Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LetMyPeopleVote
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
LetMyPeopleVote's Journal
July 12, 2025
Human Collapse: Russia Moves to Conceal Severe Demographic Crisis
Russia has begun to restrict access to data relating to demographic statistics in a sign that they are likely to reveal a deteriorating population situation.
https://x.com/KyivPost/status/1943959734786437309
https://www.kyivpost.com/post/56084
The Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat) has stopped publishing data on the demographic situation in Russia.
May’s statistics were published in July. But, according to sources from Kyiv Post, from now on statistics on mortality, birth rates, the number of marriages and divorces, as well as data on migration in Russia, will be provided under signature and not disclosed. Kyiv Post decided to investigate.
Population decline
The closure on data release was first noted by demographer and sociologist Alexei Raksha – a former employee of Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat). Raksha began to voice concerns about the worsening demographic situation on social media, shortly after which he was declared a “foreign agent” and deprived of the ability to lecture, teach, and publish books and academic articles......
But even including artificially inflated figures for the occupied territories, the overall statistics across Russia remain extremely grim.
2024 saw a record decline in Russia’s population. A 3.5% increase in mortality combined with a drop in birth rates led to record demographic losses – there were 600,000 more deaths than births – a 20% increase on 2023......
These figures echo those of Russian outlet Mediazona, which identified more than 120,000 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine based on open-source information: obituaries, social media posts, official bulletins, etc. Mediazona suggested that the real number is significantly higher, as many bodies are unidentifiable, many have not been recovered, and the media do not report many funerals (especially of convicts).
US Secretary Marco Rubio said July 10 that Russia lost 100,000 dead just in the last six months.
“This is an attempt to hide loss data that is not published openly, but can be inferred from demographic statistics. The Kremlin has a direct interest in this. They didn’t notice it at first, but such data reveals not only losses, but also the country’s military potential,” Russian sociologist and journalist Igor Yakovenko said.
May’s statistics were published in July. But, according to sources from Kyiv Post, from now on statistics on mortality, birth rates, the number of marriages and divorces, as well as data on migration in Russia, will be provided under signature and not disclosed. Kyiv Post decided to investigate.
Population decline
The closure on data release was first noted by demographer and sociologist Alexei Raksha – a former employee of Russia’s Federal State Statistics Service (Rosstat). Raksha began to voice concerns about the worsening demographic situation on social media, shortly after which he was declared a “foreign agent” and deprived of the ability to lecture, teach, and publish books and academic articles......
But even including artificially inflated figures for the occupied territories, the overall statistics across Russia remain extremely grim.
2024 saw a record decline in Russia’s population. A 3.5% increase in mortality combined with a drop in birth rates led to record demographic losses – there were 600,000 more deaths than births – a 20% increase on 2023......
These figures echo those of Russian outlet Mediazona, which identified more than 120,000 Russian soldiers killed in Ukraine based on open-source information: obituaries, social media posts, official bulletins, etc. Mediazona suggested that the real number is significantly higher, as many bodies are unidentifiable, many have not been recovered, and the media do not report many funerals (especially of convicts).
US Secretary Marco Rubio said July 10 that Russia lost 100,000 dead just in the last six months.
“This is an attempt to hide loss data that is not published openly, but can be inferred from demographic statistics. The Kremlin has a direct interest in this. They didn’t notice it at first, but such data reveals not only losses, but also the country’s military potential,” Russian sociologist and journalist Igor Yakovenko said.
July 12, 2025
Federal Efforts to Punish Sanctuary Cities Are Unconstitutional
While states and cities can choose to help enforce federal law, the 10th Amendment means that the U.S. government can’t force them to do so.
https://x.com/BrennanCenter/status/1944069285820674330
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/federal-efforts-punish-sanctuary-cities-are-unconstitutional
The Department of Justice sued Los Angeles last week over the city’s so-called sanctuary laws, rules that preserve its right not to participate in the sweeping federal campaign to ramp up immigration enforcement.
Only weeks after federal immigration raids set off chaos in a small area of downtown LA, the federal government claims that the city’s policies, which prohibit police officers from affirmatively assisting in immigration enforcement, amount to active obstruction of federal law.
Last Monday’s challenge follows at least six other federal lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary practices. Additional lawsuits seem likely, as the Department of Homeland Security has not let up on its rhetoric about local opposition to its policies and published a list of some 400 supposed sanctuaries that appears designed to guide federal efforts to browbeat cities into submission. Some local governments dispute their designations as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” DHS withdrew the list following local police agency opposition.
These lawsuits and other actions — such as threats to freeze federal funding from sanctuary cities or to prosecute their officials — clearly violate the 10th Amendment, which provides that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states as independent sovereigns in our system of federalism. While states may choose to help enforce federal law, the U.S. government cannot “commandeer” their resources by demanding participation or by threatening to prosecute or withhold funds from states that opt out. The same goes for cities, which are legally considered subordinate parts of their states.
