Wednesday, July 30, 2025
■ Today's Top News
"Despite their repeated claims they wanted to protect Social Security, the Trump administration said the quiet part out loud," said one critic in response to the billionaire treasury secretary's candid comments.
By Brett Wilkins
U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Wednesday admitted that a provision in Republicans' One Big Beautiful Bill Act is a mechanism for privatizing Social Security—something President Donald Trump has repeatedly said he won't do.
Speaking at a policy event hosted by the far-right news site Breitbart, Bessent touted the so-called "Trump accounts" available to all U.S. citizen children starting next July under the OBBBA signed by the president earlier this month.
"In a way, it is a backdoor way for privatizing Social Security," the billionaire former hedge fund manager said of the accounts. "Social Security is a defined benefit plan paid out—that to the extent that if all of a sudden these accounts grow, and you have in the hundreds of thousands of dollars for your retirement, that's a game-changer."
Responding to Bessent's admission, Tim Hogan—the Democratic National Committee senior adviser for messaging, mobilization, and strategy—said that the treasury secretary "just said the quiet part out loud: The administration is scheming to privatize Social Security."
"It wasn't enough to kick millions of people off their healthcare and take food away from hungry kids," Hogan added. "Trump is now coming after American seniors with a 'backdoor' scam to take away the benefits they earned. Democrats won't stand by as Trump screws over working families in order to give more handouts to billionaires."
House Ways and Means Committee Ranking Member Richard Neal (D-Mass.) said in a statement: "Today, the treasury secretary said the quiet part out loud: Republicans' ultimate goal is to privatize Social Security, and there isn't a backdoor they won't try to make Wall Street's dream a reality. For everyone else though, it's yet another warning sign that they cannot be trusted to safeguard the program millions rely on and have paid into over a lifetime of work."
Nancy Altman, president of the advocacy group Social Security Works, mocked Trump's promises to preserve the key program upon which more than 70 million Americans rely—and called him out for eviscerating the Social Security Administration (SSA).
"So much for Donald Trump's campaign promise to protect Social Security," Altman said in a statement. "First, he gave Elon Musk the power to gut SSA. Now, Trump's treasury secretary has said the quiet part out loud. He is bragging about the administration's goal to privatize Social Security."
"First, they are undermining public confidence in Social Security by making false claims about fraud (which is virtually nonexistent) and wrecking the system's service to the public," Altman continued. "Then, once they have broken Social Security, they will say that Wall Street needs to come in and save it."
"That is a terrible idea," she added. "Unlike private savings, Social Security is a guaranteed earned benefit that you can't outlive. It has stood strong through wars, recessions, and pandemics. The American people have a message for Trump and Bessent: Keep Wall Street's hands off our Social Security!"
Alliance for Retired Americans executive director Richard Fiesta said that "Bessent let the cat out of the bag: This administration is coming for Social Security."
"We're not surprised—but we are alarmed because this administration has already taken multiple steps to weaken and dismantle Social Security," Fiesta added, highlighting the weakening of the SSA, false fraud claims, and "the massive tax breaks to the wealthy and corporations" under the OBBBA that experts say will hasten the Social Security Trust Fund's insolvency.
The progressive watchdog Accountable.US called Bessent's remarks "a shocking confession."
"Despite their repeated claims they wanted to protect Social Security, the Trump administration said the quiet part out loud: The Big Ugly Betrayal is a backdoor way to privatize Social Security," Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk said in a statement.
"Once again the administration is risking the financial security of millions of Americans in order to protect a system rigged in the favor of big corporations and billionaires," Carrk added.
In another blow to Social Security recipients, the Trump administration is set to implement a new policy next month that is expected to further increase wait times for basic services. As Common Dreams reported Wednesday, starting in mid-August, SSA will no longer allow seniors to use their phones for routine tasks they've been able to perform for decades.
"The need for real-time, on-the-ground oversight has never been more urgent," said the advocacy group Democracy Forward.
By Julia Conley
A dozen congressional Democrats who have recently been barred from conducting oversight at federal immigration detention facilities said the Trump administration is "clearly violating the law" with a new policy limiting their ability to visit facilities, as they filed a lawsuit against top immigration officials on Wednesday.
Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) led lawmakers in filing the lawsuit a week after he and Reps. Bennie Thompson (D-Miss.) and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) were turned away from an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office in Chantilly, Virginia. They had learned that the office was "holding, and routinely held" undocumented immigrants.
Under federal laws including Section 527 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, members of Congress are permitted to conduct "robust and effective oversight" of immigration detention facilities, the lawsuit reads, including in-person visits for which DHS and ICE do not need to be given prior notice.
In June, ICE announced new rules restricting visits by members of Congress—requiring them to give a week's notice before conducting an oversight visit and exempting ICE field offices from the oversight law.
Democracy Forward, which is representing the 12 lawmakers, noted that the restrictions were imposed "at a time when the administration is detaining more individuals than ever before—over 58,000 people—and reports of mistreatment, overcrowding, unsanitary conditions, and the detention of U.S. citizens are growing."
"The need for real-time, on-the-ground oversight has never been more urgent," said the group, emphasizing that at least 11 people have died in U.S. immigration custody since President Donald Trump took office.
Neguse, Thompson, and Raskin had heard reports of "poor conditions and overcrowding" at the field office in Chantilly—similar to reports Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) heard about a field office in Los Angeles that he tried to visit several times, only to be told by ICE officials that the office is "not a detention facility" and is therefore not subject to congressional oversight laws.
As Common Dreams reported last week, Human Rights Watch uncovered "abusive practices" at three immigration detention facilities in Florida, where detainees reported overcrowding, being shackled for long periods of time without access to food or water, being forced to sleep on cold concrete floors, and being denied access to basic hygiene and healthcare.
"No child should be sleeping on concrete, and no sick person should be denied care, yet that's exactly what we keep hearing is happening inside Trump's detention centers, including the one in my own district that set off national outrage and protests across the country," said Gomez. "I've tried repeatedly to get inside and conduct oversight, only to be turned away. When ICE and DHS block members of Congress, they're not just slamming the door on U.S. representatives, they're slamming it on the American people's right to know how their government is treating human beings with their tax dollars."
"This lawsuit is our message: We as members of Congress will do our job, and we will not let these agencies operate in the shadows," added Gomez.
Reps. Norma Torres and Raul Ruiz, both Democrats from California, tried to visit an ICE processing center in Adelanto, California, on July 11, only to be told by "an individual whom they believe to be an employee of the GEO Group (the private prison company that contracts with ICE to manage the Adelanto facility)" that they were "not approved for a visit."
Torres had made arrangements with ICE and had provided the agency with notice of the oversight visit the previous week, according to the lawsuit—suggesting that the Trump administration is not even adhering to the restrictions it has imposed.
"Donald Trump's extreme immigration agenda—attacking birthright citizenship and pushing for cruel, chaotic mass deportations—is dragging this country down a dark and dangerous path. We've already seen the consequences: so many reports of overcrowded, unsanitary ICE detention facilities where human dignity is treated as optional," said Torres. "I will continue to press for full access to these facilities and demand accountability from those responsible for their operation. No one is above the law—not even ICE."
Democratic politicians including Rep. LaMonica McIver (D-N.J.) and Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka have been arrested following their attempts to conduct oversight at ICE facilities. McIver pleaded not guilty to several charges stemming from an incident in which she tried to intervene in Baraka's arrest. She has said her indictment is part of the Trump administration's campaign of "political intimidation."
"Voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests," said the general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center.
By Brad Reed
The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on Wednesday narrowly voted in favor of advancing a bill that bars politicians at the federal level from trading stocks—with one highly notable exception.
As reported by Politico, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) joined with all Democrats on the committee to advance a bill to ban stock trading by elected officials. However, to get Hawley's vote, Democrats had to agree to create a carveout for U.S. President Donald Trump and to apply the stock-trading ban only to future presidents.
Business Insider reported that, as written, the legislation "would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that."
"It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice president to do so beginning in 2029—after President Donald Trump's current term," the outlet explained.
Hawley took heat from fellow Republicans on the committee for advancing the legislation, including Sen. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), who accused his Missouri colleague of demonizing the wealthy.
"I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," said Scott. "How many of you don’t want to make money? Anybody want to be poor?"
Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D-Mich.) said that she wished that the law didn't have a carveout for Trump, but nonetheless supported advancing the bill and she described herself as "willing to make the good work instead of waiting for the perfect."
