Can Trump shut down protests using the military under theInsurrection Act? What would it take? The answer is complicated, but as more and more protests take place, understanding that legal terrain has become increasingly important. While invocation of the Act doesn’t look imminent, it’s always good to understand the law in advance. That’s our mission tonight.
First, a reminder about the importance of peaceful, nonviolent protests, the approach successfully adopted by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to fuel the civil rights movement in the 1960s. When Dr. King organized sit-ins in public spaces in Birmingham, Alabama, in 1963, the images that were projected across the country showed white Birmingham police officers turning pressurized hoses and aggressive police dogs against peaceful demonstrators. Peaceful protests forced Birmingham’s entrenched, racist police chief Bull Connor to resign. Public spaces like lunch counters and bus stations in Birmingham were ultimately desegregated.
The thing is, peaceful protest works. It can move mountains. It’s also essential, in a moment when the Trump administration will be alert to seize on anything even approaching violence to tamp down on protests that are getting underway and going national, to make sure that protests stay peaceful. In 2020, as Black Lives Matter protests spread across the country, Trumpthreatened he’d use the military to bring them under control. “We have the greatest country in the world,” the president declared. “We’re going to keep it safe.” He doesn’t need any excuses.
2020 BLM Protests in Schenectady, New York. Photo by Lori Van Buren/Albany Times Union via Getty Images
Afterpeaceful protesters were tear-gassed to clear Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C., so Trump could have a political photo opportunity, appetite for these overreaches seemed to diminish, although the threats continued periodically. But memories dim, and here we are in 2025 with growing discontent towards a president who has raised taxes and cut jobs, all without any apparent benefit to the American people. Trump might try to take advantage of minor incidents, or even plants who engage in violence, to impose the Insurrection Act and use the military to put a halt to Americans who are out on the streets exercising their First Amendment rights.
Could Trump turn out the American military against protestors if something like that were to happen? Normally, the Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of the military for domestic law enforcement. It explicitly outlaws using the armed forces to enforce the law within our borders, unless that action is expressly authorized by the Constitution or an act of Congress. Enter the Insurrection Act, which permits a president to deploy the military in American cities and on our streets in very narrow circumstances involving insurrection, rebellion, or extreme civil unrest. In those circumstances, the military can only be used for “emergency needs” towards the goal of reestablishing civilian control as quickly as possible.
But, as the Brennan Center has explained, “The problem is that the Insurrection Act creates a giant loophole in the Posse Comitatus Act rather than a limited exception to it.” The Act was adopted in 1792, and it hasn’t been updated since 1874. Its language is broad and gives presidents plenty of discretion to, for instance, use the military to arrest American citizens engaged in protest, if a president calls what’s going on an insurrection, rebellion, or civil unrest. In an 1827 case,Martin v. Mott, the Supreme Court ruled that it is up to the president to decide whether the Insurrection Act should be invoked and that the courts may not review his decision. A president inclined to absorb power from a vacuum into his own hands has plenty to work with, as Trump has done, claiming we are being invaded by the Venezuelan Tren de Aragua gang to justify invoking the Alien Enemies Act and deporting people. So here we are.
Concerns about the Insurrection Act don’t mean that Americans should obey in advance, giving up their right to assemble and protest peacefully. But it does mean we need to understand the way the Trump administration could respond to organized protests as we head toward Saturday, April 5, when many Americans plan to participate in protests that are being organized locally butcoordinated nationally. It helps us understand why peaceful protest, which is proven successful, is also essential.
In July of 2024, Kevin Roberts, president of the conservative Heritage Foundation and one of the chief architects of Project 2025,proudly announced on Steve Bannon’s podcast, “We are in the process of the second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” Donald Trump disclaimed all knowledge of Project 2025 shortly after reporting on that came to light. But we have learned since that Project 2025 was always the plan, and it’s being implemented now. We are forewarned.
George Orwell wrote 1984: “One does not establish a dictatorship in order to safeguard a revolution; one makes the revolution in order to establish the dictatorship.” We still have a Constitution, and we should each find the best way for us, personally, to ensure it stays that way. We have the obligation to find ways to speak up, even if we fear imposition of the Insurrection Act.
Be like Cory Booker. Be willing to stand up for what you believe in.
In our country, the military has long been prohibited from domestic law enforcement because of the fear that its involvement would put us on a path towards tyranny. They defended their vision of government against claims made by anti-federalists that the country was too big, that a president would become a dictator, and that a national army would crush any possibility of dissent.
In Federalist No. 10, James Madison defended the new Constitution against claims it would permit a president to become a dictator with a national army at his disposal to crush any possible dissent. He wrote that the system of government under consideration contained checks and balances to protect individual liberties. He argued that the legislative branch and the judicial branch would act as checks on the executive and there would be a balance of power shared between states and the federal government. Donald Trump, quite clearly, does not agree. He continues to try to give himself all the power of government, much as some of our early leaders feared a president might do.
It is up to each of us to decide how we will meet this moment. For some of us, that will mean showing up to Saturday’s “Hands Off” protest events. For others, it will mean continuing to confront elected officials with their obligation to face the challenges of this moment head-on. Others will be preparing to run for office, support a candidate, or educate their children about the importance of voting. Protest can take many forms. But what’s increasingly clear is that Trump’s effort to create a culture of fear has not silenced the opposition. Americans are, indeed, ready to save the Republic.
