Democrat Politics

On Monday, the conservatives on the Supreme Court did President Donald Trump a solid without breaking a sweat … or even the one-page mark. With no explanation, the court let Trump go ahead, at least temporarily, with his bigoted plan to ban transgender people from serving in the military, including forcibly discharging current trans personnel. 

By now, it’s almost routine. The administration keeps losing at the lower courts, so they rush to the friendlier confines of the Supreme Court to try to eke out a temporary win, one where Trump gets his way while litigation continues. It’s not a strategy that pans out all the time, but when it does, it’s a treat for Trump and terrible for the rest of us. 

And that’s precisely what happened here. 

One of Trump’s first executive orders in his new administration was a regurgitation of his first-term attempt to ban transgender service members. The administration said the new ban was necessary for “troop readiness” and that the military was “afflicted with radical gender ideology.”

This was their genius idea to sidestep assertions that this was a ban based on people being trans. No, no, it’s just that trans people happen to be afflicted with radical gender ideology that harms troop readiness. However, the administration didn’t bother to explain how having transgender service members affects troop readiness, save for Trump and his allies just being weird bigots about the existence of trans people. 

A person holds a sign during a rally for the Trans Day of Visibility, on the National Mall, on March 31.

Things did not go well when two lawsuits over the ban hit the lower courts. In one case, U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes told the administration she would not be “gaslit” by its argument that this ban was somehow not a ban, particularly since Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called it a ban on X. Oh, and also, Reyes wasn’t happy that nearly every study the administration cited in support of the ban was actually contradicted by those studies. 

That’s only one case where the administration got walloped over the ban, with Reyes granting a preliminary injunction that barred the administration from implementing the ban. In another case in federal district court in Washington state, the judge granted a nationwide preliminary injunction, stopping the ban from taking effect while the court case proceeds. U.S. District Judge Benjamin Settle said, “the government’s unrelenting reliance on deference to military judgment is unjustified in the absence of any evidence supporting ‘the military’s’ new judgment[.]” 

Fam, is it good when a judge calls you out for mischaracterizing the evidence you’re relying upon, or just straight up points out you don’t have any evidence? No, no, it is not. 

These preliminary injunctions against the ban are just that—preliminary. They aren’t final rulings, and all the underlying litigation still continues. In other words, even though the lower courts walloped the administration, it’s only a temporary setback. The administration still gets to fully litigate the ban—full trial, an appeal, the works. But that’s not enough for the administration. They want the ban in place now while figuring out their justification for it. 

In general, conservatives are very unhappy about preliminary nationwide injunctions, seeing it as inherently unfair that a judge would ever rule against Trump. But courts don’t hand out preliminary injunctions willy-nilly. Reyes’ order, for example, is 79 pages long and was issued only after the judge heard multiple motions from both sides, both sides filed memoranda and exhibits supporting their position, and the judge held multiple hearings. 

It’s the same in the case before Settle. The order granting the preliminary injunction is 65 pages long. There were multiple hearings, and both sides submitted declarations, exhibits, and legal arguments supporting their positions. The order also provides a lengthy legal analysis of the standards for a preliminary injunction.

Parties have to show three things to get a preliminary injunction. First, they must show they’re likely to win at trial. Next, they must prove that the balance of hardships weighs in their favor. Finally, they need to show that their position is the status quo and that it is in the public interest to maintain it. 

Settle found that the plaintiffs would likely succeed in showing that the ban was unconstitutional because it violates their right to equal protection and that the ban discriminated against them based on their status.

Next, he found the service members would be harmed by losing their careers, incomes, and reputations. Even if the ban were ultimately overturned and they were eventually reinstated, that harm wouldn’t be undone. In contrast, the harm to the administration is that they have to wait a little longer to be bigots.

Finally, the judge found that the plaintiffs’ position is the status quo. Right now, transgender people can serve in the military. That’s the existing policy. Trump’s ban reverses it.

The Supreme Court, shown in December 2024.