The lawsuits are an attempt to punish existing sanctuary jurisdictions and dissuade others from joining them. Sanctuary laws vary across cities and states, but they typically involve the jurisdiction withholding active assistance from federal immigration enforcement. These laws may prohibit the initial collection of immigration status information, limit the sharing of identity information with federal agencies, or direct jail personnel to decline requests to detain immigrants simply so immigration agents may pick them up.
No sanctuary laws authorize city or state officers to actively obstruct federal enforcement, and many have exceptions that allow sharing of information about certain serious crimes. Moreover, as experts across the ideological spectrum have noted, immigration sanctuary laws can promote safety, enhance community engagement with police, and foster economic development.
Only weeks after federal immigration raids set off chaos in a small area of downtown LA, the federal government claims that the city’s policies, which prohibit police officers from affirmatively assisting in immigration enforcement, amount to active obstruction of federal law.
Last Monday’s challenge follows at least six other federal lawsuits against states and cities with sanctuary practices. Additional lawsuits seem likely, as the Department of Homeland Security has not let up on its rhetoric about local opposition to its policies and published a list of some 400 supposed sanctuaries that appears designed to guide federal efforts to browbeat cities into submission. Some local governments dispute their designations as “sanctuary jurisdictions.” DHS withdrew the list following local police agency opposition.
These lawsuits and other actions — such as threats to freeze federal funding from sanctuary cities or to prosecute their officials — clearly violate the 10th Amendment, which provides that powers not granted to the federal government are reserved to the states as independent sovereigns in our system of federalism. While states may choose to help enforce federal law, the U.S. government cannot “commandeer” their resources by demanding participation or by threatening to prosecute or withhold funds from states that opt out. The same goes for cities, which are legally considered subordinate parts of their states.
The lawsuits are an attempt to punish existing sanctuary jurisdictions and dissuade others from joining them. Sanctuary laws vary across cities and states, but they typically involve the jurisdiction withholding active assistance from federal immigration enforcement. These laws may prohibit the initial collection of immigration status information, limit the sharing of identity information with federal agencies, or direct jail personnel to decline requests to detain immigrants simply so immigration agents may pick them up.
No sanctuary laws authorize city or state officers to actively obstruct federal enforcement, and many have exceptions that allow sharing of information about certain serious crimes. Moreover, as experts across the ideological spectrum have noted, immigration sanctuary laws can promote safety, enhance community engagement with police, and foster economic development.
July 12, 2025
https://x.com/tripgabriel/status/1943824927381237917
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/climate/fema-missed-calls-texas-floods.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V08.BQP3.cDmKuRLfIEQP&smid=tw-share
FEMA Didn't Answer Thousands of Calls From Flood Survivors, Documents Show (NYT Gift Subcription)
Two days after deadly Texas floods, the agency struggled to answer calls from survivors because of call center contracts that weren’t extended.
They'll still blame Biden somehow, rather than the NWS firings, or fema cuts.
— Oldstonydude (@oldstonydude.bsky.social) 2025-07-12T17:20:44.589Z
FEMA Didn’t Answer Thousands of Calls From Flood Survivors, Documents Show - The New York Times share.google/8VIrQnTgnqOe...
https://x.com/tripgabriel/status/1943824927381237917
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/11/climate/fema-missed-calls-texas-floods.html?unlocked_article_code=1.V08.BQP3.cDmKuRLfIEQP&smid=tw-share
Two days after catastrophic floods roared through Central Texas, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did not answer nearly two-thirds of calls to its disaster assistance line, according to documents reviewed by The New York Times.
The lack of responsiveness happened because the agency had fired hundreds of contractors at call centers, according to a person briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal matters.
The agency laid off the contractors on July 5 after their contracts expired and were not extended, according to the documents and the person briefed on the matter. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, who has instituted a new requirement that she personally approve expenses over $100,000, did not renew the contracts until Thursday, five days after the contracts expired. FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
The details on the unanswered calls on July 6, which have not been previously reported, come as FEMA faces intense scrutiny over its response to the floods in Texas that have killed more than 120 people. The agency, which President Trump has called for eliminating, has been slow to activate certain teams that coordinate response and search-and-rescue efforts......
The next day, July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls and answered 846, or roughly 35.8 percent, according to the documents. And on Monday, July 7, the agency fielded 16,419 calls and answered 2,613, or around 15.9 percent, the documents show.
Some FEMA officials grew frustrated by the lapse in contracts and that it was taking days for Ms. Noem to act, according to the person briefed on the matter and the documents. “We still do not have a decision, waiver or signature from the DHS Secretary,” a FEMA official wrote in a July 8 email to colleagues......