Reading Civil Discourse is a form of protest, too. Thank you for being here with me!
Three years ago today, on June 2, 2020, days after then–Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly nine minutes, Martha Raddatz of ABC snapped the famous and chilling photograph of law enforcement officers in camouflage, their names and units hidden, standing in rows on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.
Mr. Floyd’s murder sparked protests across the country, and Trump used those protests as a pretext to crack down on his opponents. Just the day before, after a call with Russian president Vladimir Putin, Trump told state governors on a phone call: “You have to dominate. If you don’t dominate, you’re wasting your time.... You’ve got to arrest people, you have to track people, you have to put them in jail for 10 years and you’ll never see this stuff again.” Then he used a massive police presence wielding tear gas, rubber bullets, and flash-bang explosives to clear peaceful Black Lives Matter protesters from Lafayette Square across from the White House.
Tonight, President Joe Biden addressed the nation from the Oval Office to emphasize that democracy depends on bipartisanship.” [W]hen I ran for President,” he began, “I was told the days of bipartisanship were over and that Democrats and Republicans could no longer work together. But I refused to believe that, because America can never give in to that way of thinking…. [T]he only way American democracy can function is through compromise and consensus, and that’s what I worked to do as your President…to forge a bipartisan agreement where it’s possible and where it’s needed.”
While he noted that he has signed more than 350 bipartisan laws in his time in office, his major focus today was on the bipartisan budget agreement passed by the House and Senate after months of wrangling to get House Republicans to agree to lift the debt ceiling. Biden will sign it tomorrow, averting the nation’s first-ever default.
Biden characterized those threatening to force the U.S. into default as “extreme voices,” who were willing to cause a catastrophe. The economy, which continues to add jobs at a cracking pace—another 339,000 in May, according to the numbers released today by the U.S. Bureau of Labor—would have been thrown into recession. As many as 8 million Americans would have lost their jobs, retirement savings would have been decimated, borrowing for everything from mortgages to government funding would have become much more expensive, and “America’s standing as the most trusted, reliable financial partner in the world would have been shattered.”
“It would have taken years to climb out of that hole,” he said.
But the extremists were sidelined, and the House Republicans and the White House reached an agreement. Biden went out of his way to praise House speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) and his team, saying that the two negotiating teams “were able to get along and get things done. We were straightforward with one another, completely honest with one another, and respectful with one another. Both sides operated in good faith. Both sides kept their word.”
This was not entirely true—McCarthy constantly attacked Biden in the media—but Biden was hammering on the image of bipartisanship. Yesterday, Jonathan Lemire, Adam Cancryn, and Jennifer Haberkorn of Politico reported that Biden and his team plan to make the case for reelection on their ability to negotiate deals that get things done for the American people, acting as the “adults in the room” in contrast to Republican extremists. The budget deal that led to the suspension of the debt ceiling is a major illustration of that position.
Biden also praised House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Senate majority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), and Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), claiming that “[t]hey acted responsibly and put the good of the country ahead of politics.”
The solution to the debt ceiling crisis is a major victory for Biden’s team not only because it happened, but also because it leaves Biden’s key priorities intact, not least because they are popular and Republicans did not want to go into 2024 having demanded unpopular cuts.
Biden noted that the measure will cut spending as Republicans wanted (although not necessarily through the measures they insisted on adding), but reiterated that it is the Republican Party that has been on a spending spree. “We’re all on a much more fiscally responsible course than the one I inherited when I took office,” Biden said. “When I came to office, the deficit had increased every year the previous four years. And nearly $8 trillion was added to the national debt in the last administration,” while the deficit fell by $1.7 trillion in his first two years in office.
Biden laid out that the deal protects his reworking of the U.S. economy to support ordinary Americans. It protects Social Security and Medicare, as well as healthcare and veterans’ services. It protects the investments in the economy that have enabled the country to add more than 13 million new jobs, including 800,000 jobs in manufacturing. It protects investments in addressing climate change.
Finally, Biden vowed to make the wealthy—those who earn more than $400,000 a year—pay their fair share in taxes.
“I know bipartisanship is hard and unity is hard,” he concluded, “but we can never stop trying, because in moments like this one—the ones we just faced, where the American economy and the world economy is at risk of collapsing—there is no other way.
“No matter how tough our politics gets, we need to see each other not as adversaries, but as fellow Americans. Treat each other with dignity and respect. To join forces as Americans to stop shouting, lower the temperature, and work together to pursue progress, secure prosperity, and keep the promise of America for everybody.”
It’s great to have readers. We love people visiting RSN. It allows us to educate and make a difference in the world. But the most important thing needed right now are supporters.
The article below is satire. Andy Borowitz is an American comedian and New York Times-bestselling author who satirizes the news for his column, "The Borowitz Report."
lasting the For the People Act, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the bill’s passage would bring the United States “to the brink of democracy.”
“The Democrats can dress this bill up any way they want, but their real agenda couldn’t be clearer,” the Senate Minority Leader said. “They want to turn the United States of America that we love and cherish into a democracy.”
Noting that the word “democracy” originated in ancient Greece, he vowed, “I will not sit idly by and watch a foreign form of government sneak across our border.”
McConnell rallied his fellow Republican senators by reminding them that “we’re the only thing standing between this country and democracy.”
