Meet Russell Vought, the new face of DOGE

 

Thursday, June 5

Welcome to The Opposition, a weekly premium newsletter focused on the legal battles holding the Trump administration accountable for its anti-democratic executive actions. Upgrade to premium today for $2.50/week and always receive this newsletter in your inbox.

With Elon Musk out of the White House and declaring war on President Donald Trump’s budget bill, it’s worth keeping in mind that the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to dismantle the government is continuing without him — though this time with one of Trump’s longtime advisors at the helm.   Also in this edition: We take a look at a court ruling that didn’t make major headlines but is a significant win for civil servants, potentially giving them a new legal route to challenge the Trump administration’s effort to gut the federal workforce.   As always, thank you so much for reading.   – Jacob Knutson, reporter   Catch up quickly  Newark, New Jersey Mayor Ras Baraka sued the acting U.S. attorney for the District of New Jersey, former Trump lawyer Alina Habba, over his arrest last month while protesting the Trump administration’s mass deportation efforts.  The Trump administration filed its 18th (!) emergency application to the Supreme Court, this time asking justices to halt a lower court order limiting mass firings at federal agencies.   A Trump-appointed judge blocked the Trump administration from carrying out Alien Enemies Act (AEA) removals without due process against migrants in the Los Angeles area. However, unlike other judges who have ruled against AEA removals, Judge John Holcomb said he believes the act grants the president “close to unlimited” authority to determine if an invasion or predatory incursion has occurred against the U.S. But he still blocked removals over due process concerns.

Meet Russell Vought, the new face of the DOGE agenda

Though Elon Musk is leaving the White House, DOGE isn’t going anywhere.   It appears that Russell Vought — Trump’s budget hawk and one of the chief architects of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 — is stepping in to become DOGE’s new power broker.   With Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist, at the helm, the slash-and-burn effort against the federal government may be on the cusp of an even darker turn.   In many ways, Vought is what Musk is not. After working at public policy organizations for nearly two decades, he has a far better understanding of how the government works — and how its weaknesses can be exploited. Despite advising Trump for almost 10 years, he’s also kept a fairly low profile, rarely giving interviews or speaking in public.    And Vought appears to be motivated first and foremost by creating a Christian nation controlled by an overtly Christian government.    Last year, Vought told undercover journalists with the Centre for Climate Reporting that he wants “to make sure that we can say we are a Christian nation.”   “And my viewpoint is mostly that I would probably be Christian nation-ism,” Vought said. “That’s pretty close to Christian nationalism because I also believe in nationalism.”   To achieve that, Vought said in the interview he seeks to...

UPGRADE TO READ THE REST OF THIS STORY

An under-the-radar win for federal workers

In a significant win for the independent civil service, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals asked a lower court to determine if Trump’s aggressive assault on civil service protections has effectively removed federal workers’ ability to challenge illegal personnel practices.   If the court finds that Trump’s actions have crippled the agencies responsible for protecting civil servants’ rights, the court could then allow federal workers to seek relief directly from federal courts. Primarily at issue are his firings of former Special Counsel Hampton Dellinger and Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) Chair Cathy Harris.     The ruling came in a lawsuit filed by immigration judges challenging a Department of Justice policy that requires them to obtain permission before speaking publicly, on the grounds that it violates their First Amendment rights.    At issue is whether the process to settle federal employee disputes established by the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) is currently functioning as Congress intended after Trump’s meddling. The answer to that question could have far-reaching implications for federal workers challenging the Trump administration’s mass firings and other civil service protection reforms...

UPGRADE TO READ THE REST OF THIS STORY

To do list The Center for American Progress (CAP) will be speaking with Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CT) at 2 p.m. (ET) Thursday on how Trump has undermined the foundations of America’s strength in the world...

For the full to do list and a deeper analysis of how Trump’s anti-democratic actions are playing out in court, become a member for $10/month or $120/year and support our growing newsroom.