Democratic lawmakers raised concern on Friday that Ms. Noem’s insistence on approving expenses over $100,000 had also delayed FEMA’s deployment of search-and-rescue teams to Texas. In a letter to David Richardson, FEMA’s acting administrator, the Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote that Ms. Noem did not authorize the deployment of those teams until July 7, three days after the flooding began.
The lack of responsiveness happened because the agency had fired hundreds of contractors at call centers, according to a person briefed on the matter who spoke on the condition of anonymity in order to discuss internal matters.
The agency laid off the contractors on July 5 after their contracts expired and were not extended, according to the documents and the person briefed on the matter. Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary, who has instituted a new requirement that she personally approve expenses over $100,000, did not renew the contracts until Thursday, five days after the contracts expired. FEMA is part of the Department of Homeland Security.
The details on the unanswered calls on July 6, which have not been previously reported, come as FEMA faces intense scrutiny over its response to the floods in Texas that have killed more than 120 people. The agency, which President Trump has called for eliminating, has been slow to activate certain teams that coordinate response and search-and-rescue efforts......
The next day, July 6, FEMA received 2,363 calls and answered 846, or roughly 35.8 percent, according to the documents. And on Monday, July 7, the agency fielded 16,419 calls and answered 2,613, or around 15.9 percent, the documents show.
Some FEMA officials grew frustrated by the lapse in contracts and that it was taking days for Ms. Noem to act, according to the person briefed on the matter and the documents. “We still do not have a decision, waiver or signature from the DHS Secretary,” a FEMA official wrote in a July 8 email to colleagues......
Democratic lawmakers raised concern on Friday that Ms. Noem’s insistence on approving expenses over $100,000 had also delayed FEMA’s deployment of search-and-rescue teams to Texas. In a letter to David Richardson, FEMA’s acting administrator, the Democrats on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform wrote that Ms. Noem did not authorize the deployment of those teams until July 7, three days after the flooding began.
July 11, 2025
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/11/texas-redistricting-00448145
On top of everything else, there is a trial going on with respect to the Texas maps that these efforts may affect.
This will be fun to watch
Texas Redistricting-As a voting rights volunteer, I was amused to learn a new term "dummymander"
I have been volunteering on voting rights/voter protection since 2004 when I went to Florida as part of the Kerry Edwards voter protection team. I have testified before committees of both the Texas House and Senate on gerrymandered districts. Part of my testimony was used in a prior lawsuit that unfortunately failed. Texas is heavily gerrymandered. My congressional district went from a R+1 to a R+21 as part of the last gerrymander. trump wants Ohio and Texas to re-gerrymander their districts to help in the midterms. I was amused to see that these efforts run a risk of failing
Republicans run a risky strategy for holding the House that rests on redrawn maps
— David Darmofal (@daviddarmofal.bsky.social) 2025-07-11T18:40:41.292Z
www.politico.com/news/2025/07...
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/07/11/texas-redistricting-00448145
But in Texas, Republicans are in danger of creating a so-called dummymander, whereby an attempt to draw more seats for one party accidentally benefits the other. Texas’ congressional map already heavily favors the GOP, so any changes to further benefit the party would have to walk a careful line. Adding Republican voters to blue districts to reduce Democrats’ margins means taking those same voters out of the red districts where they reside. The result is more competitive districts across the board — ones Democrats hope to take advantage of as they harness anti-Trump energy in the midterms.
“They are playing a little bit of roulette with these maps,” said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas). “In a wave election like what we have a potential opportunity for in ‘26 I think it makes these Republicans very vulnerable.”
Texas has 38 House seats, with 25 held by Republicans. Members of the state’s Democratic delegation huddled with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the redistricting talk ramped up, with follow-up meetings planned.
Jeffries warned in a statement Wednesday that an aggressive map could “result in making several incumbent House Republicans vulnerable to fierce general election challenges.”
“Republicans are cutting off their nose to spite their face,” he added.....
Democrats are almost certain to sue over whatever new maps are created in both Ohio and Texas, said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
“I imagine we will have a lot to say about the map they create and the legalities of it,” he said Thursday.
“They are playing a little bit of roulette with these maps,” said Rep. Julie Johnson (D-Texas). “In a wave election like what we have a potential opportunity for in ‘26 I think it makes these Republicans very vulnerable.”
Texas has 38 House seats, with 25 held by Republicans. Members of the state’s Democratic delegation huddled with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries as the redistricting talk ramped up, with follow-up meetings planned.
Jeffries warned in a statement Wednesday that an aggressive map could “result in making several incumbent House Republicans vulnerable to fierce general election challenges.”
“Republicans are cutting off their nose to spite their face,” he added.....