“The people who voted for us did not vote for us so that other people could vote for other people,” he said.
Then president Donald Trump holds a Bible outside St. John's Church across from Lafayette Square near the White House on June 1, 2020. (photo: Patrick Semansky/AP)
Federal Officials Can't Be Sued for Clearing Protesters Near White House, Judge Says Scott Neuman, NPR Neuman writes: "A federal judge has dismissed claims that former White House officials conspired to forcibly remove peaceful protesters last year from Washington, D.C.'s Lafayette Square so that then-President Donald Trump could pose for a photo holding a Bible at a nearby church."
Trump, accompanied by then-Attorney General William Barr, then-Defense Secretary Mark Esper and Gen. Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, strode to St. John's Church across from the square, where the photo was taken.
In four overlapping suits, Black Lives Matter and three other plaintiffs represented by the American Civil Liberties Union alleged that the former president, Barr and other Trump administration officials conspired to violate the civil rights of the protesters.
Last month, the Department of Justice asked U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich to dismiss the lawsuits.
On Monday, Friedrich called the plaintiffs' claims speculative and dismissed the allegations against Barr, Gregory Monahan of the U.S. Park Police and other federal officials.
In her ruling, Friedrich, a Trump appointee, wrote that the plaintiffs had failed to prove an agreement or plan to violate the rights of the protesters.
"These allegations, taken as true, do not show sufficient 'events, conversations, or documents indicating an agreement or meeting of the minds' amongst the defendants to violate [plaintiffs'] rights based on [their] membership in a protected class,' " she said.
The ACLU had said that the forcible clearing of the square could have a chilling effect on free speech, a contention that Friedrich also rejected.
"The plaintiffs allege that they continue to demonstrate in or near Lafayette Square and that they fear law enforcement officers may disperse or attack them," she wrote.
"The plaintiffs' primary basis for these fears are the alleged events of June 1, 2020 and President Trump's social media posts before and after the clearing of Lafayette Square," she continued. "Significantly, the plaintiffs do not rely on any alleged law or policy as the basis for this claimed risk of future harm."
The judge also ruled that Barr, Monahan and others are immune from civil suits and cannot be sued for damages.
In a tweet, the ACLU of the District of Columbia said the ruling not only represents "a stunning rejection of our constitutional values and protestors' First Amendment rights, but it opens the door for future violence at the hands of the federal government and effectively places federal officials above the law."
One claim against the federal defendants survives: Friedrich said that the plaintiffs can still challenge continued restrictions on access to Lafayette Square because they have "plausibly alleged an ongoing injury."
"To this day, over a year after the events of June 1, Lafayette Square remains subject to heightened restrictions that periodically limit protestors' access to the Square," she said. "Despite the change in Administrations, the federal defendants have not met the high bar of showing that this claim has been mooted by subsequent events."
In asking for the suits to be dismissed, Justice Department trial attorney David Cutler said last month that the police acted lawfully and that the president's security is of "paramount" government interest, according to The Washington Post.
This month, the Interior Department's inspector general, Mark Greenblatt, concluded that the U.S. Park Police did not clear the protesters from the square specifically for Trump's photo-op.
"[T]he evidence established that relevant USPP officials had made those decisions and had begun implementing the operational plan several hours before they knew of a potential Presidential visit to the park, which occurred later that day," Greenblatt wrote in a statement.
His statement demonstrates the risk of Democrats losing support from the left.
The statement demonstrates that Democrats are at risk of losing progressives' support in a 50-50 Senate even as they court Republicans to produce a bipartisan bill.
"If it is roads and bridges, yeah, of course we need to do that and I support that," Sanders (I-Vt.) said on NBC's "Meet the Press." "If it is regressive taxation — you know, raising the gas tax or a fee on electric vehicles, or the privatization of infrastructure, no I wouldn’t support it, but we don’t have the details right now."
Twenty-one senators, including 11 Republicans, have detailed a bipartisan proposal that costs about $973 billion over five years or $1.2 trillion over eight. The plan would have $579 billion in new spending and would repurpose unspent Covid relief funds, impose a surcharge on electric vehicles, and expand the use of state and local funds for coronavirus relief.
Sanders fired back on measures like the added gas tax and fee on electric vehicles but added that the proposal was "mostly good."
"What is in the bipartisan bill in terms of spending is, from what I can see, mostly good," Sanders said. "One of the concerns that I do have about the bipartisan bill is how they are going to pay for their proposals, and they're not clear yet. I don't know that they even know yet, but some of the speculation is raising a gas tax, which I don't support, a fee on electric vehicles, privatization of infrastructure, those are proposals that I would not support."
Sanders' pushback comes as Senate Democrats continue to weigh spending as much as $6 trillion via the reconciliation process on their own infrastructure package if the chamber's bipartisan talks fail — or even if the bipartisan package is approved. The Vermont senator added that key issues such as elder care, climate change and wealth disparities need to be addressed.
"It is time we paid attention to the needs of working people," Sanders said. "And when we do that, when we deal with climate, when we deal with infrastructure, when we deal with home health care, when we deal with child care, we can create millions of good-paying job, that is what the American people want. That's what we've got to do."
Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio), one of the leaders of the group offering the bipartisan proposal, responded to Sanders' comments, saying the $6 trillion proposal is a "grab bag of progressive priorities."