BECOME A MEMBER

Trump vs. the Supremes The largest stress test yet of the U.S. Constitution Robert Reich May 17 Friends, The showdown is nearly upon us. Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled that the Trump regime cannot deport a group of Venezuelans while the matter is being litigated in the courts. The regime can’t merely allege that they’re members of a violent gang; it must give them sufficient time to challenge their deportations. And it can’t merely assume that the eighteenth-century Alien Enemies Act gives it authority. Both the facts of these cases and the law have to be hashed out in lower courts. The justices called the detainees’ interests “particularly weighty” because of the risk of removal to a notorious prison in El Salvador where the migrants could face indefinite detention. Score a big one for the rule of law. Of course, Justice Samuel Alito dissented, joined by Clarence Thomas. The two have moved so far into the dense fog of irrational rightwing legal blather that they have lost all credibility. The big news is that the three Trump appointees — Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett — joined the Chief Justice and the three Democratic appointees to set a limit on Trump. I call this a showdown because Trump cannot abide limits. He reacted in fury to the ruling: “THE SUPREME COURT WON’T ALLOW US TO GET CRIMINALS OUT OF OUR COUNTRY!” he wrote on social media, and in a subsequent post said, “The Supreme Court of the United States is not allowing me to do what I was elected to do.” And he called it “a bad and dangerous day for America.” Trump’s outrage has three unfortunate consequences. It establishes that Trump and the nation’s highest court are on a collision course on what Trump considers a central goal of his regime — what he “was elected to do.” It also increases the possibility that Trump will do what JD Vance and others in the White House have urged him to do all along — announce that he will not be bound by the Court’s rulings. This would be momentous. If enough Americans (and their constituents) are horrified by this — as we should be — it could spell the end of Trump. Openly defying a Supreme Court decision is surely enough to warrant an impeachment in the House and conviction in the Senate. The third consequence of Trump’s rage is to expose the nine justices — and the judiciary in general — to even more harassment, including death threats. Online threats toward judge and justices are growing. Last Sunday, Trump criticized what he called “a radicalized and incompetent Court System,” which he said was standing in the way of his mass deportation agenda. Paul Redmond Michel, a former federal appeals court judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, said the increasing threats to judges highlighted an urgent need for Trump, Attorney General Bondi and other administration officials, to make clear that they will follow court orders, regardless of the outcome, and prioritize judges’ safety. “We know from the January 6, 2021, rioters that there are people out there who are perfectly prepared to be extremely violent and damaging and threatening,” said Michel. “Judges have to feel confident enough in being protected that they can make decisions without looking over their shoulders and worrying about whether the decision, if it’s unpleasing to the administration, might cause them some kind of harm.” This week, U.S. Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL), ranking member of the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee, asked Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel to investigate the increasing number of threats to federal judges, which “threaten not only judges and their families, but also judicial independence and the rule of law,” Durbin wrote. But there’s no question what’s fueling the threats — as Trump’s outburst against the Supreme Court’s ruling yesterday shows. The Trump regime is not content to merely castigate judges and justices. It is now arresting judges. On Tuesday, it indicted Judge Hannah C. Dugan of the Milwaukee County Circuit Court on charges of obstructing federal agents from arresting a suspected undocumented immigrant who was appearing in her courtroom. In fact, Dugan was simply trying to maintain the legal sanctity of that courtroom. Attorney General Pam Bondi says the regime will target judges who oppose the president's growing immigration crackdown: "What has happened to our judiciary is beyond me. The [judges] are deranged is all I can think of. I think some of these judges think that they are beyond and above the law. They are not, and we are sending a very strong message today ... if you are harboring a fugitive… we will come after you and we will prosecute you. We will find you." Judges and justices cannot be “beyond and above the law” because they are the final arbiters of the law. They have also become the last firewall against a Trump dictatorship — which presumably is why the regime is now taking them on. Yesterday’s decision by the Supreme Court needs to be understood in this larger context. The coming showdown between Trump and the Supreme Court will be the largest stress test yet of our constitutional system.

