp64jee722u
murray.senate.gov/post/3lsoyvzdno22i
June 27, 2025
June 27, 2025
After the Supreme Court today decided the case of Trump v. CASA, limiting the power of federal judges to issue nationwide injunctions, President Donald Trump claimed the decision was a huge victory that would permit him to end birthright citizenship, that is, the principle that anyone born in the United States, with very limited exceptions, is a U.S. citizen. To reporters, he claimed: “If you look at the end of the Civil War—the 1800s, it was a very turbulent time. If you take the end day—was it 1869? Or whatever. But you take that exact day, that’s when the case was filed. And the case ended shortly thereafter. This had to do with the babies of slaves, very obviously.”
This is a great example of a politician rooting a current policy in a made-up history. There is nothing in Trump’s statement that is true, except perhaps that the 1800s were a turbulent time. Every era is.
The Fourteenth Amendment that established birthright citizenship came out of a very specific moment and addressed a specific problem. After the Civil War ended in 1865, former Confederates in the American South denied their Black neighbors basic rights. To try to remedy the problem, the Republican Congress passed a civil rights bill in 1866 establishing “[t]hat all persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians, not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and such citizens of every race and color…shall have the same right[s] in every State and Territory in the United States.”
But President Andrew Johnson, who was a southern Democrat elected in 1864 on a union ticket with President Abraham Lincoln, a Republican, vetoed the 1866 Civil Rights Bill. While the Republican Party organized in the 1850s to fight the idea that there should be different classes of Americans based on race, Democrats tended to support racial discrimination. In that era, not only Black Americans, but also Irish, Chinese, Mexican, and Indigenous Americans, faced discriminatory state laws.
In contrast to the Democrats, Republicans stated explicitly in their 1860 platform that they were “opposed to any change in our naturalization laws or any state legislation by which the rights of citizens hitherto accorded to immigrants from foreign lands shall be abridged or impaired; and in favor of giving a full and efficient protection to the rights of all classes of citizens, whether native or naturalized, both at home and abroad.”
When Republicans tried to enshrine civil rights into federal law in 1866, Johnson objected that the proposed law “comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gipsies, as well as the entire race designated as blacks,” as citizens, and noted that if “all persons who are native-born already are, by virtue of the Constitution, citizens of the United States, the passage of the pending bill cannot be necessary to make them such.” And if they weren’t already citizens, he wrote, Congress should not pass a law “to make our entire colored population and all other excepted classes citizens of the United States” when 11 southern states were not represented in Congress.
When Congress wrote the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, it took Johnson’s admonition to heart. It did not confer citizenship on the groups Johnson outlined; it simply acknowledged that the Constitution had already established their citizenship. The first sentence of the Fourteenth Amendment reads: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”
In the short term, Americans recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment overturned the 1857 Dred Scott v. Sandford decision, in which the Supreme Court ruled that people of African descent “are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word ‘citizens’ in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States.” The Fourteenth Amendment established that Black men were citizens.
But the question of whether the amendment recognized birthright citizenship for all immigrants quickly became an issue in the American West, where white settlers were not terribly concerned about Black Americans—there were only 4,272 Black Americans in California in 1870, while there were almost half a million white Americans—but wanted no part of allowing Chinese men to be part of American society.
Western state legislatures continued to discriminate against Asian immigrants by falling back on the country’s early naturalization laws, finalized in 1802, to exclude first Chinese immigrants and then others from citizenship. Those laws were carefully designed to clarify that Afro-Caribbeans and Africans—imported to be enslaved—would not have the same rights as Euro-Americans. Those laws permitted only “free white persons” to become citizens.
In the late nineteenth century, state and territorial legal systems kept people of color at the margins, using treaties, military actions, and territorial and state laws that limited land ownership, suffrage, and intermarriage.
As late as 1922, in the case of Takao Ozawa v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that Takao Ozawa, born in Japan, could not become a citizen under the 1906 Naturalization Act because that law had not overridden the 1790 naturalization law limiting citizenship to “free white persons.” The court decided that “white person” meant “persons of the Caucasian Race.” “A Japanese, born in Japan, being clearly not a Caucasian, cannot be made a citizen of the United States,” it said.