The bill's advancement out of committee earned plaudits from some government reform advocates. Craig Holman, a government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, encouraged the full U.S. Senate to take up a vote on the package while also explaining the proposed legislation's importance.
"Members of Congress frequently have access to nonpublic information about economic and business trends and are in a position of power to influence those trends," he said. "That is why the American public—Republicans, Democrats and Independents alike—has called for this type of legislation ever since a series of insider trading scandals erupted over the last several years."
Kedric Payne, the vice president and general counsel at the Campaign Legal Center (CLC), similarly praised the bill's advancement while also explaining why current transparency rules were no longer adequate.
"To prevent corruption and conflicts of interest, CLC has long called on Congress to update the STOCK Act, which merely requires members to disclose their transactions, and fully ban stock trading by sitting legislators," said Payne. "In the absence of these stronger rules, we've seen congressional stock trading proliferate. This has led to repeated examples of ethical violations and questionable financial activity, including during global health emergencies and times of great economic uncertainty."
Payne further emphasized that "voters have a right to know that their elected representatives are acting in the public's best interest and are not motivated by their personal financial interests."
The legislation advanced by Hawley and the Democrats was originally named after Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), the former speaker whose highly profitable stock trades have come under scrutiny in recent years.
Even though the bill has now made its way out of committee, it still faces an uncertain future in the full U.S. Senate where Republicans currently hold a 53-47 majority and where Democrats would need to win over some additional Republican converts on top of Hawley. And even should it pass the Senate, it's uncertain whether the legislation would be able to pass the Republican-controlled House of Representatives.
"The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of this federal law is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy," said one supporter of the Johnson Amendment.
By Jessica Corbett
As The New York Times reported on how an Easter dinner may have given "Christian conservatives their most significant victory involving church political organizing in 70 years," over 1,000 charitable nonprofits on Wednesday collectively urged President Donald Trump not to allow churches to endorse political candidates.
A provision of the U.S. tax code named for former President Lyndon B. Johnson conditions tax-exempt status on an organization not participating or intervening in campaigns for public office. However, in a bid to settle a federal lawsuit earlier this month, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) proposed an exemption for houses of worship.
As the proposed exception to the Johnson Amendment awaits court approval, groups including the American Humanist Association, Americans United for Separation of Church and State (AU), Freedom From Religion Foundation, Independent Sector, Interfaith Alliance, National Council of Nonprofits, and Public Citizen on Wednesday launched the sign-on letter to Trump.
"For more than 70 years, it has ensured that all tax-exempt charitable nonprofits—including houses of worship—do not become conduits for partisan politics, protecting public trust in religious institutions and preserving the integrity of elections," the letter says of the Johnson Amendment. "Weakening the provision threatens to erode public trust, risk policy capture by special interests, and dilute regulatory oversight."
The letter warns that "if the court approves this settlement, houses of worship would be subject to intense political pressure to engage in electoral politics from downballot races and primaries to the presidency, distracting them from their missions. It would also create a loophole for the political donors to enjoy tax-deductible donations for their political campaign contributions, exploiting houses of worship for political gains."
As Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert put it in a Wednesday statement, "We are witnessing in real-time the creation of a new and dangerous dark money channel."
The coalition warned that "weakening the Johnson Amendment would jeopardize the integrity of the entire nonprofit community," not just houses of worship.
"This is not a matter of religious freedom or speech. It is about fundamentally reshaping how political money flows through our system," the letter states. "Charitable nonprofits are among the last institutions where people from all walks of life come together to tackle local challenges. Undermining the legal safeguards that preserve their neutrality could seriously erode public trust and compromise the sector's ability to carry out its mission."
The groups urged the Trump administration "to immediately end its attempt to ignore the Johnson Amendment, reaffirm clear limits on partisan politicking in houses of worship, ensure impartial enforcement across sectors, and protect civil society."
Although the IRS already often does not enforce the Johnson Amendment against houses of worship, killing it has long been "one of the biggest political goals for conservative Christian activists," as the Times detailed Wednesday.
The Times reported that Robert Jeffress, pastor of First Baptist Dallas, attended an April dinner with the president and evangelist Billy Graham's son, Franklin Graham. According to the newspaper:
At Mr. Trump's request, Mr. Jeffress' church sent the White House Faith Office a seven-page letter outlining what it called "wrongful weaponization" of the law and the "unlawful targeting of our church." The letter, obtained by The New York Times, included recommended actions, and a mention of a Texas lawsuit, which offered a vehicle to declare that the law was wrong.
