Trump SINKS to NEW LOW with DERANGED PARDONS
by Katie Phang
May 28, 2025
It’s PARDON PALOOZA in the Trump White House! Katie Phang on how Trump is using his pardon power to give grace to all the wrong people and sending the message that pardons are for purchase.
Transcript
well hey hey what do you say did you
hear the latest news pardons for sale
pardons for sale it is pardon palooza
ladies and gentlemen in the Trump White
House not a big shocker seeing how the
grift is the game for convicted felon
Donald Trump but I wanted to highlight
some of the most recent egregious
pardons that Donald Trump has been
pedalling um courtesy of his ability to
grant pardons and commutations an
exclusive privilege and right that he
has to do as the president which again
underscores the importance of what
voting so that we don't get somebody
like Donald Trump in the Oval Office
again well let's go through some of them
so that you understand the type of
people that are receiving the grace of a
pardon from Donald Trump first one we
have to start with is the absolute worst
there's a man by the name of Paul Walzac
w A L C Z A K and I invite you to read
up on good old Paul because his
backstory is just so gross that it was
worthwhile having this convo with all of
you great people so Paul Walzac age 55
joined his mother's nursing home
business in Florida yes I know I am in
Florida fraud capital of the world
florida fraud um so Paul Wzac joins his
mother's nursing home business she sold
the company in 2007 and get this they
invested $18 million in a new nursing
home venture based in South Florida and
according to the New York Times they
were living a quote luxurious lifestyle
because hey frankly what other kind of
lifestyle are we going to live when
we're living in fraud by 2011 according
to federal prosecutors Paul Walszac
stopped paying employment
taxes and this is according to the Times
between 2016 in 2019 Walszac withheld
more than $10
million from the paychecks of the nurses
doctors and others who worked at his
facilities under the pretext of using
that 10 million for their Social
Security Medicare and federal income
taxes stop for a second wac withheld
more than 10 million from nurses doctors
and others working at his nursing home
facilities you know the places where
they're supposed to be taking care of
our elderly loved ones and he he did it
under the lie of saying that he was
using it for social security Medicare
and federal income taxes instead
according to federal prosecutors Paul
Walszac used the money some of it cuz
that was a lot right some of the money
to buy a $2 million yacht and to pay for
travel and purchases at high-end
retailers including Burgdolf Goodman and
Cartier must be
nice charged in February of 2023 with 13
counts of tax crimes he pleaded guilty
to two of the counts and agreed to pay
restitution on November 15th of 2024 now
I want you guys to understand what was
at stake
here he plead guilty he was supposed to
do 18 months in federal prison and he
was supposed to pay back 4.4 million in
restitution not even the full 10 guys
4.4 million of restitution 18-month
federal prison sentence he was
literally 12 days away from getting to
have to go do that from what I can read
here when Donald Trump pardoned him but
remember people Trump doesn't do stuff
out of the goodness of his heart there's
got to be something transactional and
he's got to get something out of it i
mean that's the whole imalments issue
with Trump that's the whole um issue
with Israel and Gaza i mean you name it
I could go on and on okay so anyway so
how did Woolzac get his pardon well his
mother his mother
she this is now this is where it gets
Elizabeth FGO or FGO i'm going to go
with FGO elizabeth Fogo age 74 hosted at
least three fundraisers for Donald
Trump's campaigns and her other son Joey
the two of them and his wife attended
VIP events at Trump's 2017 and 2025
inaugurations and here's where it gets
even dirtier so you remember the Ashley
Biden diary that was stolen right so
these two people Amy Harris and Robert
Kurlander they're the ones who who found
the diary and they were basically
selling it to provide it to Project
Veritus a very pro-Trump uh undercover
media group well what did they do kur
and Darren Harris brought Ashley Biden's
diary to a fundraiser at Elizabeth
Fogo's home in September of 2020 where
Don Trump Jr and Kimberly Gilfoil were
there they showed Ashley Biden's diary
to a campaign finance consultant for
Donald Trump then in the end they
obviously gave it to Project Veritus and
now I'm going to keep on going because
this is important for you guys to know
and and please share this information
right elizabeth Fogo and other family
members they spent election night 2020
at the White House after he lost they
went back for a White House Christmas
party then she was appointed to the
National Cancer Advisory Board courtesy
of Donald Trump then investigators got a
search warrant in November of 2021 to
seek information about potential
co-conspirators including Paul Walzac
and Elizabeth Fogo kurlander and Harris
kurlander and Harris pleaded guilty she
got sentenced to one month in prison he
is to be sentenced next month but then
here's the thing once Trump got
reelected poof the Trump DOJ suddenly
says "We're not going to investigate
this anymore." So guess who gets to get
by foggo Paul Wzac and Project
Veritus right
so this is why you should be upset about
this instead of giving pardons to people
that merit it what do we do well Miss
Fogo ends up spending a million dollars
to go to a quote very limited dinner
with Donald Trump sponsored by MAGA Inc
and after that dinner her son gets
pardoned oh but wait there's more you
want some more Ginsu knives people let's
roll this week as well Trump pardoned
Todd and Julie Chrysley after they were
convicted in 2022 of conspiring to
defraud banks in the Atlanta area out of
more than $30 million in loans through
the submission of false documents they
also lived a quote luxurious lifestyle
todd and Julie Chrisley walked away from
their responsibility for repayment when
he declared bankruptcy he left 20
million plus dollars in unpaid loans she
was sentenced to 7 years in federal
prison he got 12 years they were ordered
to pay 17.8 million in restitution poof
poof gone trump parted them this week
according to their lawyer he says "Todd
and Julie's case is exactly why the
pardon power exists thanks to President
Trump the Chrysley family can now begin
healing and rebuilding their lives." Ah
but Donald Trump Donald Trump says
"Guess what i'm going to make it even
easier for you because now you've been
pardoned." and their daughter Savannah
Chrysley spoke at the 2024
RNC she says that her family was called
the Trumps of the South honey she says
it's not an insult somebody needs to
point that out that that is an
insult another pardon this week remember
I told you it's pardon
Palooa donald Trump
pardons former Co Pepper County Sheriff
Scott Jenkins after he was found guilty
on fraud and bribery charges sentenced
in March now remember people you got
Paul Wazac pleading guilty you have the
Chryslies going to trial and being found
guilty you have Scott Jenkins the
sheriff going to trial and being found
guilty so juries of their peers finding
them guilty trump says "Sych I'm going
to pardon who cares that you're the jury
doing your job?" Um when it comes to
this Sheriff Jenkins this is fantastic
he was indicted in 2023 on 16 counts
including conspiracy wire fraud and
bribery concerning receiving federal
funds you know what he was doing this
sheriff was doing a cash for badges
scheme so two FBI agents undercover they
gave $5,000 and $10,000 in cash each to
this sheriff and what did they get they
were sworn in as auxiliary deputies
badges and
guns cash for badges people that was
Sheriff Jenkins and guess what he's now
been pardoned trump also pardoned
Michelle Fiori Nevada Republican
Michelle Fiori in April of 2025 while
she's awaiting her sentences on federal
charges that she used money meant for a
statute to honor a slain police officer
but she used that for plastic surgery
and other personal costs oh but wait
there's more i'm still going can we
forget cuz I can't that Trump also
pardoned uh in a full and unconditional
pardon Ross Olrich who operated the Silk
Road that dark web marketplace he was
convicted in 2015 in New York in a
narcotics and moneyaundering conspiracy
and he was sentenced to life in prison
the Silk Road let's talk about this that
website sold more than $200 million
worth of drugs anonymously federal
prosecutors also alleged that Bri
solicited six murders for hire including
one against a former Silk Road employee
although no evidence existed that the
killings were actually carried out he
was also found guilty by a jury of his
peers for charges including conspiracy
to commit drug trafficking money
laundering and computer hacking the
judge when sentencing Albrech to life in
prison said quote "This was to send a
message to copycats that there are very
serious consequences." So of course
Donald Trump says "We're just going to
pardon him." Now I want to now because I
could just keep going right because we
also know about the January 6th
insurrectionists and that actually is
the segue to the next part of what we're
going to talk about
so the new pardon attorney and and
here's the thing i want to read this to
you because y'all need to see this this
actually exists on the US attorney the
pardon attorney's website the office is
led by the pardon attorney a career
senior executive the office is
non-political and operates under the
general oversight of the deputy attorney
general for over 130 years presidents
have relied on the office to support the
exercise of the constitutional clemency
power by providing neutral advice and
expertise but guess who's the new pardon
attorney ed Martin do you remember Ed
Martin interim US attorney in DC the guy
who was there on January 6 the guy who's
been raising money for the defense of
January 6 insurrectionist i don't know
the guy that also fired federal
prosecutors that had anything to do with
the January 6 investigations and
prosecutions yeah that Ed Martin well
guess what he's doing he personally
reviewed the pardon application for oh
Oathkeepers founder Steuart Rhodess as
well as 10 other people who were
convicted of sedicious con conspiracy
he's reviewing uh and those are Proud
Boys don't forget he's reviewing their
new pardon applications because they
submitted those once Ed Martin was
appointed pardon
attorney and what is Ed Martin also
doing he's also heading up a
weaponization committee kind of
department agency and he's looking into
the cases that Jack Smith was
prosecuting because he thinks and so
does Pam Bondi that those cases need to
be looking at ed Martin has also pledged
to investigate the pardons that Joe
Biden gave to family members and members
of the January 6 select committee saying
that those print of pardons are quote
something we've never seen in history
don't you love the faux outrage the
hypocrisy is effing rich right
and Ed Martin is also doing the
following he is also going to and I want
to make sure I get this right he is
preparing the pardon attorney's office
to take on a new task to review
applications from people with criminal
convictions to have their gun rights
restored look I am a fan of doing that
on a case-by case basis but you got to
do it on a case-byase basis and you and
I both know that it's going to be a lot
of people that shouldn't get their gun
rights restored restored under Ed Martin
folks it is a pardon pipeline that has
been created by Donald Trump it is now
being facilitated by the pardon attorney
Ed Martin um many of you may have seen
my Substack conversation with the former
pardon attorney a political
non-political Liz Oyer who did her job
well and exceptionally well under Biden
and other administrations and when she
and I had a chance to speak on Subsac
Live she made it very clear this is a
non-political appointment pardons in
commutations clemency this is not
something that should be driven by
political gain by political motivations
and look let's be
blunt does does that happen here or
there of course it does does it happen
under a Democratic president of course
it does but is it so brazen and grifty
like it is here with Donald Trump it is
a Donald Trump specialty this pardon
Palooa is a Trump specialty it's
disgusting and the reason why I wanted
to share this with you guys is because
you need to know what is happening in
real time we are looking at the
destruction of our our our country
through Doge and we're looking at all
this other egregious stuff happening
with the immigration kidnappings but
this is the other stuff that's going on
right now knowledge is power people now
you know the disgusting cases the people
that are getting pardons courtesy of
Donald Trump be mad be outraged demand
accountability because you know what we
got to scream the truth from the rafters
because you're not going to be getting
it anywhere else katie Fang here the
truth matters now more than ever so hit
that subscribe button so you don't miss
a thing thanks for watching
Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 7:26 am
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 5:23 pm
Headlines
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/headlines
Deliberate Israeli Mismanagement of Desperately Needed Aid Is Killing More Palestinians in Gaza
May 29, 2025
In Gaza, at least two people were crushed to death and two others fatally shot Wednesday as thousands of starving Palestinians rushed a United Nations humanitarian aid distribution warehouse in Deir al-Balah, tearing open its metal walls in a desperate attempt to find food. Witnesses described a chaotic scene as starving people clamored for the supplies.