Democrats are almost certain to sue over whatever new maps are created in both Ohio and Texas, said John Bisognano, president of the National Democratic Redistricting Committee.
“I imagine we will have a lot to say about the map they create and the legalities of it,” he said Thursday.
On top of everything else, there is a trial going on with respect to the Texas maps that these efforts may affect.
This will be fun to watch
July 11, 2025
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/white-house-border-czar-suggests-ice-can-detain-people-based-physical-rcna218285
Maddow Blog-White House border czar suggests ICE can detain people based on 'physical appearance'
Tom Homan’s comments about ICE agents being able to detain people based on “their physical appearance” will likely make racial profiling concerns worse.
White House border czar suggests ICE can detain people based on ‘physical appearance’
— Thomas Keepout (@thomasworking.bsky.social) 2025-07-11T16:32:39.771Z
#CorruptTrump
#RacistInChief
www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/white-house-border-czar-suggests-ice-can-detain-people-based-physical-rcna218285
Nearly six months into his tenure as the White House’s “border czar,” Tom Homan has made a great many controversial public comments, about everything from due process to prosecuting news organizations to his curious focus on Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York.
But we’re often reminded that his rhetorical record is still growing.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3ltoyyfr5vt2m
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1943671875961287024
In his latest Fox News appearance, Homan said: “Look, people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them. They just need totality of the circumstances, right? They just go through the observation, get our typical facts — based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
NBC News reported earlier this year about concerns related to racial profiling as part of the Trump’s administration immigration raids, and hearing the White House border czar talk about ICE agents being able to detain people based on “their physical appearance” will likely make those concerns worse.
What's more, Homan's on-air comments sparked quick pushback from Capitol Hill. Rep. Daniel Goldman said via Bluesky that the border czar's assessment was "patently false."
The New York Democrat added, "DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop."
But we’re often reminded that his rhetorical record is still growing.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:4llrhdclvdlmmynkwsmg5tdc/post/3ltoyyfr5vt2m
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1943671875961287024
In his latest Fox News appearance, Homan said: “Look, people need to understand, ICE officers and Border Patrol don’t need probable cause to walk up to somebody, briefly detain them, and question them. They just need totality of the circumstances, right? They just go through the observation, get our typical facts — based on the location, the occupation, their physical appearance, their actions.”
NBC News reported earlier this year about concerns related to racial profiling as part of the Trump’s administration immigration raids, and hearing the White House border czar talk about ICE agents being able to detain people based on “their physical appearance” will likely make those concerns worse.
What's more, Homan's on-air comments sparked quick pushback from Capitol Hill. Rep. Daniel Goldman said via Bluesky that the border czar's assessment was "patently false."
The New York Democrat added, "DHS has authority to question and search people coming into the country at points of entry. But ICE may not detain and question anyone without reasonable suspicion — and certainly not based on their physical appearance alone. This lawlessness must stop."
July 11, 2025
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/spotlight-kristi-noem-brings-administrations-brutal-inefficiencies-foc-rcna218243
Maddow Blog-In the spotlight, Kristi Noem brings the administration's brutal inefficiencies into focus
Six months into Trump’s second term, Americans confront more bureaucracy, more paperwork, more delays and more inefficiencies.
Six months into Trump’s second term, Americans seeing more bureaucracy, more paperwork, more delays, and more inefficiencies.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-07-11T16:03:50.349Z
Kristi Noem’s 0,000 rule is a problem, but the larger pattern is a bigger problem. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/spotlight-kristi-noem-brings-administrations-brutal-inefficiencies-foc-rcna218243
But The Washington Post published a related report about the significance of a memo Noem issued a month ago, which requires Department of Homeland Security personnel to get her personal approval on spending in excess of $100,000. From the Post’s article:
.....This has not been a fleeting concern. The Post went on to report two months later on agencies and officials being “incapacitated” by new and unnecessary regulations:
It’s not just spending restrictions, either. In some agencies, government operations have slowed to a crawl because vendors have to complete paperwork certifying their opposition to “diversity, equity and inclusion” policies.
What’s more, Trump and his team aren’t just creating new hurdles for federal employees and departments, they’re also poised to create related problems for the public. Indeed, among the most notable elements of the Republican Party’s far-right megabill are new bureaucratic requirements for Medicaid recipients, among others.
As The Atlantic’s Jon Chait recently explained: “Congress is not finding magical efficiencies. To the contrary, the bill introduces inefficiencies by design. The main way it will throw people off their health insurance is by requiring Medicaid recipients to show proof of employment. States that have tried this have found the paperwork so onerous that most people who lose their insurance are actually Medicaid-eligible but unable to navigate the endless bureaucratic hassle. The end result will be to punish not only the millions of Americans who lose Medicaid but also the millions more who will pay an infuriating time tax by undergoing periodic miniature IRS audits merely to maintain access to basic medical care.”