Three months later, conservative Christians scored a major victory.
In a signal of how the new letter may be received, a White House spokesperson told the Times that "President Trump is very proud of this victory for leaders of faith across the country protecting their First Amendment rights."
Still, nonprofits that oppose weakening the Johnson Amendment are working on various fronts to stop the settlement. In addition to promoting the letter, AU has requested to intervene in the case in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
"This long-standing, commonsense rule protects the integrity of both our elections and nonprofits, including houses of worship. The majority of Americans don't want their charities and churches embroiled in the corrupting influence of partisan politics," the group's president and CEO, Rachel Laser, said Wednesday.
"The Trump administration's radical reinterpretation of this federal law is a flagrant, self-serving attack on church-state separation that threatens our democracy by plunging houses of worship into partisan battles," Laser added. "AU is committed to fight the administration's brazen ploy to use our houses of worship as political campaign tools."
The letter comes two days after the Trump administration issued a memo allowing federal employees to proselytize in the workplace, widely seen as another move to further erode the separation of church and state. Responding on social media, the American Humanist Association said that "this is what Christian Nationalism looks like."
"If a publication ran an editors' note to 'clarify' that some portion of Nazi death camp victims had preexisting conditions, it would rightfully be accused of Holocaust denialism," said one observer.
By Julia Conley
As the U.S. corporate media stepped up its coverage last week of the impact Israel's near-total blockade on Gaza is having on Palestinians, at least 154 of whom have now starved to death, Israeli officials zeroed in on just one of the children featured in a New York Times report.
After suggesting that his case showed reports of starvation in Gaza are overblown, they evidently managed to convince the newspaper to issue a clarification.
The Times mentioned Atef Abu Khater, a 17-year-old whose father said he was "not responding to the treatment" he was getting for severe malnutrition, and four-month-old Yahia al-Najjar, who died on July 22 after his mother, who was subsisting on one serving or lentils or rice per day, was unable to nurse him.
But the Israeli media and the Coordinator of Government Activities in the Territories (COGAT), which facilitates humanitarian aid in Gaza, focused on the story of 18-month-old Mohammed Zakaria al-Mutawaq, whose mother told the Times, "I look at him and I can't help but cry."
I24 News reported Wednesday that after the story was printed, COGAT "publicized records showing the child suffered from severe preexisting medical conditions."
Al-Mutawaq was born with cerebral palsy, The Jerusalem Post reported Tuesday, adding that the Israeli government had uncovered another photo of the child's family in which his older brother looked "distressed but relatively healthy."
"Their mother also does not appear to be suffering from any symptoms of starvation," the outlet mused.
Children are most at risk for being severely impacted by hunger and starvation, and often die at twice the rate of adults, according to the International Rescue Committee.
As images of Al-Mutawaq's mother holding his skeletal body were published by other outlets, the U.S.-based pro-Israel media watchdog HonestReporting also took notice.
The photos, said the website, were being used "as visual proof of a humanitarian catastrophe. More than that, as proof that Israel is deliberately starving the people of Gaza."
Israeli officials themselves have said they are deliberately starving the people of Gaza, with Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich saying in May that Israel would let only the "tiniest amount" of aid into the enclave so the world would "continue providing us with international protection." International human rights groups and experts have assessed that Israel is carrying out a policy of deliberate starvation.
Nonetheless, HonestReporting demanded that "every outlet that promoted this false narrative must update their coverage to reflect the full truth: Mohammad has a medical condition."
Late on Tuesday, the Times appeared to respond to the outcry.
In addition to publishing an addendum to its initial reporting, the newspaper's communications department issued an official statement.
It emphasized that children in Gaza are malnourished and starving, and noted that it had learned of Al-Mutawaq's health condition.
"We... have updated our story to add context about his preexisting health condition," said a spokesperson. "This additional detail gives readers a greater understanding of his situation."
In at least one case, the communications department directly responded to a pro-Israel journalist who had said photos of Al-Mutawaq did not show "the face of famine."
The Times did not suggest Al-Mutawaq's health condition negated or lessened the impact of the malnutrition he is also suffering from.