Abdel Qader Rabie: “I’m hungry, and I want to eat. There’s no flour, no food, no bread. There’s nothing at home. Every time I go get aid, I take hold of a box, and a hundred people crowd over me — 300. I couldn’t take anything. I just go home empty-handed. Before, the U.N. agency used to send me a message, and I would go, like any respected person. I’d take the aid, and I’d go back home. Now there’s nothing. If you’re strong, you get aid. If you’re not strong, you don’t.”
Gaza officials say at least 10 Palestinians seeking aid have been killed by Israeli forces in the past three days. The World Food Programme said in a statement, “Humanitarian needs have spiralled out of control after 80 days of complete blockade of all food assistance and other aid into Gaza. Gaza needs an immediate scale-up of food assistance. This is the only way to reassure people that they will not starve.”
Israel Kills Journalist Moataz Rajab, at Least the 221st Media Worker Killed in Genocide
May 29, 2025
Israeli attacks so far today have killed at least 55 people across Gaza. Among the dead is Palestinian journalist Moataz Rajab, who was killed along with four other civilians in an Israeli strike on his vehicle in Gaza City. He’s at least the 221st media worker killed by Israel in Gaza since October 2023.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his forces had killed Hamas commander Mohammed Sinwar. He was apparently the target of a May 13 strike in Khan Younis, when Israeli warplanes simultaneously dropped six large bombs on the European Hospital. Twenty-eight people were killed and dozens more wounded in that attack.
Int’l Doctors Barred from Entering Gaza as U.S. Surgeon Testifies “Child Protections in Gaza Are Gone”
May 29, 2025
International doctors and healthcare workers report they’re increasingly being blocked by Israel from entering Gaza, with specialists approved for exits but denied new entry visas in what advocates are calling an “undeclared medical siege.”
On Wednesday, U.S. trauma surgeon Dr. Feroze Sidhwa testified to the U.N. Security Council about his time spent as an emergency doctor at the European Hospital in Gaza, where he treated young children severely injured by explosives.
Dr. Feroze Sidhwa: “Children are supposed to be protected. In Gaza, these protections are simply gone. Every day, the distinction between combatant and civilian is erased. Most of my patients were preteen children, their bodies shattered by explosives and torn by flying metal. … The medical system has not failed. It has been systematically dismantled through a sustained military campaign that has willfully violated international humanitarian law. Civilians are now dying not just from the constant airstrikes, but from acute malnutrition, sepsis, exposure and despair.”
Israel Approves Largest Settlement Expansion Amid Mounting Raids, Killing of West Bank Palestinians
May 29, 2025
In the occupied West Bank, family members say Israeli soldiers burst into their home without warning early Wednesday before shooting 20-year-old Palestinian Jassem al-Sadda as he slept. The young man was reportedly left to bleed to death with no one allowed to approach him.
His killing came as the Israeli military continues its campaign of stepped-up raids and home demolitions across the West Bank, where Israeli ministers have just approved 22 new settlements, which are illegal under international law. It’s the largest such expansion in Israel’s history. This comes amid a surge of attacks by settlers on Palestinian communities. On Tuesday, residents of Qaryout reported Israeli settlers descended on their village without warning, setting fire to homes and property.
Ali Qassam: “We were at home sitting safely — there was no one outside at all — when we were surprised by the sounds of bangs and saw fire and smoke. We opened the door and were surprised to see a huge number of settlers, and no one else. They set fire to cars and houses and damaged the neighborhood. They burned maybe 10 cars, as you can see. They burned the house and damaged the cars. They even hit people. I went outside, and I was also beaten by a bat.”
Meanwhile, a new Israeli law allows for children as young as 12 years old to be sentenced to life in prison. U.N. experts say the law is designed to punish Palestinian families and likely violates international laws, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Federal Trade Court Blocks Most of Trump’s Tariffs
May 29, 2025
In New York, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs were imposed illegally, blocking Trump for now from pursuing much of his trade war. The court agreed with business owners and a dozen states that sued Trump, arguing the president exceeded his authority by invoking a national emergency to bypass Congress in order to impose the tariffs. The ruling applies to Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs, which roiled global markets in April, and to his levies on Canada and Mexico that he claimed were related to the flow of drugs and people across borders. Industry-specific tariffs imposed on automobiles, steel and aluminum are not affected by the order. The White House is expected to appeal. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy, wrote on social media that “the judicial coup is out of control.”
Trump Nominates Personal Defense Attorney Emil Bove to Serve as Appellate Judge
May 29, 2025
President Trump has nominated Emil Bove, his former personal defense attorney and current Justice Department official, to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Among other things, Emil Bove threatened to fire attorneys in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section if they refused to file a motion to dismiss the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, and he accused FBI leaders of “insubordination” after they refused to identify agents involved in the January 6 Capitol insurrection investigations.
Trump also announced new nominees for a federal district court in Florida. The Alliance for Justice this week urged senators to oppose Trump’s previously announced judicial nominees, warning they all “demonstrated their opposition to the protections of the law and their loyalty to the Trumpian agenda.”
Trump Administration to “Aggressively” Revoke Visas of Chinese Students
May 29, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the government will start “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, one day after the Trump administration announced it’s halting the processing of visas for foreign students. Rubio said people with links to the Chinese Communist Party — China’s sole and ruling party — would be especially targeted, as well as people studying in “critical fields.” Chinese nationals represent the second-largest proportion of overseas students in the U.S.
Meanwhile, Trump told reporters Wednesday Harvard should cap its acceptance of international students at “around 15 percent.” Last week, Trump revoked Harvard’s certification for admitting students from overseas.
Judge Rules U.S. Efforts to Deport Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Are Likely Unconstitutional
May 29, 2025
A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Columbia graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, and arguments that Khalil represents a threat to national security and foreign policy are not likely to hold up. But Judge Michael Farbiarz stopped short of ordering Khalil’s release from a Louisiana immigration jail, pending developments on separate Trump administration charges against him related to his permanent residency application. Last week, Mahmoud Khalil testified that deportation would be life-threatening due to smears and lies by the Trump administration. He’s married to a U.S. citizen who gave birth to the couple’s first child last month.
Police Violently Arrest Protesters Who Rallied to Defend Immigrants Detained at NYC Courthouse
May 29, 2025
Here in New York, masked federal agents arrested multiple people who showed up for appointments at immigration courts in downtown Manhattan Wednesday, including a family with small children. Police officers arrested protesters and observers who showed up to offer support and assistance, including a pastor. Community members also blocked vans carrying immigrants from driving down the street, before police officers pepper-sprayed, violently tackled and dragged them away. The Trump administration has reportedly ordered ICE to make 3,000 arrests per day.
Immigration Judges Toss Over a Dozen Cases Involving Men Expelled to Salvadoran Prison
May 29, 2025
NBC News is reporting immigration judges have moved to dismiss at least 14 cases involving immigrants who were expelled without due process to an El Salvador mega-prison under the Alien Enemies Act, despite ongoing legal challenges over Trump’s invocation of the 1798 wartime law. One of the recently dismissed asylum cases involves Andry Hernández Romero, a gay makeup artist from Venezuela, who was apparently expelled because he had tattoos.
Federal Judge Weighs Fate of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian Immigrants
May 29, 2025
In more immigration news, a federal judge in New York heard arguments Wednesday that could determine the fate of some 500,000 Haitian recipients of temporary protected status whose deportation protections are at risk of expiring in August, after the Trump administration moved to prematurely cut off their TPS status. This is Aline Gue, executive director of Haitian Women for Haitian Refugees.
Aline Gue: “This is a huge disruption, not only to their lives, creating anxiety and harm, wreaking havoc in our communities at large, but it’s also unlawful, because this is precisely the reason why temporary protected status was created, right? For folks to not be returned back to situations that have a lot of political instability, violence, natural disasters. And that is exactly what we’re seeing in Haiti today.”