The next year, the Supreme Court decision in United States v. Bhagat Singh Thind upheld the argument that only “free white persons” could become citizens. In that case, the court said that Thind, an Indian Sikh man who identified himself as Indo-European, could not become a U.S. citizen because he was not a “white person” under U.S. law, and only “free white persons” could become citizens. After the Thind decision, the United States stripped the citizenship of about 50 South Asian Americans who had already become American citizens.
Those discriminatory laws would stand until after World War II, when U.S. calculations of who could be a citizen shifted along with global alliances and Americans of all backgrounds turned out to save democracy.
But despite the longstanding use of laws designed to perpetuate human enslavement to prevent certain immigrants from becoming citizens, the Supreme Court always upheld the citizenship of their children. In 1882, during a period of racist hysteria, Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act agreeing that Chinese immigrants could not become citizens.
Wong Kim Ark was born around 1873, the child of Chinese parents who were merchants in San Francisco. In 1889 he traveled with his parents when they repatriated to China, where he married. He then returned to the U.S., leaving his wife behind, and was readmitted. After another trip to China in 1894, though, customs officials denied him reentry to the U.S. in 1895, claiming he was a Chinese subject because his parents were Chinese.
Wong sued, and his lawsuit was the first to climb all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, thanks to the government’s recognition that with the U.S. in the middle of an immigration boom, the question of birthright citizenship must be addressed. In the 1898 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark decision, the court held by a vote of 6–2 that Wong was a citizen because he was born in the United States.
Immigration scholar Hidetaka Hirota of the University of California, Berkeley, explains that the government went even further to protect children born in the U.S. In 1889 the Treasury Department—which then oversaw immigration—decided that a native-born child could not be sent out of the country with her foreign-born mother. Nor did the government want to hurt the U.S. citizen by expelling her mother and leaving her without a guardian. So it admitted the foreign-born mother to take care of the citizen child.
The Treasury concluded that it was not “the intention of Congress to sever the sacred ties existing between parent and child, or forcibly banish and expatriate a native-born child for the reason that its parent is a pauper.”
In May 2023, then–presidential candidate Donald J. Trump released a video promising that on “Day One” of a new presidential term, he would issue an executive order that would end birthright citizenship. He claimed that the understanding that anyone born in the United States is automatically a citizen is “based on a historical myth, and a willful misinterpretation of the law by the open borders advocates.”
It is actually a historical myth and a willful misinterpretation of the law that the Civil War ended in 1869, that birthright citizenship came out of a case filed on that exact day, and that the “case” was “very obviously” about “the babies of slaves.” But there were indeed echoes of the past in the administration’s position on immigration today. The administration's announcement that it is terminating Temporary Protected Status for half a million Haitians, stripping them of their legal status, seems to echo the ancient laws saying only “free white persons” can become citizens.
—
Notes:
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/republican-party-platform-1860
Edward McPherson, The Political History of the United States of America during the Period of Reconstruction (Washington: Solomons & Chapman, 1875), pp. 75, 78, at https://www.google.com/books/edition/The_Political_History_of_the_United_Stat/x7HmnHL1OvQC
https://werehistory.org/immigrant-parents/
Bluesky:
atrupar.com/post/3lslzwd3nc22q
June 26, 2025
June 26, 2025
This morning’s press conference with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth featured an apparently angry Hegseth yelling at the media for contradicting President Donald Trump’s claim that last weekend’s strikes against Iran had “completely obliterated” its nuclear weapons program. Hegseth seemed to be performing for an audience of one as he insisted on the made-for-television narrative the administration has been pushing. He said: “President Trump directed the most complex and secretive military operation in history, and it was a resounding success resulting in a ceasefire agreement and the end of the 12-day war.”
D-Day, the June 6, 1944, Allied invasion of France, took a year of planning, involved 156,000 Allied soldiers and 195,700 naval personnel, and required cooperation of leaders from thirteen countries. It remains the largest seaborne invasion in history.
After a Senate briefing on the strikes, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) told reporters: “To me, it still appears that we have only set back the Iranian nuclear program by a handful of months. There’s no doubt there was damage done to the program, but the allegations that we have obliterated their program just don’t seem to stand up to reason…. I just do not think the president was telling the truth when he said this program was obliterated.”
Julian E. Barnes and David E. Sanger of the New York Times reported today that it remains unclear where Iran’s stockpile of enriched uranium is.