Nearly six months into the new era of Republican control, Americans are confronting more government, more bureaucracy, more paperwork, more breakdowns within federal agencies, more delays, and perhaps most importantly, more inefficiencies.
That’s the opposite of what Trump promised on the campaign trail.
Deployments of critical resources, such as tactical and specialized search and rescue teams, were delayed as a result of a budget restriction requiring Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem to approve every purchase, contract and grant over $100,000, according to a dozen current and former FEMA employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak with the media.
.....This has not been a fleeting concern. The Post went on to report two months later on agencies and officials being “incapacitated” by new and unnecessary regulations:
At the Environmental Protection Agency, research at 11 laboratories has ground to a halt because the Trump administration has not approved most new lab purchases. At the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, key work on weather forecasting has slowed to a crawl because Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick must sign off personally on many contracts and grants. And at the Social Security Administration, some employees are running out of paper, pens and printer toner because the U.S. DOGE Service has placed a $1 spending limit on government-issued credit cards.
It’s not just spending restrictions, either. In some agencies, government operations have slowed to a crawl because vendors have to complete paperwork certifying their opposition to “diversity, equity and inclusion” policies.
What’s more, Trump and his team aren’t just creating new hurdles for federal employees and departments, they’re also poised to create related problems for the public. Indeed, among the most notable elements of the Republican Party’s far-right megabill are new bureaucratic requirements for Medicaid recipients, among others.
As The Atlantic’s Jon Chait recently explained: “Congress is not finding magical efficiencies. To the contrary, the bill introduces inefficiencies by design. The main way it will throw people off their health insurance is by requiring Medicaid recipients to show proof of employment. States that have tried this have found the paperwork so onerous that most people who lose their insurance are actually Medicaid-eligible but unable to navigate the endless bureaucratic hassle. The end result will be to punish not only the millions of Americans who lose Medicaid but also the millions more who will pay an infuriating time tax by undergoing periodic miniature IRS audits merely to maintain access to basic medical care.”
Nearly six months into the new era of Republican control, Americans are confronting more government, more bureaucracy, more paperwork, more breakdowns within federal agencies, more delays, and perhaps most importantly, more inefficiencies.
That’s the opposite of what Trump promised on the campaign trail.
July 11, 2025
https://x.com/pjmooney/status/1943575247355293898
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/are-republican-leaders-silent-rep-randy-fines-anti-muslim-rhetoric-rcna218038
Why are Republican leaders silent about Rep. Randy Fine's anti-Muslim rhetoric?
It’d be easy for GOP leaders to make clear that they disapprove of Islamophobic messages. Their silence speaks volumes.
Why are Republican leaders silent about Rep. Randy Fine’s anti-Muslim rhetoric?
— [The Great War & Modern Memory] (@ps9714.bsky.social) 2025-07-11T05:20:44.430Z
It’d be easy for GOP leaders to make clear that they disapprove of Islamophobic messages. Their silence speaks volumes.
https://x.com/pjmooney/status/1943575247355293898
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/are-republican-leaders-silent-rep-randy-fines-anti-muslim-rhetoric-rcna218038
As a state lawmaker in Florida, Republican Rep. Randy Fine earned a reputation as a bombastic far-right politician who enjoyed picking ugly fights. Three months into his tenure in Congress, the GOP congressman isn’t exactly turning over a more respectable leaf. NBC News reported:
In fact, the Florida Republican specifically wrote via social media, in a message directed at the Minnesota Democrat: “I’m sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists. The only shame is that you serve in Congress.”.....
As recently as last fall, Republicans made gains with Arab and Muslim voters. The party doesn’t seem especially eager to return the favor. On the contrary, GOP officials appear to be sending an unmistakable signal: In the contemporary Republican Party, anti-Muslim attitudes are, at a minimum, tolerated.
As for the larger context, Fine’s rhetoric comes against a backdrop of related Islamophobic animus from Donald Trump and his administration.
My MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones recently summarized, “[T]his administration has spent its opening months seemingly grooming the MAGA movement to be OK with blatant racism — or, at minimum, accept it as a natural part of political discourse.” It’s a lesson Randy Fine appears to have learned all too well.
Top House Democrats defended Rep. Ilhan Omar after Rep. Randy Fine made an Islamophobic retort toward Omar for her criticism of [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu. [Tuesday] night, Omar, D-Minn., condemned Netanyahu’s latest trip to Washington, calling the visit ‘beyond shameful’ and implying that Netanyahu is a war criminal who needs to be ‘held accountable for his crimes, not platformed.’ Fine, R-Fla., in response likened Omar to a ‘Muslim terrorist.’