Elon Musk Leaves Trump Administration Amid Rift over “Big, Beautiful Bill”
May 29, 2025
The White House confirmed Elon Musk will be leaving the Trump administration after leading efforts to gut government agencies while firing tens of thousands of workers through his Department of Government Efficiency. The confirmed departure came after Musk said he was “disappointed” that President Trump is pursuing the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act — a massive spending bill that increases the budget deficit. Musk said, “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both.” [/b]The Congressional Budget Office projects the legislation would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, slashing taxes for the wealthy while gutting social programs, including massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Meanwhile, legal experts are sounding the alarm over a little-noticed provision of the more than 1,000-page spending bill which shields the president from contempt-of-court citations by federal judges. That would pave the way for Trump administration officials to continue ignoring court orders without fear of consequences./b]
Harvard Relinquishes Photos of Enslaved People to Descendants, Capping 15-Year Legal Struggle
May 29, 2025
Harvard has agreed to hand over 175-year-old photographs of an enslaved man and his daughter to a Black history museum in South Carolina as part of a settlement with the descendant of the photos’ subjects. The deal caps a 15-year legal battle between Harvard and Tamara Lanier, whose great-great-great-grandfather Renty is featured in the photos. Lanier celebrated the long-anticipated resolution, saying, “This pilfered property, images taken without dignity or consent and used to promote a racist psychoscience, will now be repatriated to a home where their stories can be told and their humanity can be restored.”
Namibia Marks First National Genocide Remembrance Day with Calls for Reparations from Germany
May 29, 2025
Namibia has issued fresh calls for reparations from Germany as Namibia marked its first national Genocide Remembrance Day Wednesday. Between 1904 and 1908, German colonial invaders killed up to 100,000 Indigenous people, most from the OvaHerero and Nama communities. This is OvaHerero leader Hoze Riruako.
Hoze Riruako: “What has happened here, because this is the first genocide of the 20th century, this was actually the prelude to the — you know, to the Holocaust. But this is not recorded anywhere. People are not aware of what has happened here, to the same level and same extent as some of the other atrocities.”
*********************************
Fear, Repression & Brain Drain: U.S. Campuses Reeling as Trump Freezes, Revokes Student Visas
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/ ... dent_visas
The Trump administration is escalating its campaign against international students at U.S. colleges and universities, announcing that it will begin “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, in addition to freezing visa processing for all foreign-born students as it prepares to require additional social media vetting for every applicant. “It’s really just difficult for me to think of any conceivable theory on which this is going to help the United States,” says Jameel Jaffer, noting that international students pay a disproportionate share of tuition costs on U.S. campuses. Jaffer is the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which has previously sued the government over its social media vetting policy for visa applications. The policy, which began as a pilot program during the Obama administration, “is ineffective at identifying national security threats, but it is very effective at chilling free speech,” says Jaffer.
Jaffer also comments on the high-profile immigration detention of former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Harvard graduate researcher Kseniia Petrova, as well as a case brought by the Knight Institute challenging the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s crackdown on campus pro-Palestine protest.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the government will start “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, one day after the Trump administration announced it’s halting the processing of visas for foreign students as it prepares to require additional social media vetting for every applicant. Rubio said students with links to the Chinese Communist Party, which is China’s sole and ruling party, would be especially targeted, as well as people studying in, quote, “critical fields.” Chinese nationals represent the second-largest proportion of overseas students in the U.S.
Meanwhile, President Trump told reporters Wednesday, Harvard should cap its acceptance of international students at “around 15 percent.” Last week, Trump revoked Harvard’s certification for admitting overseas students. Currently over a quarter of Harvard’s student body is international. Many of those students are now seeking to transfer to another school.
Harvard’s commencement ceremonies are taking place today. This week, Harvard students protested in support of international students. This is Pakistani international student Abdullah Shahid Sial, who is also the student body co-president of Harvard’s Undergraduate Association.
ABDULLAH SHAHID SIAL: I haven’t had the time yet to think about my backup plans, but as of now, I don’t think anyone is sure if they can return for the fall semester back into Harvard, and, more broadly, back into the U.S. In that case, I would have to look for other options. I haven’t looked at the list yet for the next available ones, because most transfer windows for most colleges have already been closed. But I also want to make it very, very clear that deporting international students doesn’t solve any of this. We don’t have any provided mechanism by President Trump’s administration that deporting internationals in this particular manner will solve any of these issues.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as a federal judge in New Jersey found the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Columbia graduate, Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, but stopped short of ordering his release from a Jena, Louisiana, immigration jail.
In another high-profile case targeting international students and academics, a judge has granted bail to Russian Harvard scientist Kseniia Petrova, ruling her three-months-long detention by immigration authorities is unjustified.
For more, we’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, part of a team of lawyers representing professors in their lawsuit against the Trump administration’s repression of students and faculty involved in pro-Palestine activism. He was previously the ACLU’s deputy legal director.
Jameel, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Thank you. Great to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: This attack on students at Columbia, at Harvard, around the country, and now the latest news that broke in the last hours about going after, in particular, Chinese students, the second-largest number of students in the United States, well over a quarter of a million students — can you just respond to what’s happening here?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, I mean, I really don’t think any foreign enemy could do nearly as much damage to the United States as the Trump administration is doing to it right now. I mean, even this policy alone, the one focused on Chinese students, is going to have an immediate effect, not just on the Chinese students who are already here, but on the willingness of Chinese nationals to come to the United States. That’s obviously the whole point of it.
But, you know, Chinese nationals who study in the United States bring a lot to the United States. I mean, it’s a wonderful, amazing thing that people come from all over the world to study at American universities. You know, they enrich the experiences of American students at those universities. They pay tuition. They contribute to research collaborations. They engage in all sorts of socially useful projects that have implications not just for students and faculty at the universities, but for American society. It’s an amazing thing.
And the Trump administration is taking aim at — you know, at all of that. And it’s going to have immediate and, I’m afraid, irreparable consequences for American leadership and prosperity. It’s really just difficult for me to think of any conceivable theory on which this is going to help the United States.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And if you could respond also to the fact that the Trump administration has announced a pause in the processing of visas for all foreign students, and that it’s done so at this time when the maximum number of students from abroad are applying for visas for September admissions? And just to make clear, there are over a million international students from over 200 countries enrolled in U.S. colleges. That was the case, the numbers, for 2023-2024.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, let me just start by saying this is so incredibly cruel to the — you know, for the people who are here, this is so disruptive, right? They have relied on the fact that they were given visas by the State Department. They are here lawfully. They are studying here at the invitation of the United States. And this is designed to disrupt their lives in the most fundamental way.
But then, beyond that, it’s going to be such a big deal for these universities, because foreign students make up a very high percentage of the students at major American universities. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but I believe it’s something close to 40% at Columbia and somewhere around 25% at Harvard. And foreign students pay a disproportionate share of the tuition. So, universities in the United States are reliant on the income they get from the foreign students who study here. And it’s going to be a huge deal for American universities when all of these students who are studying here lawfully find it necessary to consider withdrawing, and all the students who would otherwise apply to the United States end up applying to, you know, Canada or Australia or Europe instead.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I’d like to go to comments made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate hearing, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, earlier this month. He said the Trump administration would continue to reconsider granting international student visas.
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: If you tell me that you’re coming to the United States to lead campus crusades, to take over libraries and burn down — try to burn down buildings and acts of violence, we’re not going to give you a visa.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Is that what Ms. Öztürk did?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Jameel, that was Secretary of State Marco Rubio. If you could speak specifically about the Trump administration’s justification for this? In other words, they’re looking to expand social media vetting for every applicant. And also the fact that in his last administration, Trump already imposed a stricter review of visa applicants, including social media screening.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, first of all, why wasn’t that reversed during the Biden administration?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Good question.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Is it difficult to do so?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, good question.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, yeah, yeah, what kind of social media screenings are we looking at?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, so, this screening has been in place now for — you know, a pilot version of it was put in place under the Obama administration. It’s been expanded since then, principally by the Trump administration. It applies now to — about 14 million people who apply for visas every year are required to submit their social media handles to the State Department with their visa application. And now the Trump administration is proposing to expand it even — you know, even further.
The evidence we have is that this program has been entirely ineffective at achieving the ends that the Trump administration says it was designed to achieve. The goal was to identify national security threats. There is no evidence at all that this program has resulted in the identification of national security threats. And in fact, my organization, the Knight Institute, sued several years ago under the Freedom of Information Act to find out how this program was actually operating and what the results of the program had been. And one of the documents we got in response to our FOIA request was a document from inside the director of national intelligence — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, conceding that the program had been “ineffective.” That was their word, “ineffective.” And now this program is going to be expanded.
Now, it is ineffective at identifying national security threats, but it is very effective at chilling free speech and association, that is protected by the First Amendment. And there is an ongoing lawsuit. We’re involved in a lawsuit on behalf of two documentary film organizations, Doc Society and the International Documentary Association. We sued over the constitutionality of this program several years ago. The case is now pending before the D.C. Circuit.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what about —
AMY GOODMAN: So —
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why wasn’t — sorry, just one second — the Biden administration, why wasn’t this reversed during all those years?
JAMEEL JAFFER: So, we repeatedly asked the Biden administration to reverse this policy. The Brennan Center, which we are working with on this specific issue, repeatedly asked the Biden administration to reverse this policy. And the Biden administration did not do that.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re a graduate of Harvard Law School. Actually, you were an international student from Canada at the time.
JAMEEL JAFFER: I was. That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: You work at Columbia University. By the way, the latest news out of Harvard is they’re not only going to go after the students, but anyone, they will be reviewing the visa, who is involved there. But we just heard Marco Rubio talking about troublemakers, essentially, going after them and cleaning — now it’s a new rule, whether you live in another country or here, and you’re leaving the country, you’ve got to pack your bags, clean your room and clean all your social media sites — right? — to help get back into this country.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask about Mahmoud Khalil. He’s a Columbia student, now a graduate. He’s imprisoned. He graduated while he was imprisoned in Louisiana, negotiator between the students and Columbia University around the encampments. And then you have a judge ruling — a New Jersey federal judge ruling that it is likely unconstitutional, what has happened to him. And you have a Vermont federal judge calling for the release on bail of a student — Harvard scientist named Kseniia Petrova, who came into the United States and was taken by ICE and is jailed. Can you respond to these cases and the message they are sending and what has to happen here?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, let me start with the Khalil case. So, this was an important legal victory that Khalil won yesterday before Judge Farbiarz in New Jersey. And Khalil is very well represented. He has great lawyers at the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. And I think that that legal victory is something to celebrate.