"It's not about infrastructure. It's kind of a $6 trillion grab bag of progressive priorities," Portman said on "Meet the Press." "Ours is about core infrastructure, and it is paid for."
Protesters call for change at a Los Angeles rally in May. (photo: Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News/Getty)
This Progressive Police Reform Bill Is Pretty Popular Li Zhou, Vox Zhou writes: "As lawmakers try to find a bipartisan compromise on police reform, new polling data reveals that a more progressive approach has fairly strong support as well." READ MORE
For Amazon workers, Prime Day means mandatory overtime and increased risk of injury. (photo: Ronny Hartmann/AFP/Getty Images)
Amazon Prime Day Is a Nightmare for Amazon Workers Alex N. Press, Jacobin Press writes: "Amazon calls its annual Prime Day a 'holiday' - but it's pure misery for the hundreds of thousands of workers tasked with fulfilling orders." READ MORE
Eurasian spoonbills are one of many species that travel along the east Atlantic flyway. (photo: Getty Images/iStock)
Exclusive: Oil giant’s plan to drill off west coast of Africa could raise the risk of biodiversity loss, further global heating and toxic fuel spills, an investigation reveals
The British oil giant has begun construction work on a fossil fuel project close by to the 580km-long coral ecosystem off the coast of west Africa, which is in an area crucial for migrating waterbirds, as well as threatened sharks, turtles and whales, according to an investigation by Unearthed and SourceMaterial shared with The Independent.
The project is the “first step” in a series of developments in the region that, if approved, aim to produce around 40 trillion cubic feet of gas over the next 30 years, according to an independent estimate from Rystad Energy, a research firm.
When burned, this amount of gas would produce 2.2 billion tonnes of CO2 – nearly twice the annual energy emissions of the entire African continent. In global terms, it equates to between 0.3 and 1 per cent of the remaining global “carbon budget” left to keep the global temperature rise to 1.5C above pre-industrial levels.
A BP spokesperson said they were unable to comment on Rystad’s projection, and declined to provide their own forecast.
BP has previously promised to slash its emissions to net zero by 2050 and to cut its oil and gas production by 40 per cent within a decade. The oil firm is also a partner of Prince Charles’s Terra Carta initiative, which aims to “bring prosperity into harmony with nature”.
Last month, a major assessment from the world’s energy watchdog, the International Energy Agency, said there can be no further fossil fuel expansion in any country beyond 2021 if global climate goals are to be met.
Mohamed Adow, director of Power Shift Africa, a think tank based in Nairobi, Kenya, described further fossil fuel development as a “a major threat to Africa’s food security, water security and public health”.
Any future oil or gas drilling will “ultimately undermine our livelihoods and development,” he told The Independent.
“We can’t excuse a company like BP, at a time when it seems to be taking climate change more seriously, simultaneously bankrolling a project that may end up having a big impact on Africa’s carbon footprint and future.”
The Independent’s Stop Fuelling the Climate Crisis campaign is shining a light on UK support for fossil fuels ahead of Cop26, a major climate summit being held in Glasgow in November.
BP’s Greater Tortue Ahmeyim project will develop a new gas field 2.7km below the surface of the Atlantic Ocean off the coast of Senegal and Mauritania. Such a deep drilling project has never been attempted before in Africa, but previous research shows deep sea gas production can cause long-lasting damage to fragile ecosystems such as coral reefs.
The first 20-year phase of the project has already been approved, with drilling expected to produce gas in two years’ time. It is one of BP’s three developments in the pipeline for the west Africa region, where it hopes to operate for at least 30 years if it is able to obtain approval.
An environmental and social impact assessment (ESIA) carried out for the project, seen by The Independent, Unearthed and SourceMaterial, states that an eruption of a well used in the production process could lead to a spill of condensate, a liquid byproduct of natural gas.
Though it says the chances of a spill occurring are “extremely rare”, it warns that any such event could prove lethal or damaging to the unique ecosystems surrounding the project site, according to the assessment.
The area chosen for the project is close to key sites along the east Atlantic flyway, a major migration route for millions of birds travelling between the bottom of Africa and the Arctic. Birds using the route include Eurasian spoonbills, grey plovers and red knots.
The gas project is also just 5km away from Diawling National Park, which hosts 250 different bird species as well as monkeys, warthogs and monitor lizards. It is a similar distance away from the marine protected area of Saint-Louis, a key site for local fishing and feeding whales and dolphins.
Without careful management, BP’s construction and drilling operations could threaten these important wildlife hotspots and the livelihoods of local fishing communities, Sandra Kloff, a consultant marine biologist who has worked in the region for 25 years, told The Independent.
She added that the wildlife in the region already faces large threats from overfishing by international companies.
“Since the 1980s, it has been a total wild west for biodiversity off this northwest African coast despite scientific proof that this region is the most important feeding area for charismatic wildlife in the Atlantic Ocean – and in spite of the fact that these waters are home to the longest cold water coral mounds,” she told The Independent.
BP has previously pledged to reduce harm to biodiversity by committing to not establishing new oil and gas operations in Unesco world heritage sites or in nature reserves that meet a set of specific criteria. Its Greater Tortue Ahmeyim project does not contravene these rules.
Awa Traore, an oceans campaigner at Greenpeace Africa, said BP’s actions amounted to “greenwashing”.
“More fossil fuel production is only going to expose communities to more harm, undermining the renewable energy investment which can effectively lift millions of people out of poverty,” she told The Independent.