In fact, the Florida Republican specifically wrote via social media, in a message directed at the Minnesota Democrat: “I’m sure it is difficult to see us welcome the killer of so many of your fellow Muslim terrorists. The only shame is that you serve in Congress.”.....
As recently as last fall, Republicans made gains with Arab and Muslim voters. The party doesn’t seem especially eager to return the favor. On the contrary, GOP officials appear to be sending an unmistakable signal: In the contemporary Republican Party, anti-Muslim attitudes are, at a minimum, tolerated.
As for the larger context, Fine’s rhetoric comes against a backdrop of related Islamophobic animus from Donald Trump and his administration.
My MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones recently summarized, “[T]his administration has spent its opening months seemingly grooming the MAGA movement to be OK with blatant racism — or, at minimum, accept it as a natural part of political discourse.” It’s a lesson Randy Fine appears to have learned all too well.
July 11, 2025
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-turns-debate-masked-ice-agents-ridiculous-patriotism-test-rcna217961
Trump turns debate over masked ICE agents into a ridiculous patriotism test
Two Democratic senators unveiled a bill to unmask ICE agents. The president responded by insisting that the lawmakers “hate our country.”
Rump's definition of Patriotism starts and ends with a salute to his mirror.
— Richard, Democratic activist, âŒðŸ‘‘ (@resist4747.bsky.social) 2025-07-11T06:53:57.968Z
Trump turns debate over masked ICE agents into a ridiculous patriotism test www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo... via @msnbc
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-turns-debate-masked-ice-agents-ridiculous-patriotism-test-rcna217961
At Donald Trump’s latest White House event, the president was asked whether he’d sign a bill to require immigration agents to do their jobs without masks. He could’ve said he’d veto such a measure, and he could’ve tried to defend the practice of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents covering their faces.
But the Republican instead responded in a deeply ugly way.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:aunpu65mdrhwfie7ynymlzeh/post/3ltkfeck7l22w
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1943001838950723641
Referring to Senate Democratic sponsors of a proposal on the practice, Trump said, “Well, they wouldn’t be saying that if they didn’t hate our country — and they obviously do.”....
With this in mind, two Democratic senators — New Jersey’s Cory Booker and California’s Alex Padilla — this week introduced new legislation called the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement Act (or VISIBLE Act). The point of the bill is simple: It would, if approved, require immigration enforcement officers to display clearly visible identification, while remaining unmasked, when executing their public duties.
“When federal immigration agents show up and pull someone off the street in plainclothes with their face obscured and no visible identification, it only escalates tensions and spreads fear while shielding federal agents from basic accountability,” Padilla, whose recent history is highly relevant, said in a statement. “Immigration agents should be required to display their agency and name or badge number — just like police and other local law enforcement agencies. The VISIBLE Act’s commonsense requirements will restore transparency and ensure impersonators can’t exploit the panic and confusion caused by unidentifiable federal immigration enforcement agents.”
If the president wants to say he’d veto such a bill, fine. If he wants to make a substantive case against it, great. But when asked about the legislative effort, Trump instead argued that Booker and Padilla “hate” the United States, which is offensive and insane.
In the American tradition, law enforcement personnel have always been identifiable and unmasked. The proposal from Padilla and Booker isn’t some radical reform; it’s an endorsement of routine practices that have existed in this country for generations.
For Trump to argue that it’s somehow unpatriotic to endorse an American norm offers a peek into a deeply twisted perspective.
But the Republican instead responded in a deeply ugly way.
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:aunpu65mdrhwfie7ynymlzeh/post/3ltkfeck7l22w
https://x.com/BulwarkOnline/status/1943001838950723641
Referring to Senate Democratic sponsors of a proposal on the practice, Trump said, “Well, they wouldn’t be saying that if they didn’t hate our country — and they obviously do.”....
With this in mind, two Democratic senators — New Jersey’s Cory Booker and California’s Alex Padilla — this week introduced new legislation called the Visible Identification Standards for Immigration-Based Law Enforcement Act (or VISIBLE Act). The point of the bill is simple: It would, if approved, require immigration enforcement officers to display clearly visible identification, while remaining unmasked, when executing their public duties.
“When federal immigration agents show up and pull someone off the street in plainclothes with their face obscured and no visible identification, it only escalates tensions and spreads fear while shielding federal agents from basic accountability,” Padilla, whose recent history is highly relevant, said in a statement. “Immigration agents should be required to display their agency and name or badge number — just like police and other local law enforcement agencies. The VISIBLE Act’s commonsense requirements will restore transparency and ensure impersonators can’t exploit the panic and confusion caused by unidentifiable federal immigration enforcement agents.”
If the president wants to say he’d veto such a bill, fine. If he wants to make a substantive case against it, great. But when asked about the legislative effort, Trump instead argued that Booker and Padilla “hate” the United States, which is offensive and insane.