But at the end of the day, he is still behind bars. You know, it’s been almost three months, and he is still behind bars. And on the basis of what? Activity that is plainly protected by the First Amendment. You know, he’s behind bars because of his human rights advocacy. And I think that, you know, that is a really incredible and shocking thing. If the First Amendment was supposed to prevent anything, it was supposed to prevent the government arresting you on the basis of your political beliefs. But that’s what’s going on here. And he has been detained for three months already. I think it’s kind of, you know, crazy that it’s already gone on for so long. And I hope that Judge Farbiarz gets to the First Amendment questions very quickly.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And also, just to be clear, he’s not a foreign student. He is a green card holder —
JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: — a lawful permanent resident of the United States. And then, to ask about the Russian scientist who’s at Harvard University, who was, she’s also been detained —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: — in this Louisiana ICE detention facility for months. Now, in her case, she’s also been criminally charged, in addition to violating immigration laws. She didn’t declare these lab frogs, I mean, that she had brought in from France, which is normally considered a trivial violation. She’s been criminally charged for smuggling, for bringing in these frogs, but the Trump administration has also issued a detainer on immigration charges, which effectively means that even if she’s granted bail, what the judge yesterday ordered — if she’s granted bail on the criminal case, the government —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: — could still get ICE to detain her. If you could elaborate?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, I mean, it’s a very unusual reaction on the part of the government to what, as you say, is usually considered a trivial offense. I think the message here is — I mean, just, you know, beyond the kind of arbitrariness of it and the cruelty of it, the message here is not just to, you know, her specifically, but to any foreign national who’s considering coming to the United States right now. Like, the message is you’re not welcome. And, you know, you see that message delivered through all of these policies — the one that we started with, the policy relating to Chinese nationals, the roundup of students who protested on campus last year, the revocation of Harvard’s authority to host foreign students. Like, all of this is meant to send a broader message, which is that, you know, foreign nationals aren’t welcome in the United States.
And, you know, that is deeply problematic for many of those foreign nationals, but it is also extremely damaging to the United States at every level, you know, from security to the economy, to American prestige in the world, to our ability to carry out scientific projects that have very real implications for ordinary Americans. You know, it’s not just people at Harvard who get cancer or who get Alzheimer’s. It’s ordinary Americans get these diseases, and they need cures to these diseases. And the research is being done at major American universities, and it will be much harder to that research without foreign faculty and foreign students.
AMY GOODMAN: And the rule of the courts? We just heard about the Vermont judge —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — the New Jersey judge. Overall, your assessment of them? And the Trump administration, how it’s responding first term versus this term? You have Stephen Miller, you just heard —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — saying this is a judicial coup, when they are ruled against.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I think that, you know, many of the district court judges are doing exactly what the Constitution demands they do. You know, the district court judges are ruling against the Trump administration in many of these — many of these contexts.
We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court does. You know, the Supreme Court so far has been extremely cautious. You know, one theory is that they’re worried about the Trump administration not complying with their court orders, and they’re worried about the loss of institutional credibility that would come if the Trump administration ignored their court orders. But that’s itself a kind of terrifying thing, that we’re, you know, at the point where the Supreme Court is worried about whether the executive branch will even honor the Constitution in that way.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And if we could ask you about the case that you, yourself — you’re representing, the Knight Institute is representing the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, challenging the Trump administration’s large-scale arrests, detentions and deportations of foreign students and faculty who have been involved in pro-Palestine protests. If you could talk about that case?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. So, this is a challenge to the policy of arresting, detaining and threatening to deport students who participated in pro-Palestinian protest last year. You know, as we’ve already discussed, there are cases in which individual students who have been targeted have challenged their arrest and detention and threatened deportation. The Mahmoud Khalil case is one of those cases. But this case is a challenge to the deeper policy, and it’s brought on behalf of faculty at universities across the country.
And what they are pointing out is that these detentions have obvious implications for the students who are detained, but they also have this very profound chilling effect on all of the foreign students and foreign faculty, who are worried about the possibility of being targeted. And this policy has really transformed life at universities around the country, really put a kind of blanket of fear and repression over these — you know, over campuses all over the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: And just 30 seconds on — this is often being framed as what these international students lose when they can’t come to the United States. But the issue of what the United States loses? I mean, it’s called a “brain drain.” Other countries are now calling this a “brain gain,” that they’ll get the students. But the shutting down of scientific labs, the research around Alzheimer’s, around cancer?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, I think it’s obvious what’s going to happen. The most talented students and faculty from abroad, who, until, you know, very recently, have come to the United States, will instead go to Europe, or they’ll go to Australia, or they’ll go to Canada. And all of those countries —
AMY GOODMAN: Or China or Russia.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Or China. And they’ll — you know, all those countries are seeing this as a huge opportunity, as I suppose they should. But it’s very sad for the United States, because the United States, since the Second World War, has really led in higher education. You know, these universities — Harvard, Columbia, Stanford — these are the envy of the world, you know? And like I said earlier, I just cannot imagine the theory, any theory, under which these policies are good for the United States at any level.
AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
Coming up, we look at Israel’s use of Palestinians as human shields in Gaza and the West Bank. We’ll talk to Nadav Weiman, a former Israeli soldier who heads the group Breaking the Silence. Back in 20 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Contra Todo,” “Against Everything,” by Ileana Cabra Joglar, better known as iLe, performing in our Democracy Now! studio.
*************************
Mosquito Protocol: Ex-Israeli Soldier on Army’s Systematic Use of Palestinians as Human Shields
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/ ... an_shields
Israel has repeatedly claimed without evidence that Hamas endangers civilians by hiding behind human shields. It turns out, however, that Israel has systematically used Palestinians as human shields in violation of both international and Israeli law. A new investigation by the Associated Press joins reports by +972 Magazine, Haaretz and the Red Cross in documenting how Palestinians have been used as human shields to inspect buildings, tunnels and other sites in Gaza and the West Bank. The investigation includes testimony and evidence from both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, collected in part by the anti-occupation Israeli veterans’ group Breaking the Silence. In what is being called the “mosquito procedure,” Israeli soldiers are “ordered by senior officers to grab Palestinians next to them and to use them as human shields,” explains Breaking the Silence’s executive director, Nadav Weiman. “Dehumanization of Palestinians in Israel [has] become something so common that it also leads to these kind[s] of practices inside the IDF.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to Gaza, where more evidence is coming to light about how Israel has systematically used Palestinians as human shields in violation of both international and Israeli law. That’s the conclusion of a new investigation by the Associated Press based on interviews with Israeli soldiers and with Palestinians who said they were used as human shields to inspect buildings, tunnels and other sites in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The AP reports the Israeli soldiers said the practice was used in part to spare combat dogs from injury or death. One Israeli sergeant admitted to using Palestinians as young as 16 years old as human shields.
AMY GOODMAN: In February, the news outlet +972 revealed how Israel used an 80-year-old man as a human shield. Troops tied an explosive cord around his neck, then forced him to search abandoned buildings. After he finished the mission, he was ordered to flee, but then another Israeli unit fatally shot him and his wife Haaretz and the Red Cross have also documented Israel’s use of human shields.
The AP report is based in part on testimonies collected by Breaking the Silence, a group made up of former Israeli soldiers opposed to the Israeli occupation. The group has also released photos of Palestinians being used as human shields in Gaza.
We’re joined now by the group’s executive director, Nadav Weiman. He’s a former Israeli soldier, joining us from Tel Aviv.
Thanks so much for being with us. Tell us what information you collected, the Israeli soldiers you talked to, and how exactly they’re using Palestinians as human shields.
NADAV WEIMAN: So, Amy, I’ve got to say that from the beginning of this war, we got testimonies from soldiers that told us that they were ordered by senior officers to grab Palestinians next to them and to use them as human shields, meaning that they were ordered to send Palestinians — some of them were dressed up with IDF uniforms, had GoPro cameras on their head or on their chest, and then they were sent into tunnels and houses to check that there isn’t any IEDs or explosives over there, so the soldiers could enter safely or clear the area. And we got testimonies from different units, different times, different places in the Gaza Strip, which shows, as you said, that it’s widely spread, this protocol.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Nadav, as far as you know, how long has this practice been in place?
NADAV WEIMAN: Now, the first testimony that we have is from December 2023, meaning immediately after the ground invasion started. And the last testimony that we had is from the beginning of this year, beginning of 2025, just before the ceasefire. And it’s something that the IDF is using more and more and more, more units and more areas throughout the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And to what extent are you aware of soldiers resisting these orders to use Palestinians as human shields?
NADAV WEIMAN: Yeah, so, it’s interesting. Now, every — almost every soldier in the IDF learned about the fact that we used Palestinians as human shields during the Second Intifada. Back then, we called it the “neighbor procedure,” when you come to arrest a high-ranking Palestinian or you know that he’s armed, so you grab the next-door neighbor, and you told the neighbor, “You knock on the door. Not me.” And maybe he will get shot. And if nobody shot him, then we told him, “Get inside the house. Open all of the doors, and open all of the lights,” so we will be more safe. And that was banned by the Supreme Court in Israel in the end of the Second Intifada. So, the reservists in the Israeli army grew up on that history, that we did something, it was bad, but it was banned, and that’s it.