Overall, the administration’s only support for the ban is demanding the court defer to the military’s decision, even if it doesn’t provide meaningful justification for that decision. 

After this loss, the administration went to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, asking it to stay the injunction so the ban could go into effect ASAP. The appeals court disagreed, leading to the administration running to the Supreme Court. 

Did the Supreme Court consider any of these things when granting the administration’s request that the preliminary injunction be stayed? We’ll never know! The one-page order does not explain its rationale, though we do learn that the court’s three liberal members would not have granted the stay. So, despite being told by two lower courts that they had presented no real reason for the ban, the administration got its ban anyway. 

It’s a way of letting conservative policies go into effect without having to justify anything. 

This isn’t a new tactic for the administration. During Trump’s first term, his administration routinely went to the Supreme Court to demand emergency relief, often trying to bypass lower courts. Right now, the administration has five more requests for stays before the court, and the court has already addressed the administration’s stay requests in over half a dozen other cases. 

The Supreme Court’s conservatives broadly support Trump and his policies, and the administration knows it. That’s why they can afford to make shoddy, disingenuous arguments to the lower court.

Why not take a big swing when you can largely count on your pals to do your bidding? These requests for emergency relief allow the administration to get a favorable ruling even when its actions fly in the face of existing law. That’s because the conservative justices care as little about procedure as they do about precedent. 

Lower courts will keep ruling against Trump because the administration is defying laws, regulations, and the Constitution. Too bad that for at least five people on the Supreme Court, that’s a feature, not a bug.

Campaign Action

A cartoon by Pedro Molina.

Related | Holy disrespect: Trump’s arrogance has Catholics steaming

Campaign Action

The dubious House Subcommittee on Delivering on Government Efficiency held its “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports” hearing Wednesday, during which its ranking Democrat, Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico, gave her colleagues a piece of her mind.

“Let’s call this hearing what it actually is. It’s about bullying trans kids and members of the trans community to distract from the failed policies of the Trump administration, the failed policies and exploitation of this DOGE subcommittee, and the GOP’s own cruel agenda that is happening right now here on Capitol Hill, as they’re trying to gut Medicaid, gut food assistance, gut environmental programs to give tax breaks to billionaires, because that is actually what’s going on behind these doors all around us,” Stansbury said.

x

x
YouTube Video

Stansbury then addressed the LGBTQ+ community, affirming that Democrats are on their side.

“This is a committee here in Congress that was created this year by the GOP, supposedly to address government efficiency. And this hearing literally has nothing to do with that,” she said, before excoriating Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and the rest of the GOP for turning the subcommittee into a spectacle of bigotry. 

“Maybe it’s to distract from the reality that our economy is tanking and prices are going up. Maybe it’s because the budget that came to Congress last week doubles down on proposals to take food out of the mouths of children,” she said.

She then highlighted how disastrous President Donald Trump’s first 100 days—and the broader Republican agenda of austerity cuts—have been for the nation. She also noted that she and her colleagues expect Greene’s DOGE subcommittee to devolve into a vehicle for right-wing propaganda, especially after the GOP’s first hearing flopped so badly. 

She concluded by calling for the hearing to be adjourned, but the GOP majority unfortunately voted to continue talking about transgender athletes … and fencing … and the Olympics. 

At least Stansbury upheld the subcommittee’s so-called mission of “efficiency.”

You can read the full transcript of Stansbury’s speech here.

Campaign Action

On Wednesday, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell defended the bank’s decision to stabilize interest rates. He said that, while the economy seems solid, President Donald Trump’s tariffs increase the risk of inflation and unemployment, warranting a pause in monetary policy to see how things go.

“If the large increases in tariffs that have been announced are sustained, they’re likely to generate a rise in inflation, a slowdown in economic growth, and an increase in unemployment,” Powell said during a press conference.

x

x
YouTube Video

 A simultaneous increase in unemployment and inflation is known as “stagflation,” which is not only rare but is also exceedingly difficult for the Federal Reserve and policymakers to solve, since the tactics that they would usually use to fix one would exacerbate the other. 