This afternoon, Zachary Cohen, Alayna Treene, Kylie Atwood, and Jennifer Hansler of CNN reported that the administration has been engaged in secret talks to ease sanctions on Iran, free up $6 billion in Iranian funds currently in foreign banks, and help Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a nuclear energy program, all in exchange for Iran freezing its nuclear enrichment program.
Trump ran his 2016 campaign in part by attacking President Barack Obama for the 2015 Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which was a much more stringent deal than the one suggested in the CNN article.
But there is perhaps a different angle to this deal than the Obama administration’s. The idea of building nuclear power plants in the Middle East was central to Trump’s 2016 bid for office. Members of Trump’s inner circle, including Michael Flynn and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, hatched a plan for a joint U.S.-Russian project to build nuclear power plants in Saudi Arabia. In June 2016 they formed a company called IP3 International, short for International Peace, Power and Prosperity.
The focus of the Trump administration on the concentration of wealth and power among the very richest people in the world is creating a backlash at home. Sahil Kapur of NBC News noted on Monday that polls show voters oppose the Republicans’ budget reconciliation bill by large margins. A Fox News poll released June 13 showed that only 38% of registered voters support the budget reconciliation bill that benefits the wealthiest Americans, while 59% oppose it. Independents oppose the bill by a margin of 22% in favor to 73% against, and white men without a college degree, Trump’s base, oppose the bill by 43% to 53%. That negative polling holds across a number of polls.
The Republicans are trying to pass their entire wish list in one giant package under “budget reconciliation” because in that form it cannot be filibustered in the Senate, meaning the tiny Republican majority there would be enough to pass it. Because budget reconciliation is one of the only forms of legislation that can’t be filibustered, Republicans have thrown into this measure a wide range of things they want.
The bill contains an extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations, as well as cuts to Medicaid, to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and to energy credits designed to help Americans switch to sustainable energy. It also contains a number of policies designed to shape America as MAGA Republicans wish. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office projects that the measure the House passed will increase the national debt by $2.4 trillion over the next ten years.
But the Senate has a nonpartisan officer known as the Senate parliamentarian, who interprets Senate rules and procedures and tries to keep measures within them. Senators can ignore the parliamentarian if they wish, but that is rare.
The current Senate parliamentarian, Elizabeth MacDonough, has held the office since 2012. She has judged that many of the things Republicans have crammed into the bill do not qualify for inclusion in a budget reconciliation bill. This may be a relief for some Republicans, who did not want to have to vote on unpopular provisions, but will cause trouble in the conference as MacDonough said today that some of the measures Republicans counted on to save money, including big pieces of the Medicaid cuts, do not fit in a budget reconciliation bill. Republicans had counted on those cuts to save the government $250 billion, thus helping to justify further tax cuts.
Some Republican senators have called for overruling MacDonough, but today Senate majority leader John Thune (R-SC) said the Senate would not take that approach, instead looking at ways to fix the measure so it would be within the parameters necessary for a budget reconciliation bill.
The Senate hoped to begin voting on its version of the bill tomorrow in order to pass the bill by July 4, as Trump has demanded. One of the reasons for the hurry is that the administration has significantly overspent the budget for the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The agency could run out of money by July, three months before the end of the fiscal year, potentially breaking the Antideficiency Act that prohibits federal agencies from spending more federal funds than Congress has appropriated.
The budget reconciliation bill provides about $75 billion in additional funding to ICE over the next five years.
The bill’s redistribution of wealth upward has made it enormously unpopular in an era when, according to the antipoverty charity Oxfam, the richest 1% of the world’s population has gained at least $6.5 trillion since 2015. And, just as extreme exhibitions of wealth drew popular anger in the late-19th-century Gilded Age, the wedding this weekend of billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos and journalist Lauren Sánchez in Venice, Italy, which Reuters reports will cost between $46.5 million and $55.6 million, has drawn protests against oligarchy.
Images from that wedding party contrast sharply with video of activists in wheelchairs arrested at the Russell Senate Office Building on Wednesday, hands zip-tied, as they protested cuts to Medicaid in the budget reconciliation bill.
At the same time, the administration's overreach on migrant deportations has also galvanized opposition. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that 64% of registered voters support a path to legalization for undocumented immigrants. Only 31% want most of them deported. That percentage has swung 9 points toward legalization since Trump took office. Trump is also underwater on immigration more generally, with 41% approving of his stance and 57% disapproving.