“By adopting renewable energy instead of fossil fuels, African countries have the opportunity to leapfrog dirty energy to meet their energy security needs, with massive potential benefits for the population.”
A BP spokesperson said: “We want to help conserve the marine ecosystem in Mauritania and Senegal and the project’s environment and social impact assessment was approved by the governments and regulators of both Mauritania and Senegal when the project was sanctioned for development.”
The spokesperson added that BP was currently developing an additional biodiversity action plan for the project alongside “scientists and other stakeholders”.
“This will integrate the latest scientific data and allow us to identify and implement appropriate biodiversity-related mitigation and management measures for the project,” the spokesperson said.
“We are working to set up an independent scientific panel of national and international scientists for peer review of our plans.”
They added that emissions from the first phase of the Greater Tortue Ahmeyim project will be included in BP’s climate targets.
“Emissions from any further projects that were approved and developed would also be included as and when they began operation,” the spokesperson said.
Bess Levin | Trump's Inner Circle Is Reportedly Soiling Itself at the Likelihood of Criminal Charges, as It Should Be Bess Levin, Vanity Fair Levin writes: "'There's definitely a cloud of nerves in the air.' One adviser told the outlet that while Trump is no stranger to legal issues, this situation feels different, in part because prosecutors are pressuring Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who's described himself as Trump's 'eyes and ears' at the company, to flip."
Trumpworld is said to be panicked about a grand jury hearing evidence against the ex-president, the Trump Organization and its executives.
s you‘ve no doubt heard by now, on Tuesday, The Washington Post broke the news that the Manhattan district attorney has convened a grand jury to hear evidence against Donald Trump. According to legal experts, this is a major development in Cyrus Vance Jr.’s criminal investigation; as former assistant district attorney Rebecca Roiphe told the Post, it’s unlikely that Vance’s office would have taken such a step without believing it can prove Trump, the Trump Organization, or a Trump Organization executive committed a crime. “The prosecutors are convinced they have a case,” Roiphe said. “That’s at least how I read it.” As former U.S. attorney Preet Bhararatold CNN, “It’s significant…they must have come across some evidence as to somebody’s state of mind. That the misconduct they were investigating does not seem to be the product of negligence or recklessness or mistake but intentional criminality.” And as a result, people surrounding the ex-president are said to be more than a little freaked out, as they probably should be!
According to Politico Playbook, which spoke to members of “Trump world” after the news came out, “There’s definitely a cloud of nerves in the air.” One adviser told the outlet that while Trump is no stranger to legal issues, this situation feels different, in part because prosecutors are pressuring Trump Organization CFO Allen Weisselberg, who’s described himself as Trump’s “eyes and ears” at the company, to flip. “I think the Weisselberg involvement and the wild card of that makes the particular situation more real, because there’s no sort of fluff and made-up fictional circumstances around the guy,” an adviser told Politico. “The fact that they’re dealing with a numbers guy who just has plain details makes people more nervous. This is not a Michael Cohen situation.”
According to Politico legal affairs contributor Josh Gerstein, the grand jury “is expected to go beyond assembling records by hearing live testimony from various witnesses—which will give prosecutors an opportunity to present a narrative that could persuade jurors to return an indictment in the coming months. Coupled with [New York] Attorney General Letitia James’s recent decision to team up with Vance and Vance’s hiring of veteran mafia prosecutor Mark Pomerantz, the move to a new grand jury suggests a steady progression towards criminal charges against some person or company in the Trump orbit.”
Of course, despite the fact that Trump may very well be privately shitting himself over the news, his public response was a typical meltdown and rehashing of things he’s said in the past—namely, that all of this is a “witch hunt” and that he’s a saint beloved the world over. In a statement, he wrote, or more likely dictated to some poor scribe: “This is a continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in American history. It began the day I came down the escalator in Trump Tower, and it’s never stopped…. This is purely political, and an affront to the almost 75 million voters who supported me in the Presidential Election, and it’s being driven by highly partisan Democrat prosecutors. New York City and State are suffering the highest crime rates in their history, and instead of going after murderers, drug dealers, human traffickers, and others, they come after Donald Trump. Interesting that today a poll came out indicating I’m far in the lead for the Republican Presidential Primary and the General Election in 2024.”
As for Trump’s actual political aspirations, he will undoubtedly tease another White House run until the very last second before making an actual announcement, though aides have claimed to Politico that “he’s missing being president terribly,” and supposedly gets angry when people question if he’s serious about running again. He’s also inserted himself in the 2022 midterm elections, despite the fact that his endorsements are actually the kiss of death. Per Politico:
With an eye toward winning back the House and Senate in the 2022 midterm elections, former President Donald Trump has begun crafting a policy agenda outlining a MAGA doctrine for the party. His template is the 1994 “Contract with America,” a legislative agenda released ahead of the midterm elections in the middle of President Bill Clinton’s first term. And, as a cherry on top, he’s teaming up with its main architect—[Newt]Gingrich—to do it.
In recent weeks, Trump sat down with the former House speaker as well as his former chief of staff Mark Meadows and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) at his private Mar-a-Lago club to begin crafting the document, according to a source familiar with the meeting. The group is still just beginning to hammer out the details of what a Trumpified Contract might look like. But it is likely to take an “America-First” policy approach on everything from trade to immigration. The source described it as “a policy priority for 2022 and beyond.”