And now they got a command that is exactly that, but, I can say, even worse, actually. Right? Because it’s dressing them up in IDF uniform. Some of the soldiers told us that it’s maybe that they will be the target, so they will get shot. Now, the thing is, is that our testifiers told us there was a debate inside their unit, but it’s our testifiers, right? I just read an op-ed in Haaretz of an officer that served in Gaza, and he said that almost every platoon is using human shields. Right? So, our testifiers told us there was a debate. They came to the senior officers and told them, “Hey, you know, that we were trained to fight, not to use human beings as human shields, or that’s dehumanization of Palestinians, or that’s immoral or illegal,” or I don’t know what. But I cannot tell you what’s going on in the greater IDF at the moment.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain, Nadav Weiman, why this is called the “mosquito procedure.” And also talk about what these Israeli soldiers told you about what happens to the Palestinians, many forced into houses, buildings, tunnels, that are suspected of being booby-trapped, allegedly made to perform tasks like looking for explosives in tunnels.
NADAV WEIMAN: Yeah, so, first of all, a lot of things that the IDF has names for, I don’t know the reason. But I can say that mosquito, like, it’s a bug that flies in the air, and, like, you can kill it. Who cares about it? And that was the relationship a lot of times between the soldiers and those Palestinian individuals that were used. And that’s the word: They were “used.” Right? We have a testifier that called them a “sub-army of slaves.”
Now, the protocol is quite simple. You need that individual with you for a period of time — two days, three days, a week, three weeks. So, it means that only when he’s scanning a tunnel or a house or an alley, so he doesn’t have handcuffs or a blindfold. The rest of the time, when he’s with you inside the house, you need to feed him. You need to take him to the bathroom. But he’s also handcuffed and blindfolded, so you need to help him. In some units, they were — the mosquitoes inside the house were used to clean the house where the soldiers stayed. So, it’s not only — you know, don’t only think about that time in the tunnel when they need to endanger their life. Think about the rest of the time, the majority of the day, that they were living with the soldiers inside the house. But again, eventually, they were supposed to be released. So, it’s — again, I’m quoting that soldier — a “sub-army of slaves.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Nadav, could you talk about the context in which this news has been coming out, where there’s mounting anger against Netanyahu, protests all across the country yesterday, for refusing to agree to a deal that would guarantee the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza? If you could explain what the mood is in Israel, the repeated calls for Netanyahu to step down? You’ve said that he’s acting like a dictator.
NADAV WEIMAN: Yeah, so, from the very beginning of this war, we and other human rights organizations, we called for a deal to release our hostages, ceasefire and enter humanitarian aid into Gaza. Now, at the beginning, we were a minority at the protests. But as this war — it’s hard for me to call it a war, because, as a soldier, they told me that a war, it’s two armies fighting one another. So, as this intensive operation in Gaza went so long, and we killed so many civilians, and we lost so many of our soldiers, and also we — also some of our hostages, more and more Israelis are resisting this war. And if you look at polls in Israel at the moment, you can see that the majority of Israelis, meaning even Bibi’s voters, I believe, are against the continuation of this war, and pro-hostage deal and pro-ending this war. And you can see the atmosphere on the streets.
What happened yesterday, it was the 600th day of this operation, or since October 7th, and we saw a lot of anger. You know, protesters in Tel Aviv took over the headquarters of the Likud party in Tel Aviv for a couple of hours, right? And they put signs. They said it’s the embassy of Qatar, because of the allegation that Qatar paid for the close advisers of Bibi to support them more than anything else. But I can say that what changed is, in the mid-March, when we returned fighting in Gaza, when we continued bombing in Gaza, and we broke the ceasefire, and we stopped releasing our hostages, the majority of the audience in Israel understood that this is a war to protect Bibi’s seat and Bibi’s government, not to release our hostages, not to fight Hamas and not to defend our borders, because if that was the case, we will go to a hostage deal, like Witkoff helped us achieve in the minute Trump stepped into office. Now, what we saw yesterday is more and more Israelis understanding that we are being lied to, that our soldiers are sent to die and to be killed for themselves without any good reason, without releasing our hostages or ending this war.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn for a last example to the occupied West Bank, Israel admitting to strapping a wounded Palestinian man to the hood of an Israeli military vehicle during a raid on Jenin. Relatives and neighbors of the man, Mujahid Azmi, said Israeli soldiers used him as a human shield instead of allowing him to get medical care after he’d been shot. This is 13-year-old Alaa Azmi speaking last year.
ALAA AZMI: [translated] We told them we want an ambulance for the wounded person in the room, so the army told us to bring him to them. We got him outside. And for about an hour or a half an hour, we kept asking for an ambulance. Then we called one. Fifteen minutes later, two Jeeps came, and they got in here. The troops told us to turn around and not to look. And they put Mujahid on the Jeep’s hood and took him.
AMY GOODMAN: After a video of the incident went viral, the Israeli military released a statement claiming the action was, quote, “in violation of orders and standard operating procedures.” Nadav Weiman, if you can talk about how Israel is responding now to this latest news of this much more widespread use of exactly this kind of example?
NADAV WEIMAN: Now, first of all, I’ve got to say that IDF spokespersons a lot of times when they are confronted with something bad that soldiers did that are against regulation, they say, “It’s against regulation. We will educate the soldiers. A mistake.” And that’s it — no investigation, no nothing.
Now, I’ve got to say that now the IDF announced that six investigations were opened after the IDF soldiers used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. And it’s a joke, right? Because we have so many more incidents. And even Yaniv Kubovich from Haaretz newspaper published a couple of months ago that Herzi Halevi, then-commander-in-chief of the IDF, was sitting in the meeting room while the mosquito protocol was discussed, meaning that everybody knew.
Now, I’ve got to say, that connects to something a lot bigger in the Israeli society, and that’s dehumanization of Palestinians. Right? Since October 7th, it’s even on steroids, right? We have government members that are openly talking about genocide. Right? When the head of the Labor Party, Yair Golan, last week said that the right-wing politician likes to kill Palestinian kids and babies, he was called as a traitor by our government. You know, we have ministers saying there isn’t any innocent in Gaza, that all of the Palestinians are assisting terror or terrorists by themselves. And that seeps down into the IDF, into commands that soldiers are getting. And if you connect that with the fact that we have more and more officers and commanders in the IDF that comes from the religious right wing and from the settler movement and believe that maybe it’s a holy war, not a war of defending ourselves, you can understand why you have such a huge amount of those kind of incidents. Dehumanization of Palestinians in Israel became something so common that it also leads to these kind of practices inside the IDF.
AMY GOODMAN: Nadav Weiman, we want to thank you for being with us, executive director of Breaking the Silence, a whistleblower group of former Israeli soldiers.
When we come back, Israeli troops have fatally shot at least 10 Palestinians as they attempted to collect food and aid amidst the chaotic unveiling of a new Israeli-U.S.-backed aid distribution plan run by a shadowy U.S. group. We’ll speak to Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News, in 20 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Way of Life” by T-Rosemond in our Democracy Now! studio.
****************************
Jeremy Scahill: Shadowy Israeli-U.S. Aid Plan Is Weapon in “Netanyahu’s War of Annihilation” in Gaza
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/ ... aid_scheme
“The point of this is to lure Palestinians as though they’re animals going into a cage, lure them with the bait of promise of aid, and then entrap them in the south of Gaza.” As starving Palestinians in Gaza compete for the limited trickle of supplies admitted into the enclave by a new U.S.- and Israeli-backed humanitarian aid scheme, journalist Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News says the sparse aid is actually another Israeli military tactic “meant to serve as part of Netanyahu’s war of annihilation. … They’re using food as a weapon of war in an effort to further dehumanize Palestinians.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And Israeli-U.S. plan to sideline the United Nations aid delivery system is continuing to cause chaos in Gaza. At least 10 Palestinians have been shot dead as Israeli troops have repeatedly opened fire at newly established aid distribution sites.
The aid is being distributed by a shadow U.S. group registered in Delaware called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. A separate U.S. company called Safe Reach Solutions is helping to provide security. The New York Times reports that firm is run by a former senior CIA officer named Philip Reilly, who reportedly helped train the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
The U.N. and international aid groups have condemned the new Israeli-U.S. plan. This is UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini.
PHILIPPE LAZZARINI: The model of aid distribution proposed by Israel does not align with core humanitarian principle. It will deprive a large part of Gaza, the highly vulnerable people, of desperately needed assistance.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of Drop Site News, recently wrote an article headlined “Netanyahu: Gaza Aid Scheme Offers Israel Symbolic Cover to Finish the Genocide.” Jeremy Scahill has also been reporting on proposals for a new ceasefire in Gaza.
We’ll get to that in a minute, Jeremy. But why don’t you lay out what is going on? This shadowy group that has moved in, condemned by humanitarian aid organizations, by the United Nations, talk about who they are and what’s happening.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, first of all, Amy, we should be very clear that this cutout of a company — you know, “cutout” is a term of espionage — it was established by people with ties to the CIA and Israeli intelligence, was meant to serve as part of Netanyahu’s war of annihilation. Netanyahu himself said the quiet part out loud in a recent speech, when he said that he was getting some pressure even from his most passionate backers in the Republicans in the Senate. And he said, you know, that they didn’t want the optics of starving Palestinians, and that this could hinder the ability of the United States to continue arming and supporting Netanyahu, and so they wanted to give the veneer of some form of aid.
And Netanyahu and Israel have been at war against UNRWA, the U.N. agency that was established in the aftermath of the Nakba in the late 1940s, when the state of Israel was imposed on Palestine as a European colonial-settler state. And so, this serves two purposes. It allowed Netanyahu to say, “Look, we’re letting aid in, and we’re doing it so that Hamas can’t steal it” — which, by the way, was a lie. And even Biden’s top humanitarian official, David Satterfield, said this week that there was no evidence ever presented by Israel that Hamas was stealing or hoarding the aid. So, part of it was just was to give the veneer of we’re doing something humanitarian. The other part of it was to continue the war against UNRWA, to destroy the premier aid organization serving Palestinian refugees, forcibly displaced people. And UNRWA, its very existence, Netanyahu and Israel hate, because it recognizes the international laws that say that the Palestinians have a right to return to their land that they started to be — to lose in 1947, 1948, when the Nakba began.