For example, lowering interest rates leads to economic and job growth, but it often spikes inflation. Conversely, raising rates leads to slower growth that helps ease inflation, but it doesn’t help jumpstart the job market.

A cartoon by Clay Bennett.

“The Fed didn’t use the word ‘stagflation,’ but that’s what it’s warning about. Never a good moment when your central bank says that it’s worried about *both* higher unemployment and higher inflation. That’s a problem that monetary policy alone can’t solve,” Justin Wolfers, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, wrote on X.

The Federal Reserve’s decision to stabilize interest rates is likely to piss off Trump, who has demanded that Powell cut rates.

“The [European Central Bank] is expected to cut interest rates for the 7th time, and yet, ‘Too Late’ Jerome Powell of the Fed, who is always TOO LATE AND WRONG, yesterday issued a report which was another, and typical, complete ‘mess!’ Oil prices are down, groceries (even eggs!) are down, and the USA is getting RICH ON TARIFFS. Too Late should have lowered Interest Rates, like the ECB, long ago, but he should certainly lower them now. Powell’s termination cannot come fast enough!” Trump wrote on Truth Social on April 17.

He has even threatened to fire Powell for not lowering interest rates, only backing off when the stock market tanked as investors feared that Trump would end the Federal Reserve’s independence. 

President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in the Oval Office on May 6.

Meanwhile, Democrats are already seizing on Powell’s warning that tariffs could lead to stagflation.

“Donald Trump’s tariffs mean you could suffer higher prices and lose your job AT THE SAME TIME. Forget dolls, families will be forced to make impossible choices between necessities like food, housing, and health care,” Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts wrote on X.

But even as the economic warning lights are flashing red, Trump says that he has no plans to lift his tariffs on Canada, a major U.S. trading partner, and that he is fine with a trade embargo on China.

“By not trading, we’re losing nothing. So we’re saving a trillion dollars. That’s a lot,” Trump falsely claimed during a meeting with Canada’s newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney on Tuesday.

x

x
YouTube Video

Instead, he’s telling Americans that their children will just have to deal with having fewer toys. But if Trump keeps up his idiotic tariffs, the pain will be felt much further than the toy store.

Campaign Action

Senior presidential adviser Kari Lake announced late Tuesday that she’s struck a deal with One America News to beam its pro-Trump propaganda through Voice of America—making clear her intent to transform the government-funded broadcaster into a mouthpiece for the far-right.

Voice of America is currently off the air, gutted under President Donald Trump. But it may soon return as a vessel for one of his most loyal media allies. Lake said OAN will now provide “newsfeed services” not just to VOA but also to other networks under the U.S. Agency for Global Media, including the Office of Cuba Broadcasting and Radio Martí, a Miami-based station that broadcasts in Cuba.

“USAGM is excited to announce a partnership with One America News Network,” Lake posted on social media, noting OAN was offering its newsfeed “free of charge.”

While Lake admitted she doesn’t have direct editorial control over VOA, she made it clear she intends to funnel MAGA-aligned content into its coverage. To that end, Lake said she plans to “ensure our outlets have reliable and credible options as they work to craft their reporting and news programs.”

Senior presidential adviser Kari Lake

However, OAN is anything but credible. The network, founded in 2013, has been dropped by nearly every major cable and satellite provider and was a major promoter of Trump’s false claims about the 2020 election—lies that led to several defamation lawsuits, including one from the voting technology company Smartmatic, which OAN quietly settled in 2024. And one of the network’s current hosts is former Republican Rep. Matt Gaetz of Florida, who resigned in disgrace after allegations of drug use and sex with minors.

While Trump’s allies boost hyperpartisan outlets, they’re also punishing fact-based media outlets. His administration is working to block the Associated Press from covering presidential events, all while reserving briefing room seats for far-right, fringe-friendly allies.