In the American tradition, law enforcement personnel have always been identifiable and unmasked. The proposal from Padilla and Booker isn’t some radical reform; it’s an endorsement of routine practices that have existed in this country for generations.
For Trump to argue that it’s somehow unpatriotic to endorse an American norm offers a peek into a deeply twisted perspective.
July 11, 2025
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-taps-maga-personality-diplomatic-post-creates-new-test-senate-re-rcna218232
Maddow Blog-Trump taps MAGA personality for diplomatic post, creates new test for Senate Republicans
The question isn’t whether Nick Adams is qualified to serve as the ambassador to Malaysia. The question is how GOP senators will react to his nomination.
The question isn't whether MAGA personality Nick Adams should be the U.S. ambassador to Malaysia; he obviously should not.
— Steve Benen (@stevebenen.com) 2025-07-11T12:40:18.279Z
The question is how Senate Republicans will handle his nomination — and I’m afraid we know the answer. www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/trump-taps-maga-personality-diplomatic-post-creates-new-test-senate-re-rcna218232
Donald Trump’s interest in hiring conservative media personalities for federal jobs has been well documented. After all, the president has hired at least 20 former Fox News personalities, while tapping far-right podcast personalities to serve as both the director and deputy director of the FBI.
Predictably, the list is still growing longer. This week, for example, the Republican nominated Nick Adams, a prominent right-wing influencer and unabashed Trump cheerleader, to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Malaysia. For those unfamiliar with Adams, NBC News highlighted elements of his rhetorical record.
.....He’s similarly claimed, “Unfortunately today it’s more important to be a minority than it is to be a qualified person. The most persecuted group in the United States of America are straight, white, Christian men.”
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:t6ubj2wlhc34awzcymh3qpur/post/3ltn7p4sxfk24
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1943413386147967296
NBC News’ report added that Adams’ over-the-top sycophancy has been so ridiculous that some have speculated about whether he’s actually some kind of performance artist, since his antics and rhetoric are at times literally unbelievable. The skepticism is understandable: Well-adjusted adults tend not to publish tweets such as, “I’m a walking, talking masterpiece of masculinity. Testosterone levels spike when I enter a room. Everywhere I go, I leave a trail of awestruck admirers in my wake.”....
As is the case with all ambassadorial positions, Adams will need to be confirmed by the Senate, which in turn creates yet another test for the chamber’s Republican majority. So far in 2025, GOP senators have voted down exactly zero Trump nominees, becoming effectively a rubber stamp for the president.
Will Senate Republicans do what they’re told once again, despite the obvious fact that Adams has no business serving in a diplomatic position? Watch this space.
Predictably, the list is still growing longer. This week, for example, the Republican nominated Nick Adams, a prominent right-wing influencer and unabashed Trump cheerleader, to serve as the next U.S. ambassador to Malaysia. For those unfamiliar with Adams, NBC News highlighted elements of his rhetorical record.
He is ... known for displays of bravado about his own machismo, including his love of the restaurant chain Hooters. In one post, he wrote: ‘I am based. I have rizz. I am smart. I am charismatic. I have superior genetics. I am strong. I am bold. I am intense. I have large amounts of testosterone. I am never wrong. I don’t apologize. I am an alpha male.’ ‘I never asked to be turned into a sex icon, God made me this attractive,’ he wrote in another.
.....He’s similarly claimed, “Unfortunately today it’s more important to be a minority than it is to be a qualified person. The most persecuted group in the United States of America are straight, white, Christian men.”
https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:t6ubj2wlhc34awzcymh3qpur/post/3ltn7p4sxfk24
https://x.com/RonFilipkowski/status/1943413386147967296
NBC News’ report added that Adams’ over-the-top sycophancy has been so ridiculous that some have speculated about whether he’s actually some kind of performance artist, since his antics and rhetoric are at times literally unbelievable. The skepticism is understandable: Well-adjusted adults tend not to publish tweets such as, “I’m a walking, talking masterpiece of masculinity. Testosterone levels spike when I enter a room. Everywhere I go, I leave a trail of awestruck admirers in my wake.”....
As is the case with all ambassadorial positions, Adams will need to be confirmed by the Senate, which in turn creates yet another test for the chamber’s Republican majority. So far in 2025, GOP senators have voted down exactly zero Trump nominees, becoming effectively a rubber stamp for the president.
Will Senate Republicans do what they’re told once again, despite the obvious fact that Adams has no business serving in a diplomatic position? Watch this space.
July 11, 2025
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/5-major-problems-trumps-radical-tariff-gambit-brazil-bolsonaro-trial-rcna218070
These tariffs are not about trade but one dictator trying to protect another dictator
Maddow Blog-5 major problems with Trump's radical tariff gambit toward Brazil
Is the president willing to punish U.S. consumers because he hopes to shield a former foreign leader from legal accountability? Actually, yes.