So, they created this shell company, with ties to American intelligence officers, as a way of further destroying UNRWA, but also serving Netanyahu’s agenda. They then bring in an American mercenary company that — you know, Blackwater-style guys that you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the so-called war on terror. And then they created what international aid officials have said are concentration camp or internment camp-like conditions. Others have likened it to ghetto-style conditions, where Palestinians are going to be forced to stand out in the heat all day in barbed-wire fence enclosures, looking like a cage, and then they get a box with a paltry amount of food aid in it. There’s no medicine. There’s no infant formula. This is all just trickery that is being used to further the genocide.
And, Amy, I’ve been talking to people. A personal friend of mine whose family is from Khan Younis, four members of his family were shot sniper style yesterday by the Israeli military when they went to pick up these aid boxes at one of the two sites, the one near Rafah.
What is happening is that the Israelis are also using this as an intelligence operation. They’ve snatched, kidnapped a number of Palestinians. They’ve interrogated them. When they don’t get the answers they want, they’ve disappeared them.
They haven’t given any mechanism for how people are supposed to line up or know where to go. What we’re hearing from sources on the ground is that word just spreads via WhatsApp and text messages. “Oh, there’s going to be aid delivered in this place.” People go there, and it’s just pure chaos.
So, none of this is by accident. This is by design. And you have, on the one hand, a pittance of aid that is being actually distributed, relative to what is needed just to have — just to address the basic starvation factor in Gaza right now. And on the other hand, Israel is using this and the desperation of people to further dehumanize Palestinians. And when they go to try to desperately grab whatever aid they can, as we saw happen at a U.N. warehouse, then they say, “Well, Hamas is shooting starving people trying to get food.” No, Israel has intentionally starved the population of Gaza now for three months. They have continued the campaign of dehumanization, and they’re using food as a weapon of war in an effort to further dehumanize Palestinians.
And the last thing I’ll say about this is Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich, who’s in the war cabinet, both said that the point of this is to lure Palestinians, as though they’re animals going into a cage, lure them with the bait of promise of aid, and then entrap them in the south of Gaza, where they can either kill them in an increasingly shrinking killing cage or lock that cage and ship them off to another country. They call it Trump’s plan, but actually it’s been Netanyahu life’s work to try to erase Palestinians as a people and as a territory.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, on Wednesday, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation posted a video online showing Palestinians lined up, cheering at a new aid distribution site. The post includes this message: “Humanity shines as thousands cheer the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, heralding a new era of hope and compassion.”
MASKED MAN: Isn’t this crazy? Look at that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, the video shows a man who’s totally masked, making a heart sign. The Pulitzer Prize-winning Palestinian poet Mosab Abu Toha responded to the video by writing, quote, “Concentration Camp! Humiliating people starved for 86 days. Shame on this world.” Jeremy, your response?
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, there are no words to offer in response, because we know that the entire point of this was to serve the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people. We know that the agenda at play here was to try to lure them with food as a bait, to try to wipe them out. This is part of the life’s work, the central life’s work of Benjamin Netanyahu. And, in fact, a recent public opinion poll in Israel said that 82% of Jewish Israelis want Palestinians removed from Gaza.
The world understands what the agenda is. Many governments that are now starting to speak up were enablers of this. Many news organizations are starting to speak up that were enablers of this. History should never forget what the United States facilitated under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Jeremy, the issue of the ceasefire proposals? You’ve spoken —
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: — with Hamas officials. Explain what’s happening right now.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, well, Amy, I actually just saw the latest draft that was circulated by Steve Witkoff. This was announced yesterday with Donald Trump. And basically, what’s happening here is Hamas had agreed to a version of this framework that they were told by a U.S. emissary would satisfy Donald Trump. The Israelis went nuts over that. And so, what’s happening right now is there’s an attempt to amend language.
It boils down to this, Amy: Israel wants to be able to continue the genocide if it determines it wants to do so. Hamas has said it’s a red line if the deal does not include a clear path to negotiations for a permanent end to the war.
So, what is happening right now is that there are reviews happening on Hamas’s side, on Israel’s side, and we’re going to have to see. Donald Trump is the defining factor. Everyone involved knows that the only person capable of ending this genocidal war is Donald Trump. It’s a sick reality. It has to do with his business interests in the Gulf and elsewhere and his image of himself. But it all boils down to that. It has nothing to do with a humanitarian objective or saving Palestinian lives. It has everything to do with whether Donald Trump decides Netanyahu’s war is bad for his business politically and his personal family business.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, but you’ve reported someone who served as a backdoor negotiator for the Trump administration is Dr. Bishara Bahbah. Can you explain who he is?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Bishara Bahbah was the head of Arab Americans for Trump. You know, Donald Trump tried to hit Kamala Harris, because he knew that she was very unpopular because of her Gaza stance. He’s been the U.S. emissary that’s been dealing directly with Hamas. I’m told that often what happens is Bahbah is in the room with Hamas officials. They then get Witkoff on the line, or they communicate by text messages. You know, this is a lower-level official, but it seems clear that that backdoor communication is what led to Witkoff announcing that there may be a breakthrough imminently.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, we want to thank you so much for being with us, co-founder of Drop Site News. We’ll link to your recent reports.
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/headlines
Deliberate Israeli Mismanagement of Desperately Needed Aid Is Killing More Palestinians in Gaza
May 29, 2025
In Gaza, at least two people were crushed to death and two others fatally shot Wednesday as thousands of starving Palestinians rushed a United Nations humanitarian aid distribution warehouse in Deir al-Balah, tearing open its metal walls in a desperate attempt to find food. Witnesses described a chaotic scene as starving people clamored for the supplies.
Abdel Qader Rabie: “I’m hungry, and I want to eat. There’s no flour, no food, no bread. There’s nothing at home. Every time I go get aid, I take hold of a box, and a hundred people crowd over me — 300. I couldn’t take anything. I just go home empty-handed. Before, the U.N. agency used to send me a message, and I would go, like any respected person. I’d take the aid, and I’d go back home. Now there’s nothing. If you’re strong, you get aid. If you’re not strong, you don’t.”
Gaza officials say at least 10 Palestinians seeking aid have been killed by Israeli forces in the past three days. The World Food Programme said in a statement, “Humanitarian needs have spiralled out of control after 80 days of complete blockade of all food assistance and other aid into Gaza. Gaza needs an immediate scale-up of food assistance. This is the only way to reassure people that they will not starve.”
Israel Kills Journalist Moataz Rajab, at Least the 221st Media Worker Killed in Genocide
May 29, 2025
Israeli attacks so far today have killed at least 55 people across Gaza. Among the dead is Palestinian journalist Moataz Rajab, who was killed along with four other civilians in an Israeli strike on his vehicle in Gaza City. He’s at least the 221st media worker killed by Israel in Gaza since October 2023.
Meanwhile, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his forces had killed Hamas commander Mohammed Sinwar. He was apparently the target of a May 13 strike in Khan Younis, when Israeli warplanes simultaneously dropped six large bombs on the European Hospital. Twenty-eight people were killed and dozens more wounded in that attack.
Int’l Doctors Barred from Entering Gaza as U.S. Surgeon Testifies “Child Protections in Gaza Are Gone”
May 29, 2025
International doctors and healthcare workers report they’re increasingly being blocked by Israel from entering Gaza, with specialists approved for exits but denied new entry visas in what advocates are calling an “undeclared medical siege.”
On Wednesday, U.S. trauma surgeon Dr. Feroze Sidhwa testified to the U.N. Security Council about his time spent as an emergency doctor at the European Hospital in Gaza, where he treated young children severely injured by explosives.
Dr. Feroze Sidhwa: “Children are supposed to be protected. In Gaza, these protections are simply gone. Every day, the distinction between combatant and civilian is erased. Most of my patients were preteen children, their bodies shattered by explosives and torn by flying metal. … The medical system has not failed. It has been systematically dismantled through a sustained military campaign that has willfully violated international humanitarian law. Civilians are now dying not just from the constant airstrikes, but from acute malnutrition, sepsis, exposure and despair.”
Israel Approves Largest Settlement Expansion Amid Mounting Raids, Killing of West Bank Palestinians
May 29, 2025
In the occupied West Bank, family members say Israeli soldiers burst into their home without warning early Wednesday before shooting 20-year-old Palestinian Jassem al-Sadda as he slept. The young man was reportedly left to bleed to death with no one allowed to approach him.
His killing came as the Israeli military continues its campaign of stepped-up raids and home demolitions across the West Bank, where Israeli ministers have just approved 22 new settlements, which are illegal under international law. It’s the largest such expansion in Israel’s history. This comes amid a surge of attacks by settlers on Palestinian communities. On Tuesday, residents of Qaryout reported Israeli settlers descended on their village without warning, setting fire to homes and property.
Ali Qassam: “We were at home sitting safely — there was no one outside at all — when we were surprised by the sounds of bangs and saw fire and smoke. We opened the door and were surprised to see a huge number of settlers, and no one else. They set fire to cars and houses and damaged the neighborhood. They burned maybe 10 cars, as you can see. They burned the house and damaged the cars. They even hit people. I went outside, and I was also beaten by a bat.”