Presumably, anyone looking for Trump’s endorsement would have to sign the Trump Contract in blood, though according to analysis by Bloomberg, candidates hoping to actually win a seat might want to avoid the ex-president’s stamp of approval. While his endorsement helped Republicans win primaries in 2020, 40 of his 183 endorsed candidates lost, and in 2018, the GOP could have picked up at least 11 more House seats and four in the Senate had Trump stayed on the sidelines.
A portrait of US President Donald Trump burns during a demonstration. (Atta Kenare/AFP/Getty Images)
Garland DOJ Asks Judge to Toss ACLU Suit Against Trump Over Lafayette Square Violence Mary Papenfuss, Huffington Post Papenfuss writes: "The Justice Department asked a federal judge on Friday to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union against former President Donald Trump for the violence against protesters a year ago at Lafayette Square in Washington, D.C."
The civil liberties organization argued that allowing Trump to get away with it would “authorize brutality with impunity.”
Demonstrators protesting the police killing of George Floyd were brutally cleared from the space by law enforcement officers using stun grenades, pepper balls, tear gas and batons so that Trump could walk from the White House, across the square to St. John’s Episcopal Church, where he posed with a Bible for a photo op. The leader of the church was “outraged” it was used for the cynical stunt.
A National Guard major on the scene complained that officers used “excessive force” against protesters, and the Australian government called for an investigation after journalists from the nation were brutally beaten by police.
But DOJ attorneys argued Friday that Trump and other officials are immune from lawsuits over police actions taken to protect a president. They also said further attacks on protesters are unlikely now that Trump is no longer president, The Washington Post reported. President Joe Biden and his administration do not share Trump’s hostility toward the racial justice movement, the DOJ noted.
ACLU lawyers shot back saying that the government’s defense would “authorize brutality with impunity” in the heart of the nation’s capital, where rights violations are particularly troubling.
If the government’s defense is upheld, it would excuse accountability for any offense, lawyers argued. In such a case, U.S. authorities “could have used live ammunition to clear the park, and nobody would have a claim against that as an assault on their constitutional rights,” said Scott Michelman, legal director for the ACLU in the District of Columbia, according to the Post.
ACLU attorney Randy Mastro argued that protesters were targeted by the Trump administration because of “their viewpoint, their message, their speech.” Trump, who shared a reference on Twitter calling the peaceful demonstrators “terrorists,” tweeted the day after the square was cleared: “Great job done by all. Overwhelming force. Domination.”
The “conduct here was so flagrantly unlawful and so obviously unconstitutional that it requires a remedy,” Mastro said. “We are here today, your honor, to do everything we can to see that nothing like this ever happens again in our country.”
A monument to the survivors of the former Kamloops Indian Residential School is pictured in front of the school administration building, after the remains of 215 children, some as young as three years old, were found at the site in Kamloops, British Columbia, Canada May 29, 2021. (photo: Dennis Owen/Reuters)
Remains of 215 Children Found at Former Indigenous School Site in Canada Anna Mehler Paperny, Reuters Paperny writes: "The remains of 215 children, some as young as three years old, were found at the site of a former residential school for indigenous children, a discovery Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described as heartbreaking on Friday."
The children were students at the Kamloops Indian Residential School in British Columbia that closed in 1978, according to the Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc Nation, which said the remains were found with the help of a ground penetrating radar specialist.
"We had a knowing in our community that we were able to verify," Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc Chief Rosanne Casimir said in a statement. "At this time, we have more questions than answers."
Canada's residential school system, which forcibly separated indigenous children from their families, constituted "cultural genocide," a six-year investigation into the now-defunct system found in 2015.
The report documented horrific physical abuse, rape, malnutrition and other atrocities suffered by many of the 150,000 children who attended the schools, typically run by Christian churches on behalf of Ottawa from the 1840s to the 1990s.
It found more than 4,100 children died while attending residential school. The deaths of the 215 children buried in the grounds of what was once Canada's largest residential school are believed to not have been included in that figure and appear to have been undocumented until the discovery.
Trudeau wrote in a tweet that the news "breaks my heart - it is a painful reminder of that dark and shameful chapter of our country's history."
In 2008, the Canadian government formally apologized for the system.
The Tk'emlúps te Secwépemc Nation said it was engaging with the coroner and reaching out to the home communities whose children attended the school. They expect to have preliminary findings by mid-June.
In a statement, British Columbia Assembly of First Nations Regional Chief Terry Teegee called finding such grave sites “urgent work” that “refreshes the grief and loss for all First Nations in British Columbia.”
Demonstrators march past the U.S. Capitol while protesting immigration reform, in Washington on May 12, 2021. (photo: Stefani Reynolds/NYT)
Democrats, Once Outraged, Are Taking a Quieter Approach on the Treatment of Migrant Children. Eileen Sullivan, The New York Times Sullivan writes: "House Democrats, who led an angry charge against the Trump administration's treatment of migrant children, have taken a much quieter tack since concerns began emerging about conditions at some of the emergency shelters set up by the Biden administration to deal with minors at the southern border."
Democrats say the contrast is for good reason: former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies were deliberately cruel, devised as a deterrent to would-be migrants, while the Biden administration is trying hard to deal with a bad hand.