5 major problems with Trump’s radical tariff gambit toward Brazil www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddo...
— @jimrissmiller.bsky.social 2025-07-10T20:56:09.726Z
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/maddowblog/5-major-problems-trumps-radical-tariff-gambit-brazil-bolsonaro-trial-rcna218070
When it comes to former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, however, the incumbent American president is apparently not content to simply pound the table. As my MSNBC colleague Hayes Brown summarized:
To briefly recap, voters in Brazil overlooked Bolsonaro’s scandal-plagued record in 2018 and elected him president. Four years later, he narrowly lost his bid for a second term and allegedly plotted what was effectively a coup that would’ve allowed him to remain in power despite his election defeat.....
But unlike the French and Israeli examples, Trump is also using tariffs as part of a clumsy scheme to help his Brazilian pal, sending an unhinged and ridiculously written letter to the country’s actual president, scolding the foreign government, and connecting the case against Bolsonaro to U.S. trade policy.
What’s wrong with that? Quite a bit, actually.
1. Trump appears to have forgotten about the legal basis of his trade agenda: According to the White House, the president can unilaterally impose arbitrary tariffs on U.S. trade partners because he’s declared an economic emergency resulting from trade deficits. The trouble in this instance, however, is that the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil, adding a legally dubious twist to the Republican’s radical gambit.
2. This is a diplomatic fiasco of historic proportions: There is no precedent for a U.S. administration trying to leverage trade policy to derail a criminal case in a sovereign nation.
On the Netanyahu matter, a recent Axios report noted, “Trump’s comments in a post on his Truth Social account were an unprecedented intervention by a U.S. president in a legal proceeding in another democratic ally.” But that was just rhetoric; with Brazil, he’s imposing actual economic penalties.......
5. Trump is turning U.S. values on their head: There is some precedent for a U.S. administration using tariffs in pursuit of political goals, but those earlier cases, we were trying to lean on foreign governments to be more just, not less. Trump has the whole model backwards.
Hayes concluded, “[T]he decision to use tariffs as a cudgel to bring Brazil to heel for following its own laws marks a distinct shift in Trump’s willingness to engage in economic warfare for his own personal interests.”
If someone is prepared to offer a defense for such a move, I’m eager to hear it
President Donald Trump sent his Brazilian counterpart a stunning letter Wednesday, informing President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva that his country would face a new 50% tariff ‘due in part to ... the way Brazil has treated’ former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, a Trump political ally. Trump blamed the massive spike in tariffs partly on ‘Brazil’s insidious attacks on Free Elections, and the fundamental Free Speech Rights of Americans.’
To briefly recap, voters in Brazil overlooked Bolsonaro’s scandal-plagued record in 2018 and elected him president. Four years later, he narrowly lost his bid for a second term and allegedly plotted what was effectively a coup that would’ve allowed him to remain in power despite his election defeat.....
But unlike the French and Israeli examples, Trump is also using tariffs as part of a clumsy scheme to help his Brazilian pal, sending an unhinged and ridiculously written letter to the country’s actual president, scolding the foreign government, and connecting the case against Bolsonaro to U.S. trade policy.
What’s wrong with that? Quite a bit, actually.
1. Trump appears to have forgotten about the legal basis of his trade agenda: According to the White House, the president can unilaterally impose arbitrary tariffs on U.S. trade partners because he’s declared an economic emergency resulting from trade deficits. The trouble in this instance, however, is that the United States has a trade surplus with Brazil, adding a legally dubious twist to the Republican’s radical gambit.
2. This is a diplomatic fiasco of historic proportions: There is no precedent for a U.S. administration trying to leverage trade policy to derail a criminal case in a sovereign nation.
On the Netanyahu matter, a recent Axios report noted, “Trump’s comments in a post on his Truth Social account were an unprecedented intervention by a U.S. president in a legal proceeding in another democratic ally.” But that was just rhetoric; with Brazil, he’s imposing actual economic penalties.......
5. Trump is turning U.S. values on their head: There is some precedent for a U.S. administration using tariffs in pursuit of political goals, but those earlier cases, we were trying to lean on foreign governments to be more just, not less. Trump has the whole model backwards.
Hayes concluded, “[T]he decision to use tariffs as a cudgel to bring Brazil to heel for following its own laws marks a distinct shift in Trump’s willingness to engage in economic warfare for his own personal interests.”
If someone is prepared to offer a defense for such a move, I’m eager to hear it
These tariffs are not about trade but one dictator trying to protect another dictator
Profile Information
Member since: Mon Apr 5, 2004, 04:58 PMNumber of posts: 166,103