It’s also unclear how this OAN deal squares with Trump’s ongoing legal battles. He’s fighting to uphold a March executive order dismantling USAGM, issued after he accused VOA of bias. That order led to over 1,000 VOA staffers being placed on leave, the termination of 600 contractors, and the suspension of broadcasting for the first time in the agency’s 83-year history.

U.S. District Judge Royce Lamberth blocked the order on April 22, which would have allowed more staff to return. But a federal appeals court—stacked with two Trump appointees—partially stayed the ruling, halting the return of employees while still requiring VOA to fulfill its legal mandate. Lake appears ready to use OAN’s content to meet that mandate, without rebuilding the network as it was. Trump hasn’t commented publicly on Lake’s plan.

Fears of a right-wing reboot of VOA are widespread.

“VOA is not to be the voice of left America nor the voice of right America,” Steve Herman, chief national correspondent for VOA, told The Washington Post. “USAGM cannot dictate [that] VOA run OAN content. It would be a violation of our fire wall and our charter, which are laws.”

Grant Turner, former USAGM chief financial officer, was more blunt, telling NPR, “Kari Lake providing One America News Network to our global audiences makes a mockery of the agency’s history of independent nonpartisan journalism.”

Lake, a twice-failed MAGA candidate for office in Arizona, is a former TV anchor who’s spent years echoing Trump’s lies about election fraud—claims she’s made about her own losses too.

What’s unfolding at Voice of America isn’t just a bureaucratic shakeup—it’s a warning shot. A network initially created to fight propaganda abroad is now at risk of becoming a government-run amplifier of it at home.

Campaign Action

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know.

Transportation chief blames DEI and Biden for ongoing air safety woes

It’s just more spin from a guy who voted to defund the Federal Aviation Administration.

Travelers beware: Trump’s REAL ID rollout is a real mess

Gotta love bureaucratic red tape.

JD Vance’s brother got clobbered in primary for mayor of Cincinnati

So much for nepotism.

Illinois governor slams dog-killing Noem in latest jab at Team Trump

“Make sure all of your beloved animals are under watchful protection while the secretary is in the region.” 

Cartoon: Loo musings

He’s just throwing shit against the wall to see what sticks.

Trump reportedly seeking out new horrific places to deport people

Because it’s all about the cruelty.

GOP budget plans would rip health care away from millions

Americans are going to have One Big Beautiful list of expletives if this passes.

Black college faces threats after Crockett commencement speech slams Trump

This is what happens when you don’t bow down before Dear Leader.

Click here to see more cartoons.

Campaign Action

President Donald Trump suffered a loss Wednesday in his attack on the First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments. A three-judge panel from the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York ruled that his administration cannot continue to detain Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk in a Louisiana correctional facility and must transfer her back to Vermont by May 14.

“The District of Vermont is likely the proper venue to adjudicate Öztürk’s habeas petition because, at the time she filed, she was physically in Vermont and her immediate custodian was unknown,” the court wrote in its ruling.

Öztürk is one of several high-profile cases that legal experts and civil rights activists justifiably characterize as unconstitutional arrests carried out by thugs in Trump’s Department of Homeland Security. These detentions are emblematic of a broader campaign targeting international college students as so-called foreign threats, without due process or credible evidence.

The administration has claimed it sent students like Öztürk to Louisiana due to a lack of space in local facilities where they were arrested—a claim a federal court in Massachusetts found dubious after pointing out there was space in facilities much closer to where she was detained. 

Experts believe the Trump administration’s actual motive for using states like Louisiana to detain students is a way to funnel legal appeals through the country’s most conservative, and Trump-appointed, 5th Circuit Court of Appeals—which oversees cases out of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas.

Related | ‘It looked like a kidnapping’: Students continue to go missing under Trump

Öztürk was pulled off the street in front of her apartment in what onlookers said “looked like a kidnapping.” ProPublica reported “Surveillance video from March 25 shows her walking to dinner in Somerville, Massachusetts, near the Tufts campus, chatting on the phone with her mother when she is swarmed by six masked plainclothes officers. Öztürk screams.”