Meanwhile, a new Israeli law allows for children as young as 12 years old to be sentenced to life in prison. U.N. experts say the law is designed to punish Palestinian families and likely violates international laws, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Federal Trade Court Blocks Most of Trump’s Tariffs
May 29, 2025
In New York, a three-judge panel at the U.S. Court of International Trade has ruled President Trump’s sweeping global tariffs were imposed illegally, blocking Trump for now from pursuing much of his trade war. The court agreed with business owners and a dozen states that sued Trump, arguing the president exceeded his authority by invoking a national emergency to bypass Congress in order to impose the tariffs. The ruling applies to Trump’s so-called Liberation Day tariffs, which roiled global markets in April, and to his levies on Canada and Mexico that he claimed were related to the flow of drugs and people across borders. Industry-specific tariffs imposed on automobiles, steel and aluminum are not affected by the order. The White House is expected to appeal. Stephen Miller, deputy chief of staff for policy, wrote on social media that “the judicial coup is out of control.”
Trump Nominates Personal Defense Attorney Emil Bove to Serve as Appellate Judge
May 29, 2025
President Trump has nominated Emil Bove, his former personal defense attorney and current Justice Department official, to the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. Among other things, Emil Bove threatened to fire attorneys in the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section if they refused to file a motion to dismiss the corruption case against New York Mayor Eric Adams, and he accused FBI leaders of “insubordination” after they refused to identify agents involved in the January 6 Capitol insurrection investigations.
Trump also announced new nominees for a federal district court in Florida. The Alliance for Justice this week urged senators to oppose Trump’s previously announced judicial nominees, warning they all “demonstrated their opposition to the protections of the law and their loyalty to the Trumpian agenda.”
Trump Administration to “Aggressively” Revoke Visas of Chinese Students
May 29, 2025
Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the government will start “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, one day after the Trump administration announced it’s halting the processing of visas for foreign students. Rubio said people with links to the Chinese Communist Party — China’s sole and ruling party — would be especially targeted, as well as people studying in “critical fields.” Chinese nationals represent the second-largest proportion of overseas students in the U.S.
Meanwhile, Trump told reporters Wednesday Harvard should cap its acceptance of international students at “around 15 percent.” Last week, Trump revoked Harvard’s certification for admitting students from overseas.
Judge Rules U.S. Efforts to Deport Palestinian Activist Mahmoud Khalil Are Likely Unconstitutional
May 29, 2025
A federal judge in New Jersey has ruled the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Columbia graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, and arguments that Khalil represents a threat to national security and foreign policy are not likely to hold up. But Judge Michael Farbiarz stopped short of ordering Khalil’s release from a Louisiana immigration jail, pending developments on separate Trump administration charges against him related to his permanent residency application. Last week, Mahmoud Khalil testified that deportation would be life-threatening due to smears and lies by the Trump administration. He’s married to a U.S. citizen who gave birth to the couple’s first child last month.
Police Violently Arrest Protesters Who Rallied to Defend Immigrants Detained at NYC Courthouse
May 29, 2025
Here in New York, masked federal agents arrested multiple people who showed up for appointments at immigration courts in downtown Manhattan Wednesday, including a family with small children. Police officers arrested protesters and observers who showed up to offer support and assistance, including a pastor. Community members also blocked vans carrying immigrants from driving down the street, before police officers pepper-sprayed, violently tackled and dragged them away. The Trump administration has reportedly ordered ICE to make 3,000 arrests per day.
Immigration Judges Toss Over a Dozen Cases Involving Men Expelled to Salvadoran Prison
May 29, 2025
NBC News is reporting immigration judges have moved to dismiss at least 14 cases involving immigrants who were expelled without due process to an El Salvador mega-prison under the Alien Enemies Act, despite ongoing legal challenges over Trump’s invocation of the 1798 wartime law. One of the recently dismissed asylum cases involves Andry Hernández Romero, a gay makeup artist from Venezuela, who was apparently expelled because he had tattoos.
Federal Judge Weighs Fate of Temporary Protected Status for Haitian Immigrants
May 29, 2025
In more immigration news, a federal judge in New York heard arguments Wednesday that could determine the fate of some 500,000 Haitian recipients of temporary protected status whose deportation protections are at risk of expiring in August, after the Trump administration moved to prematurely cut off their TPS status. This is Aline Gue, executive director of Haitian Women for Haitian Refugees.
Aline Gue: “This is a huge disruption, not only to their lives, creating anxiety and harm, wreaking havoc in our communities at large, but it’s also unlawful, because this is precisely the reason why temporary protected status was created, right? For folks to not be returned back to situations that have a lot of political instability, violence, natural disasters. And that is exactly what we’re seeing in Haiti today.”
Elon Musk Leaves Trump Administration Amid Rift over “Big, Beautiful Bill”
May 29, 2025
The White House confirmed Elon Musk will be leaving the Trump administration after leading efforts to gut government agencies while firing tens of thousands of workers through his Department of Government Efficiency. The confirmed departure came after Musk said he was “disappointed” that President Trump is pursuing the One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act — a massive spending bill that increases the budget deficit. Musk said, “I think a bill can be big or it can be beautiful, but I don’t know if it can be both.” [/b]The Congressional Budget Office projects the legislation would add $3.8 trillion to the national debt over 10 years, slashing taxes for the wealthy while gutting social programs, including massive cuts to Medicare and Medicaid.
Meanwhile, legal experts are sounding the alarm over a little-noticed provision of the more than 1,000-page spending bill which shields the president from contempt-of-court citations by federal judges. That would pave the way for Trump administration officials to continue ignoring court orders without fear of consequences./b]
Harvard Relinquishes Photos of Enslaved People to Descendants, Capping 15-Year Legal Struggle
May 29, 2025
Harvard has agreed to hand over 175-year-old photographs of an enslaved man and his daughter to a Black history museum in South Carolina as part of a settlement with the descendant of the photos’ subjects. The deal caps a 15-year legal battle between Harvard and Tamara Lanier, whose great-great-great-grandfather Renty is featured in the photos. Lanier celebrated the long-anticipated resolution, saying, “This pilfered property, images taken without dignity or consent and used to promote a racist psychoscience, will now be repatriated to a home where their stories can be told and their humanity can be restored.”
Namibia Marks First National Genocide Remembrance Day with Calls for Reparations from Germany
May 29, 2025
Namibia has issued fresh calls for reparations from Germany as Namibia marked its first national Genocide Remembrance Day Wednesday. Between 1904 and 1908, German colonial invaders killed up to 100,000 Indigenous people, most from the OvaHerero and Nama communities. This is OvaHerero leader Hoze Riruako.
Hoze Riruako: “What has happened here, because this is the first genocide of the 20th century, this was actually the prelude to the — you know, to the Holocaust. But this is not recorded anywhere. People are not aware of what has happened here, to the same level and same extent as some of the other atrocities.”
*********************************
Fear, Repression & Brain Drain: U.S. Campuses Reeling as Trump Freezes, Revokes Student Visas
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/ ... dent_visas
The Trump administration is escalating its campaign against international students at U.S. colleges and universities, announcing that it will begin “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, in addition to freezing visa processing for all foreign-born students as it prepares to require additional social media vetting for every applicant. “It’s really just difficult for me to think of any conceivable theory on which this is going to help the United States,” says Jameel Jaffer, noting that international students pay a disproportionate share of tuition costs on U.S. campuses. Jaffer is the director of the Knight First Amendment Institute, which has previously sued the government over its social media vetting policy for visa applications. The policy, which began as a pilot program during the Obama administration, “is ineffective at identifying national security threats, but it is very effective at chilling free speech,” says Jaffer.
Jaffer also comments on the high-profile immigration detention of former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil and Harvard graduate researcher Kseniia Petrova, as well as a case brought by the Knight Institute challenging the constitutionality of the Trump administration’s crackdown on campus pro-Palestine protest.
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned the government will start “aggressively” revoking the visas of Chinese students, one day after the Trump administration announced it’s halting the processing of visas for foreign students as it prepares to require additional social media vetting for every applicant. Rubio said students with links to the Chinese Communist Party, which is China’s sole and ruling party, would be especially targeted, as well as people studying in, quote, “critical fields.” Chinese nationals represent the second-largest proportion of overseas students in the U.S.
Meanwhile, President Trump told reporters Wednesday, Harvard should cap its acceptance of international students at “around 15 percent.” Last week, Trump revoked Harvard’s certification for admitting overseas students. Currently over a quarter of Harvard’s student body is international. Many of those students are now seeking to transfer to another school.
Harvard’s commencement ceremonies are taking place today. This week, Harvard students protested in support of international students. This is Pakistani international student Abdullah Shahid Sial, who is also the student body co-president of Harvard’s Undergraduate Association.
ABDULLAH SHAHID SIAL: I haven’t had the time yet to think about my backup plans, but as of now, I don’t think anyone is sure if they can return for the fall semester back into Harvard, and, more broadly, back into the U.S. In that case, I would have to look for other options. I haven’t looked at the list yet for the next available ones, because most transfer windows for most colleges have already been closed. But I also want to make it very, very clear that deporting international students doesn’t solve any of this. We don’t have any provided mechanism by President Trump’s administration that deporting internationals in this particular manner will solve any of these issues.
AMY GOODMAN: This comes as a federal judge in New Jersey found the Trump administration’s efforts to deport Columbia graduate, Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is likely unconstitutional, but stopped short of ordering his release from a Jena, Louisiana, immigration jail.
In another high-profile case targeting international students and academics, a judge has granted bail to Russian Harvard scientist Kseniia Petrova, ruling her three-months-long detention by immigration authorities is unjustified.
For more, we’re joined by Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, part of a team of lawyers representing professors in their lawsuit against the Trump administration’s repression of students and faculty involved in pro-Palestine activism. He was previously the ACLU’s deputy legal director.
Jameel, welcome back to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Thank you. Great to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: This attack on students at Columbia, at Harvard, around the country, and now the latest news that broke in the last hours about going after, in particular, Chinese students, the second-largest number of students in the United States, well over a quarter of a million students — can you just respond to what’s happening here?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Well, I mean, I really don’t think any foreign enemy could do nearly as much damage to the United States as the Trump administration is doing to it right now. I mean, even this policy alone, the one focused on Chinese students, is going to have an immediate effect, not just on the Chinese students who are already here, but on the willingness of Chinese nationals to come to the United States. That’s obviously the whole point of it.