Nearly half of registered voters—49%—said they do not think democracy is working in the United States, while 43% say it is. Sixty percent of those who do not think it is working told Quinnipiac pollsters they blame Republicans, while 15% blamed Democrats. Twenty percent said they blame both parties.
Voters in New York City showed their frustration with politics as usual on Tuesday when they elected 33-year-old New York state assemblyman Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist, to be the Democratic nominee for New York City mayor. Mamdani promised to address the cost of living, to raise taxes on the rich, and to “stop masked ICE agents from deporting our neighbors.”
Mamdani’s promise to change the political status quo echoes the one Trump used to win in 2016, but this time around, Trump is part of the status quo being challenged. On Wednesday, Trump called Mamdani “a 100% Communist Lunatic” who “looks TERRIBLE.”
Representative Andy Ogles (R-TN), who has falsely described himself as an economist and misrepresented his education as well as his work experience and who been under investigation for campaign finance irregularities, referred to Mamdani in a social media post as “little muhammad,” calling him “an antisemitic, socialist, communist who will destroy the great City of New York.”
Ogles asked the Department of Justice to denaturalize and deport Mamdani, saying a line in a rap song Mamdani performed showed “material support for terrorism.” Mamdani, who is Muslim, was born in Uganda to Indian-born Ugandan political scientist Mahmood Mamdani, who is now a professor at Columbia University, and filmmaker Mira Nair. Mamdani became a naturalized U.S. citizen in 2018.
The Democrats on the House Homeland Security Committee called Ogles’s post “racist drivel” and noted that Ogles faked a $320,000 campaign loan, lied about being an economist, and was fired from a law enforcement job for not showing up. Former Illinois Republican congressman Joe Walsh was more direct. Over Ogles’s post, he commented: “A sitting Member of Congress calling for an American citizen to be stripped of his citizenship & deported, all because of that American citizen’s political views. This is fascism.”
—
Notes:
https://www.cnn.com/2025/06/26/politics/us-iran-talks-nuclear-program
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/06/26/megabill-stuck-senate-parliamentarian-00428299
https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/16/ice-cash-crisis-immigration-crackdown-trump
https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3926
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/25/nyregion/mamdani-speech-watch-party.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/26/us/politics/iran-nuclear-program-uranium.html
X:
HomelandDems/status/1938337019618381988
WalshFreedom/status/1938330196517482971
YouTube:
Bluesky:
acyn.bsky.social/post/3lsjuom6ahs2k
ronfilipkowski.bsky.social/post/3lsj4mekt2k2z
atrupar.com/post/3lsj3wr4itl2g
gregsargent.bsky.social/post/3lsjprsrrtc2w
mehdirhasan.bsky.social/post/3lshkavoit22t
June 25, 2025
June 25, 2025
At The Hague, a city in the Netherlands, today for a summit of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), Trump showed that he cannot let go of the intelligence assessment that his military strikes against Iran had set back Iran’s nuclear ambitions only by a few months. He appears determined to convince Americans that he has solved the problem of Iran’s nuclear ambitions overnight.
"It's gone for years, years,” he said. And then, turning to the news outlets that reported the early conclusions of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), the intelligence arm of the Pentagon, that the hits delayed production of a nuclear weapon by only a few months, he said: “CNN is scum. MSDNC is scum. The New York Times is scum. They're bad people. They're sick. And what they've done is they've tried to make this unbelievable victory into something less." Trump insisted that the U.S. hits caused “total obliteration.” He claimed he did not want the recognition of the effectiveness of the hits for himself, but rather for “the military.”
Trump equated the strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities with the U.S. bombing of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II.
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth told reporters at the NATO summit that the FBI had launched a criminal investigation into who had leaked the DIA report, complaining that “CNN and others are trying to spin it to make the president look bad, when this was an overwhelming success.” Later in the morning, Trump’s social media account posted that CNN should fire Natasha Bertrand, one of the CNN journalists who broke the story that the attacks had done less damage than Trump claimed.
Marc Caputo of Axios reported this afternoon that the Trump administration will limit the classified information it shares with Congress after the leak of the DIA assessment, even though there is currently no evidence tying that leak to Congress. A senior White House official said: “We are declaring a war on leakers.”