Trump Suffers Some Big Losses and More Great News Protest outside Marjorie Taylor Greene’s office, House GOP’s bloated budget bill fails, and more Scott Dworkin May 17 Sadly, Trump is heading back to the states from his Middle East grift—I mean trip—so I’m glad to bring you a new installment of Great News That’s Bad For Trump today. We have the #1 News post on Substack, thanks to our awesome readers! If you haven’t yet, help us keep our momentum going by becoming a paid subscriber today. You’re not just supporting independent journalism—you’ll be fueling our fight against Trump, and unlocking access to exclusive benefits. Click below to become a paid subscriber today: Let’s get to it. This week, protesters gathered outside of GOP Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene’s Georgia office. They were there to demand the release of college student Ximena Arias-Cristóbal from ICE detention, who was “mistakenly” arrested in Dalton, Georgia. Police alleged she made a wrong turn—problem is, they pulled over the wrong vehicle. The city dropped the charges, but they had already turned Ximena over to ICE. Her family will continue to join protests outside of Greene’s office until Ximena is released. There’s a bond hearing on Tuesday, and we’ll be watching closely. In a surprising 7-2 decision, The Supreme Court temporarily blocked the Trump regime from deporting a group of Venezuelan immigrants using the Alien Enemies Act. The court ruled that the Trump regime failed to provide due process, sending the case back to the appeals court for further review of due process requirements. Fmr. US Ambassador Bridget Brink penned a scathing op-ed titled: “I was U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. I resigned because of Trump's foreign policy.” Brink left her role in early April, after Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky slammed a weak US embassy response to a brutal Russian attack. Brink wrote: “The policy since the beginning of the Trump administration has been to put pressure on the victim, Ukraine, rather than on the aggressor, Russia … Peace at any price is not peace at all—it is appeasement.” Yes, it is. Trump suffered a big, beautiful loss on his bloated budget bill, with 5 Republicans joining all Democrats to block it from advancing out of committee. They’re planning on meeting again no later than Monday. This gives them time to cook up some backroom deals to try and push this garbage through. What an abomination. As of now, Republicans don’t have the votes to pass the legislation. So we're ramping up our public pressure against the bill. Let’s keep making calls, sending letters, and doing everything we can to make our voices heard. Ranking Member of the House Budget Cmte., Dem Rep. Brendan Boyle summed it up perfectly: “It is the biggest tax cut for billionaires in American history, paid for by throwing 13.7 million Americans off their healthcare coverage … Even conservative GOP Sen. Josh Hawley called it ‘morally wrong.’ I can’t believe I’m saying this, but Josh Hawley is right.” And Dem Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez hit the nail on the head: “Republicans are saying that these cuts will be reinvested into Medicaid for people who ‘deserve’ it ... But that's not what's happening. Why? Because down the hall, they are trying to finance tax breaks for billionaires.” Trump and his Republican Party are doing everything they can to steal our healthcare, and to harm our country in every way possible. That’s why, in addition to our daily news posts, The Dworkin Report has rallied our subscribers to send more than 321,000 letters and make countless calls to Congress to fight back. But we need all hands on deck so we can do even more. All of our funding comes from our paid subscribers on Substack. So if you’re able, please become one today: All links related to this article are at the top of the comments section. For all contact Congress links, or to volunteer, you can go here: https://actionnetwork.org/forms/sign-up-for-the-watchdog-coalition

SCOTUS says Trump violated Venezuelan migrants’ rights with attempted removals

 

Friday, May 16

While legacy media chases clicks, we chase stories. Click here to help us stay independent, fearless and unapologetically pro-democracy for just $10/year.

SCOTUS: Trump violated Venezuelan migrants’ rights with attempted removals The Supreme Court in a 7-2 ruling Friday said the Trump administration violated the due process rights of Venezuelan migrants in its rushed effort to remove them from the U.S. last month using the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), a 1798 wartime law. Through its order, the Supreme Court extended its pause on AEA removals from the Northern District of Texas. However, the court did not determine whether the Trump administration can ultimately carry out removals using the AEA. It asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit to determine whether President Donald Trump’s use of the AEA was legal and how much notice is due to those targeted by the act. In other SCOTUS news Trump is asking SCOTUS to lift a block on mass layoffs in the government. Last week, a federal court ordered the administration to cease workforce cuts.  Congressional agency rebuffs Trump bid to expand power grab Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unsuccessfully attempted to install its own officials at the Government Accountability Office (GAO), a key legislative watchdog. A GAO spokesperson told Democracy Docket that the office is part of the legislative branch, and that as a result, it rebuffed DOGE’s advance. How to find out what DOGE knows about you DOGE is going from one federal agency to another attempting to collect and centralize vast amounts of personal information on millions of people in the U.S., including social security numbers, medical and banking records and more. Under the Privacy Act, citizens have the right to request to know what personal information may be held by federal agencies. And since the Trump administration is funding DOGE as if it were a federal agency, people should be able to make Privacy Act requests to it, too. Here's how. Louisiana sued over vague proof-of-citizenship voting law  Voting rights groups sued Louisiana over a new law that forces voters to show proof of citizenship without saying what counts as proof. The plaintiffs call the law a “solution in search of a phantom threat.” Sen. Chris Van Hollen: This is a “dangerous moment” for all of our civil rights Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) joined Marc to discuss his trip to El Salvador to see Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Trump administration's attacks on the rule of law and why all of our civil rights are at risk. "They want to set the stage for depriving people of their constitutional rights,” Van Hollen said. “And that is why this is such a dangerous moment...because if we strip [Abrego Garcia] of his right to due process, it opens everybody up to the same vulnerability."