Where once only Twitter assaults and dressing-downs at House hearings would suffice, Democratic lawmakers are voicing worries privately to administration officials and the small staff at the Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees the care. If problems persist, the lawmakers say they call again.
Democrats say the contrast is for good reason: former President Donald Trump’s immigration policies were deliberately cruel, devised as a deterrent to would-be migrants, while the Biden administration is trying hard to deal with a bad hand.
Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt has signed a bill into law that bans the teaching of critical race theory in Oklahoma schools. (photo: Sue Ogrocki/AP)
Teachers Say Laws Banning Critical Race Theory Are Putting a Chill on Their Lessons Adrian Florido, NPR Florido writes: "As Republican lawmakers across the country advance state bills that would limit how public school teachers can discuss race in their classrooms, educators say the efforts are already having a chilling effect on their lessons."
In recent weeks, Republican legislatures in roughly half a dozen states have either adopted or advanced bills purporting to take aim at the teaching of critical race theory, an academic approach that examines how race and racism function in law and society. Conservatives have made the teaching of critical race theory a rallying cry in the culture wars, calling it divisive and unpatriotic for forcing students to consider the influence of racism in situations where they might not see it otherwise.
In reality, the bills many Republicans have proposed do not directly address critical race theory. Instead, many ban the teaching of concepts that educators say they don't teach anyway.
A bill signed into law by Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt bans lessons that include the concept that "one race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex," that a person's "moral character is inherently determined by his or her race or sex," or that someone should feel discomfort, guilt or distress on account of their race or sex.
Nonetheless, educators say the newly adopted and proposed laws are already forcing teachers to second-guess whether they can lead students in conversations about race and structural racism that many feel are critical at a time the nation is navigating an important reckoning on those issues.
In Oklahoma City, teacher Telannia Norfar said she and her colleagues at Northwest Classen High School had planned to discuss a schoolwide approach to help students understand current events – including the murder of George Floyd, family separation at the Mexico border and the use of racist terms such as the "China virus."
"We need to do it, because our students desire it," she said. "But how do we do that without opening Oklahoma City public schools up to a lawsuit?"
She said how and whether they'll do that is now unclear. Paula Lewis, chair of the Oklahoma City School Board, said though the state's new law bans teachers from discussing concepts they weren't discussing anyway, and though its penalties are not yet clear, the danger is the fear it instills.
"What if they say the wrong thing?" Lewis said. "What if somebody in their class during the critical thinking brings up the word oppression or systemic racism? Are they in danger? Is their job in danger?"
Confronting the bloody past
This year, many teachers in Oklahoma are planning lessons on the 100th anniversary of the Tulsa Race Massacre, when hundreds of the city's Black residents were killed by white mobs. It's taken years for education officials to integrate the episode into state teaching standards. While the new law does not ban its teaching, Lewis said it is likely to limit how much teachers feel they can dive into conversations about topics such as structural racism and white supremacy before and since the massacre.
Lewis acknowledged that in a conservative state such as Oklahoma, there are many parents – especially white ones – who support the idea of shielding their children from uncomfortable conversations about race. But she said that's why they're so important.
Similar bills have been adopted or advanced in states including Idaho, North Carolina and Tennessee.
In Texas, a bill that has passed both chambers of the Republican-controlled Legislature would impose restrictions similar to Oklahoma's, including banning public universities from requiring students to take diversity training. It would also require teachers who discuss ugly episodes in history, or controversial current events, to explore "contending perspectives without giving deference to any one perspective."
That bill, H.B. 3979, was written by Republican Steve Toth, who often rails against critical race theory as anti-white, anti-Christian and anti-American. His office did not respond to an interview request.
Vida Robertson directs the Center for Critical Race Studies at the University of Houston-Downtown. He called Toth's bill "a concerted attempt by Republicans to stifle a widespread and overwhelming demand for racial equality and social justice in the United States by mischaracterizing critical race theory as some abhorrent plot to undermine America."
He said it will give parents who are uncomfortable with the nation's ongoing racial reckoning a tool to go after teachers.
Teachers' fears of the thought police
Meghan Dougherty, who helps public school teachers in Round Rock, Texas, develop social studies lessons plans, said Texas teachers already feel that pressure, including one of her colleagues who during the pandemic gave students a virtual lesson on race and prejudice in U.S. society. She said a father at home overheard a portion of it.
"Then he wrote an email to the administration complaining that the teacher was accusing his child of being a racist when they were having a conversation about implicit bias and what implicit bias is and how it affects us," Dougherty said.
She said the proposed bill makes it feel like the thought police are descending on Texas. She said she knows teachers who are already self-censoring. They're "afraid to speak out on issues because they feel there are going to be repercussions from their districts," she said.
Paul Kleiman, a high school history teacher in Round Rock, said he's concerned about the provision in Texas' bill that would require him to teach all sides of current events and ugly chapters in history without giving any side deference. He asked how he would do that when teaching subjects such as the Holocaust, or the civil rights movement.
"Does the state of Texas want me to stand up and spend class time saying, well, let's look at all sides of this topic?" Kleiman said. "I don't think that's what the state of Texas wants. But that's what this bill does."
Sunday Song: Crosby, Stills, Nash, and Young | Ohio Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young, YouTube Excerpt: "Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin'. We're finally on our own. This summer I hear the drummin'. Four dead in Ohio."