Stephan Neukam and Andrew Solender of Axios reported that congressional Democrats, already angry that the administration delayed briefing Congress about the strikes on Iran past the legal deadline for such a briefing, see the announcement that the White House will limit the information it provides to Congress as an attempt to hide reality in order to bolster Trump’s narrative. “A senior House Democrat told the Axios reporters: “[T]his from a group of people who used Signal about actual war plans?”
On the Senate floor, Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said: “The administration has no right to stonewall Congress on matters of national security. Senators deserve information, and the administration has a legal obligation to inform Congress precisely about what is happening right now abroad.”
Representative Jim Himes (D-CT), the highest-ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, said: “The law requires the congressional intelligence committees to be kept fully and currently informed, and I expect the Intelligence Community to comply with the law.”
Tomorrow the White House will brief senators on the strikes. Notably, it is not sending Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, who testified in March that the Intelligence Community did not think Iran was developing a nuclear weapon. Instead, it is sending Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, CIA Director John Ratcliffe and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine. Ratcliffe, not Gabbard, will represent the Intelligence Community.
Today, Ratcliffe appeared to walk back Trump’s claims that the strikes had “totally obliterated” Iran’s nuclear program, saying instead they had “severely damaged” the program.
On his social media platform tonight, Trump continued his attacks on CNN and announced that tomorrow morning, Hegseth and “Military Representatives” will hold a “Major News Conference” to “fight for the Dignity of our Great American Pilots.” He claimed those “Patriots” were “very upset!” when they “started reading Fake News by CNN and The Failing New York Times. They felt terribly!... The News Conference will prove both interesting and irrefutable. Enjoy!”
There is no evidence that anyone sees the correction of Trump’s extreme claims as an attack on the pilots who flew the mission, or that the pilots see that correction in that way.
Laura Rozen of Diplomatic notes that the strikes might have convinced Iran to abandon negotiations and commit to building a nuclear weapon. Rozen quotes former top European Union Iran nuclear negotiator Enrique Mora, who wrote: “This unprecedented strike has shown, for the second time, the Islamic regime that nuclear diplomacy is reversible, fragile and vulnerable to changes in leadership in Washington. There will not be a third time.” Mora continued: “If Iran now decides to move towards a bomb, it will do so following a clear strategic logic. No one bombs the capital of a nuclear-armed country. June 21, 2025 may go down in history not as the day the Iranian nuclear program was destroyed, but as the day a nuclear Iran was irreversibly born.”
Tonight, on his social media site, Trump’s account called for Israel to abandon its trial of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for bribery, fraud, and breach of trust, calling it a “ridiculous Witch Hunt.” Trump claimed that Netanyahu was a partner in “something that nobody thought was possible, a complete elimination of potentially one of the biggest and most powerful Nuclear Weapons anywhere in the world, and it was going to happen, SOON!” Trump called for the trial to be “CANCELLED, IMMEDIATELY, or a Pardon given to a Great Hero.” He continued: “It was the United States of America that saved Israel, and now it is going to be the United States of America that saves Bibi Netanyahu.”
—
Notes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5368255-trump-hegseth-iran-leak/
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/iran-bombing-intelligence-trump-congress
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/24/house-senate-briefings-iran-israel-middle-east
https://www.axios.com/2025/06/25/democrats-iran-trump-classified-intelligence-leaks
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/25/iran-intelligence-sharing-gabbard/
Diplomatic, by Laura RozenTrump turns Iran strike intel into loyalty testPresident Trump on Wednesday appeared to be strong-arming the U.S. intelligence community as well as Israel to provide confirmation for his claim that U.S. strikes on Saturday had “totally obliterated” three Iran nuclear sites, even as he seemed at times to be tentatively walking back the claim to something less hyperbolic…Read more15 hours ago · 10 likes · 2 comments · Laura RozenDonald J. Trump, Truth Social post, June 25, 2025, 6:27 p.m.
Bluesky:
atrupar.com/post/3lsgluoqpfk2p
paleofuture.bsky.social/post/3lshalntcac22
atrupar.com/post/3lshjugvszk2v
tomshafshafer.bsky.social/post/3lshqrcxrec2u
Heather Cox Richardson's Blog
- Heather Cox Richardson's profile
- 1332 followers