Mahmoud Khalil

Others have faced similar hurdles. On Tuesday, Mahmoud Khalil, a former Columbia University student who was pulled from his home in New York City and taken to Louisiana in March, won a legal victory when the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to appeal an earlier court ruling requiring that his case be heard in New Jersey.

Also on Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Patricia Tolliver Giles ruled that Georgetown University researcher Badar Khan Suri, arrested at his Arlington County home and sent to a facility in Texas by Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials, must have his case heard in Virginia.

And at the end of April, Mohsen Mahdawi, another Columbia student was released from Homeland Security custody in Vermont, while the Trump administration scrambles to create a case for his deportation. Like the others targeted by the Trump administration, Mahdawi has been living in the United States legally while going through the immigration process.

The judicial pushback against the Trump administration’s authoritarian attempts to throw out the Constitution is heartening but the fight is far from over. 

Campaign Action

A historically black college in Jackson, Mississippi, has received threats of violence following a commencement address delivered there on Sunday. Rep. Jasmine Crockett of Texas, an outspoken Democratic critic of Donald Trump and his policies, gave the impassioned speech at Tougaloo College.

In a letter addressed to the “Tougaloo Family,” President Donzell Lee said the school received “concerning calls” in reference to Crockett’s speech, and that they were not being taken lightly.

“Appropriate actions have been taken,” Lee wrote, adding, “Contact has been made with law enforcement authorities to ensure that safety protocols are in place, if needed.”

In her speech, Crockett addressed racism, a cornerstone of Trump’s rhetoric since he entered the political arena in 2015 that he has embraced as a candidate and as president.

“Instead of publicly calling us the N-word they use racist epithets and suggest that we’re ghetto, or unqualified, or diversity hires,” Crockett said.

Trump has repeatedly invoked “DEI”—or diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts—as a bogeyman and used his opposition as an excuse to pursue racist policies during his presidency. Trump has purged history celebrating Black achievement, fired Black military and government leaders, and signed orders attempting to undo the gains of the Civil Rights Movement.

“No low is too low for MAGA,” Crockett wrote on Wednesday in light of the threats received by Tougaloo. “…now explain to me why an institution would be receiving threats because of the commencement speech that I GAVE.”

She said this type of action is why she has to “constantly” have protection and that truth-telling is “dangerous business.”

Related | Why is the right obsessed with attacking Rep. Jasmine Crockett?

The threats against Tougaloo also follow Trump singling out Crockett on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday.

“Look at the Democrats, they have a new person named Crockett,” Trump complained. “I watched her speak the other day and she’s definitely a low IQ person.”

Trump, who has said Canada has a “faucet” denying water to California and argued that climate change is a Chinese “hoax,” loves to claim that his political rivals—especially women of color like Crockett—have low IQs.

An accomplished civil rights attorney, Crockett has repeatedly come under fire from the right. The former public defender and Texas state representative has faced attacks from members of the Trump administration, thirsty House Republicans, and right-wing media like Fox News.

Why? Because she refuses to bow before Trump, as so many others have.

Campaign Action

A cartoon by Tim Campbell.

Related | Convicted felon Trump is obsessed with putting other people in prison

Campaign Action

House Republican plans to slash $880 billion from the federal budget would lead to millions of Americans getting booted from their health insurance, according to a nonpartisan analysis released Wednesday.

Democrats asked the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency that analyzes the impacts of legislation, to review changes that House Republicans are debating making to Medicaid in order to finance President Donald Trump’s “One Big Beautiful Bill,” which would extend his 2017 tax cuts for the rich and fund his evil immigration plans.

A sign points visitors toward the financial services department at a hospital on Jan. 24, 2014.

The CBO’s report shows that the varying Republican plans would lead as many as 8.6 million low-income Americans to lose their Medicaid coverage and either have to pay for coverage or go without insurance.