This image of protester Mary Ann Vecchio wailing over the dead body of Kent State University student, Jeffrey Miller, shot by US National Guardsmen won a Pulitizer Prize and became an icon of the Vietnam protest movement. (photo: John Filo)
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin' We're finally on our own This summer I hear the drummin' Four dead in Ohio
Gotta get down to it Soldiers are gunning us down Should have been done long ago What if you knew her and Found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?
La la la la la la la la La la la la la la la la La la la la la la la la Na na na na na na
Gotta get down to it Soldiers are cutting us down Should have been done long ago What if you knew her and Found her dead on the ground? How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon's comin' We're finally on our own This summer I hear the drummin' Four dead in Ohio
Four dead in Ohio Four dead in Ohio Four dead in Ohio
here’s always a surprising wildness to the all-too-brief spring in the D.C. area, that weeks-long lull when the heat is turned off but the air conditioning is not yet on. For a spell, the boundary between the human world and nature feels more porous. The air, thick with moisture and pollen, wafts into our homes through screen windows, clinging to skin and inflaming sinuses. Ducklings putter about in pools on the Mall, and the overgrown trails of Rock Creek Park beckon.
This year, the spring feels wilder than normal thanks to Brood X, its emergence offering a pervasive spectacle of cicada sex and death that has overtaken our environment. The sidewalks themselves seem to be wriggling with tiny bodies and crunchy brown exoskeletons. An eerie high-pitched drone plays counterpoint to the more familiar sounds of crickets and birds. After dark each night, the latest waves scuttle up tree trunks, pulling their pale white abdomens out of their old carapaces.
But as remarkable as it is to watch them crawl out of the ground, the most striking thing about the insects is how bad they are at being alive. After 17 years underground, the cicadas of Brood X really don’t seem ready for the surface at all. They tend to cluster in exposed areas where they’re easy marks for birds and small mammals, or likely to be crunched underfoot by human pedestrians. Haplessly schlepping their half-shed shells across the blazing-hot concrete in the path of an oncoming schnauzer, they seem, as a species, to be somehow unfinished, as if evolution cut a few corners and clocked off early.
When they inevitably end up on their backs — perhaps having fallen from the tree branches to which they haplessly cling — they are unable to right themselves, like turtles, except that turtle shells actually have some value as protection. They’re capable of flight but don’t seem to have learned how to do it properly. Instead, they careen slowly and drunkenly off surfaces, held aloft by fragile, translucent wings that seem too small for their bodies. Birds perch atop lampposts, their beaks hanging wide, as if they were, quite reasonably, expecting their befuddled prey to pilot straight into their open maws.
So the cicadas are all too easy to mock, but every time the impulse strikes me, I realize that their travails aren’t so different from our own. Like the cicadas, we humans are also emerging into the light this spring for the first time after a period nestled in the dark; not 17 years, admittedly, but still much longer than we’re used to. And like the cicadas, we seem remarkably ill-prepared for the world we’ve emerged into.
The excited talk of a “hot vax summer” or a “new Roaring Twenties” is all well and good, but first we’re going to have to relearn how to interact with one another. I know, from talking to friends, that I’m not the only one who seems to have entirely forgotten how to make small talk. When your neighbor greets you with a cordial “Hello,” are you supposed to respond, “Good morning!” or “Fine, thanks, and you?” At least we’ve progressed from the “Hanging in there, I guess” to the “Things are starting to open up a bit!” phase of recovery repartee. But when we do talk, we’ve mostly struggled to talk about anything other than the pandemic, our single topic drowning out all else, not unlike the cicadas’ nightly hum.
Once-routine activities like ordering at a restaurant or taking public transportation seem novel and strange. Ongoing covid concerns and safety protocols don’t help: How wide a berth are we still keeping on the sidewalk? Are handshakes and hugs back? Can we hang out inside yet? If anything, the increasingly bitter debate over masking policy is evidence that we really don’t trust one another, if only because we still fear the lurking pathogens. Here, too, the cicadas — imperiled by a contagious psychedelic fungus that can cause their butts to fall off — may be more like us than we want to believe.
But maybe that’s where the cicadas also have a lesson for us. As a cohort, they’re pulling off an incredible feat of natural choreography, one worthy of awe. They don’t get much time under the sun, and they may not seem particularly well-suited to it, but they make the most of it. Their incompetence isn’t their strength, exactly, but their persistence is evidence that they are, collectively, stronger than they seem. Yes, they are bad at being themselves, but that doesn’t stop them from going for it anyway. As the Tao Te Ching puts it, “Great skill seems awkward; great eloquence seems tongue-tied.”
Emerging into the post-quarantine sunlight, we hopefully have more to look forward to than two weeks to molt, mate and die. (A hot vax summer, indeed.) Seeing old friends, making small talk with acquaintances, eating in public, even working in an office are all going to be more intense and novel than they used to be, and a little tentative ungainliness at first isn’t the worst reaction. But however much the cicadas may remind us of ourselves now, they also show us the truth about our awkward predicament: Ultimately, the only way out is through.
If nothing else, at least they’ve given us something other than the pandemic to talk about.
lasting the For the People Act, Senator Mitch McConnell claimed that the bill’s passage would bring the United States “to the brink of democracy.”
s you‘ve no doubt heard by now, on Tuesday, The Washington Post broke the news that the Manhattan district attorney has 
he 