But a number of observers were aghast at the paper's apparent decision to appease the Israeli government and pro-Israel groups and media outlets that had suggested reporting on Al-Mutawaq's case was "misleading" and "playing into the hands of Hamas' propaganda war."
"If a publication ran an editors' note to 'clarify' that some portion of Nazi death camp victims had preexisting conditions, it would rightfully be accused of Holocaust denialism," said writer Natalie Shure. "This is one of the most depraved things The New York Times has ever published."
Some emphasized that the news of Al-Mutawaq's health condition hardly vindicates Israel, especially considering that the Israel Defense Forces have decimated Gaza's healthcare system since they began bombarding the enclave nearly 21 months ago.
"This actually makes it even more grotesque," said Nathan Robinson of Current Affairs. "Of course the first people to die have preexisting health problems. Starvation is a eugenic policy which first kills off the weakest and sickest. Israel acts like proving 'preexisting health problems' is a defense. It's an indictment."
Some pro-Israel entities appeared to view the Times' addendum and statement as something of a victory, with the right-wing news outlet The Daily Caller writing that the newspaper was "forced to backtrack on reporting of Gazan child after getting key element wrong."
The Times' move didn't stop others from criticizing the newspaper. The Instagram account Jewish Lives Matter said the spokesperson's statement didn't reverse the "journalistic malpractice" the paper had committed. Former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett said the Times was guilty of "blood libel"—a reference to medieval antisemitic allegations that Jewish people used the blood of Christian children in rituals.
As for the Israeli government, hours after the Times issued its statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs moved on to criticizing media outlets for printing photos of another emaciated child: Osama al-Raqab, who has cystic fibrosis in addition to suffering from malnutrition brought on by Israel's blockade.
"If Trump is allowed to rip the Voting Rights Act to shreds here in Central Texas, his ploy will spread like wildfire across the country," said Casar.
By Brad Reed
The Texas Republican Party drew heavy criticism on Wednesday after it unveiled a redrawn map of their state's congressional districts aimed at squeezing out Democrats even further.
In an analysis of the new map, Cook Political Report analyst Dave Wasserman projected that it could help Republicans post a net gain of as many as five seats in the House of Representatives during next year's midterm elections.
Among other things, Wasserman found that the map pushes the districts of several incumbent Democrats, including Reps. Henry Cuellar and Vicente Gonzalez, into more Trump-friendly terrain. Wasserman adds that this might not necessarily doom these Democrats if the party has a strong overall midterm performance next year.
"It's clear what Republicans' strategy is here," Wasserman wrote on X. "Create as many solid Trump seats as possible while *increasing* the number of Hispanic-majority seats by population, even though Hispanic *voters* will be well south of 40% of the electorate in several of them."
Rep. Greg Casar (D-Texas), the chairman of the Congressional Progressive Caucus whose current district would be obliterated by the new map, delivered a scathing rebuke of the proposal.
"Merging the 35th and the 37th districts is illegal voter suppression of Black and Latino Central Texans," he said. "By merging our Central Texas districts, [U.S. President] Trump wants to commit yet another crime—this time, against Texas voters and against Martin Luther King's Voting Rights Act of 1965."
Casar also warned that the Texas GOP scheme would become a blueprint for other GOP-run states unless it's stopped.
"If Trump is allowed to rip the Voting Rights Act to shreds here in Central Texas, his ploy will spread like wildfire across the country," he said. "Everyone who cares about our democracy must mobilize against this illegal map."
Marina Jenkins, executive director of the National Redistricting Foundation, issued a similarly critical statement about the Texas GOP's new map.
"This proposed map is a racially discriminatory, brazen power grab," she said. "It is an insult to all Texans, who have demonstrated overwhelming, bipartisan opposition to President Trump's order to draw a mid-decade gerrymander. Texans deserve better than this, and if the legislature and the governor follow through with enacting this egregious gerrymander, it will face fierce legal challenges."
The Trump White House pushed Texas Republicans to redraw their map this year in order to help the party in the 2026 midterm elections, despite the fact that redistricting normally occurs only once every decade. Democrats across the country have decried the move and Democratic-run states such as California and New York have threatened to redraw their own maps to benefit their party.
Republicans in the House of Representatives currently hold a slim 219-212 majority that will likely grow even slimmer in the coming months as elections occur to replace three Democratic representatives who have died in office in the last year.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.