In analyzing five different Republican proposals to cut Medicaid spending, the CBO found that all of them would lead to many, many Americans losing their Medicaid coverage.

“Medicaid cuts will result in the federal government paying more and a sicker society overall.  Republicans don’t care as long it means a windfall for billionaires like Elon Musk,” New Jersey’s Frank Pallone, the top Democrat of the House Energy and Commerce Committee who requested the CBO analysis, said in a Wednesday post on X.

The most destructive plan that Republicans are debating is ending a tax loophole 49 states use to get more federal funding for Medicaid expenditures. 

The New York Times explained how this tax loophole works:

In its simplest form, the tax maneuver works like this: When a Medicaid patient goes to the hospital, the federal government and state usually share the costs. The ratio varies from one state to another, depending on how poor the state is, but the federal government often pays around 60 percent of the bill.
 
States that use provider taxes to get more money usually start by paying the hospitals more. If the federal government is paying 60 percent and the state 40 percent, when a state bumps a payment to $1,030 from $1,000, the federal government chips in $618 instead of $600.

If Republicans end this loophole, it would get Republicans much of their desired $880 billion in federal savings, but 8.6 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage, and 3.9 million people would simply go without health insurance altogether, the CBO said.

Next up, the CBO looked at a GOP proposal to cap how much Medicaid pays states for each enrollee.

The Hill explained how those per-capita caps would work:

A per-beneficiary cap would fundamentally change Medicaid from an open-ended entitlement to one with strict limits on federal spending. Congress would set a fixed amount per beneficiary for each state to receive, and states would be responsible for all remaining costs.

The CBO found that if Republicans capped spending for all Medicaid enrollees, it would cause as many as 5.8 million people to be kicked off Medicaid, with 2.9 million people becoming uninsured.

The CBO also looked at Republicans’ plan to lower the federal medical assistance percentage each state receives. Lowering FMAP rates would negatively impact Republican-controlled states the most, as many of those states receive the highest FMAP rates. Republican-controlled states make up nine of the top 10 states with the highest FMAP percentages, according to KFF, a health news outlet.

If Republicans reduce FMAP rates, 5.5 million people would lose their Medicaid coverage, and 2.4 million would become uninsured, according to the CBO.

x
Datawrapper Content

Ultimately, cutting Medicaid to finance tax cuts that primarily benefit the wealthy is politically toxic. Polls show voters like Medicaid and don’t want Republicans to use cuts to the program to fund Trump’s tax plans.

Vulnerable Republican lawmakers seem to understand this, with many all but begging House GOP leadership not to make them vote to cut the program.

House Speaker Mike Johnson allegedly ruled out two of those destructive Medicaid cut plans—the FMAP reductions and per-capita spending caps—Punchbowl News reported. 

Protesters in Salt Lake City block a street during a demonstration against the Republican bill to replace former President Barack Obama’s health care law, in 2017.

However, Republican Rep. Don Bacon of Nebraska doesn’t seem to believe that, telling The Wall Street Journal that he’s been pressured to vote for those cuts. 

“Here’s the tactic they’ve been using: ‘Don’t worry about the Senate. They’ll fix it.’ And now we’re getting ready to take our third vote on this,” Bacon, who represents a district that Democrat Kamala Harris won last year, told the outlet. “We feel like we’re being pushed up to the edge of the cliff here.”

Meanwhile, Democrats, who are in the minority in both chambers of Congress and cannot by themselves vote down whatever proposal Republicans settle on, are using the CBO report to warn voters about what would happen if Republicans make these Medicaid changes.

“This is exactly what we have been ringing the alarm about. Republicans may claim they aren’t cutting Medicaid, but their actions speak louder than words,” Sen. Tammy Baldwin, Democrat of Wisconsin, wrote in a post on X of the CBO findings. “That’s why I’ll keep fighting their attempts to slash it and rip away care from American families.”

And Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York had a more blunt assessment of the CBO report.

“Told ya,” she wrote in a post on X.

Campaign Action