But, you know, Chinese nationals who study in the United States bring a lot to the United States. I mean, it’s a wonderful, amazing thing that people come from all over the world to study at American universities. You know, they enrich the experiences of American students at those universities. They pay tuition. They contribute to research collaborations. They engage in all sorts of socially useful projects that have implications not just for students and faculty at the universities, but for American society. It’s an amazing thing.
And the Trump administration is taking aim at — you know, at all of that. And it’s going to have immediate and, I’m afraid, irreparable consequences for American leadership and prosperity. It’s really just difficult for me to think of any conceivable theory on which this is going to help the United States.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And if you could respond also to the fact that the Trump administration has announced a pause in the processing of visas for all foreign students, and that it’s done so at this time when the maximum number of students from abroad are applying for visas for September admissions? And just to make clear, there are over a million international students from over 200 countries enrolled in U.S. colleges. That was the case, the numbers, for 2023-2024.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, let me just start by saying this is so incredibly cruel to the — you know, for the people who are here, this is so disruptive, right? They have relied on the fact that they were given visas by the State Department. They are here lawfully. They are studying here at the invitation of the United States. And this is designed to disrupt their lives in the most fundamental way.
But then, beyond that, it’s going to be such a big deal for these universities, because foreign students make up a very high percentage of the students at major American universities. I don’t have the exact numbers in front of me, but I believe it’s something close to 40% at Columbia and somewhere around 25% at Harvard. And foreign students pay a disproportionate share of the tuition. So, universities in the United States are reliant on the income they get from the foreign students who study here. And it’s going to be a huge deal for American universities when all of these students who are studying here lawfully find it necessary to consider withdrawing, and all the students who would otherwise apply to the United States end up applying to, you know, Canada or Australia or Europe instead.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, I’d like to go to comments made by Secretary of State Marco Rubio during a Senate hearing, the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, earlier this month. He said the Trump administration would continue to reconsider granting international student visas.
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: If you tell me that you’re coming to the United States to lead campus crusades, to take over libraries and burn down — try to burn down buildings and acts of violence, we’re not going to give you a visa.
SEN. CHRIS VAN HOLLEN: Is that what Ms. Öztürk did?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, Jameel, that was Secretary of State Marco Rubio. If you could speak specifically about the Trump administration’s justification for this? In other words, they’re looking to expand social media vetting for every applicant. And also the fact that in his last administration, Trump already imposed a stricter review of visa applicants, including social media screening.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, first of all, why wasn’t that reversed during the Biden administration?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Good question.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Is it difficult to do so?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, good question.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, yeah, yeah, what kind of social media screenings are we looking at?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, so, this screening has been in place now for — you know, a pilot version of it was put in place under the Obama administration. It’s been expanded since then, principally by the Trump administration. It applies now to — about 14 million people who apply for visas every year are required to submit their social media handles to the State Department with their visa application. And now the Trump administration is proposing to expand it even — you know, even further.
The evidence we have is that this program has been entirely ineffective at achieving the ends that the Trump administration says it was designed to achieve. The goal was to identify national security threats. There is no evidence at all that this program has resulted in the identification of national security threats. And in fact, my organization, the Knight Institute, sued several years ago under the Freedom of Information Act to find out how this program was actually operating and what the results of the program had been. And one of the documents we got in response to our FOIA request was a document from inside the director of national intelligence — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, conceding that the program had been “ineffective.” That was their word, “ineffective.” And now this program is going to be expanded.
Now, it is ineffective at identifying national security threats, but it is very effective at chilling free speech and association, that is protected by the First Amendment. And there is an ongoing lawsuit. We’re involved in a lawsuit on behalf of two documentary film organizations, Doc Society and the International Documentary Association. We sued over the constitutionality of this program several years ago. The case is now pending before the D.C. Circuit.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And what about —
AMY GOODMAN: So —
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Why wasn’t — sorry, just one second — the Biden administration, why wasn’t this reversed during all those years?
JAMEEL JAFFER: So, we repeatedly asked the Biden administration to reverse this policy. The Brennan Center, which we are working with on this specific issue, repeatedly asked the Biden administration to reverse this policy. And the Biden administration did not do that.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you’re a graduate of Harvard Law School. Actually, you were an international student from Canada at the time.
JAMEEL JAFFER: I was. That’s right.
AMY GOODMAN: You work at Columbia University. By the way, the latest news out of Harvard is they’re not only going to go after the students, but anyone, they will be reviewing the visa, who is involved there. But we just heard Marco Rubio talking about troublemakers, essentially, going after them and cleaning — now it’s a new rule, whether you live in another country or here, and you’re leaving the country, you’ve got to pack your bags, clean your room and clean all your social media sites — right? — to help get back into this country.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask about Mahmoud Khalil. He’s a Columbia student, now a graduate. He’s imprisoned. He graduated while he was imprisoned in Louisiana, negotiator between the students and Columbia University around the encampments. And then you have a judge ruling — a New Jersey federal judge ruling that it is likely unconstitutional, what has happened to him. And you have a Vermont federal judge calling for the release on bail of a student — Harvard scientist named Kseniia Petrova, who came into the United States and was taken by ICE and is jailed. Can you respond to these cases and the message they are sending and what has to happen here?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, let me start with the Khalil case. So, this was an important legal victory that Khalil won yesterday before Judge Farbiarz in New Jersey. And Khalil is very well represented. He has great lawyers at the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights. And I think that that legal victory is something to celebrate.
But at the end of the day, he is still behind bars. You know, it’s been almost three months, and he is still behind bars. And on the basis of what? Activity that is plainly protected by the First Amendment. You know, he’s behind bars because of his human rights advocacy. And I think that, you know, that is a really incredible and shocking thing. If the First Amendment was supposed to prevent anything, it was supposed to prevent the government arresting you on the basis of your political beliefs. But that’s what’s going on here. And he has been detained for three months already. I think it’s kind of, you know, crazy that it’s already gone on for so long. And I hope that Judge Farbiarz gets to the First Amendment questions very quickly.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And also, just to be clear, he’s not a foreign student. He is a green card holder —
JAMEEL JAFFER: That’s right.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: — a lawful permanent resident of the United States. And then, to ask about the Russian scientist who’s at Harvard University, who was, she’s also been detained —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: — in this Louisiana ICE detention facility for months. Now, in her case, she’s also been criminally charged, in addition to violating immigration laws. She didn’t declare these lab frogs, I mean, that she had brought in from France, which is normally considered a trivial violation. She’s been criminally charged for smuggling, for bringing in these frogs, but the Trump administration has also issued a detainer on immigration charges, which effectively means that even if she’s granted bail, what the judge yesterday ordered — if she’s granted bail on the criminal case, the government —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: — could still get ICE to detain her. If you could elaborate?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, I mean, it’s a very unusual reaction on the part of the government to what, as you say, is usually considered a trivial offense. I think the message here is — I mean, just, you know, beyond the kind of arbitrariness of it and the cruelty of it, the message here is not just to, you know, her specifically, but to any foreign national who’s considering coming to the United States right now. Like, the message is you’re not welcome. And, you know, you see that message delivered through all of these policies — the one that we started with, the policy relating to Chinese nationals, the roundup of students who protested on campus last year, the revocation of Harvard’s authority to host foreign students. Like, all of this is meant to send a broader message, which is that, you know, foreign nationals aren’t welcome in the United States.
And, you know, that is deeply problematic for many of those foreign nationals, but it is also extremely damaging to the United States at every level, you know, from security to the economy, to American prestige in the world, to our ability to carry out scientific projects that have very real implications for ordinary Americans. You know, it’s not just people at Harvard who get cancer or who get Alzheimer’s. It’s ordinary Americans get these diseases, and they need cures to these diseases. And the research is being done at major American universities, and it will be much harder to that research without foreign faculty and foreign students.
AMY GOODMAN: And the rule of the courts? We just heard about the Vermont judge —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — the New Jersey judge. Overall, your assessment of them? And the Trump administration, how it’s responding first term versus this term? You have Stephen Miller, you just heard —
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah, yeah.
AMY GOODMAN: — saying this is a judicial coup, when they are ruled against.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I think that, you know, many of the district court judges are doing exactly what the Constitution demands they do. You know, the district court judges are ruling against the Trump administration in many of these — many of these contexts.
We’ll have to see what the Supreme Court does. You know, the Supreme Court so far has been extremely cautious. You know, one theory is that they’re worried about the Trump administration not complying with their court orders, and they’re worried about the loss of institutional credibility that would come if the Trump administration ignored their court orders. But that’s itself a kind of terrifying thing, that we’re, you know, at the point where the Supreme Court is worried about whether the executive branch will even honor the Constitution in that way.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And if we could ask you about the case that you, yourself — you’re representing, the Knight Institute is representing the American Association of University Professors and the Middle East Studies Association, challenging the Trump administration’s large-scale arrests, detentions and deportations of foreign students and faculty who have been involved in pro-Palestine protests. If you could talk about that case?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. So, this is a challenge to the policy of arresting, detaining and threatening to deport students who participated in pro-Palestinian protest last year. You know, as we’ve already discussed, there are cases in which individual students who have been targeted have challenged their arrest and detention and threatened deportation. The Mahmoud Khalil case is one of those cases. But this case is a challenge to the deeper policy, and it’s brought on behalf of faculty at universities across the country.
And what they are pointing out is that these detentions have obvious implications for the students who are detained, but they also have this very profound chilling effect on all of the foreign students and foreign faculty, who are worried about the possibility of being targeted. And this policy has really transformed life at universities around the country, really put a kind of blanket of fear and repression over these — you know, over campuses all over the United States.
AMY GOODMAN: And just 30 seconds on — this is often being framed as what these international students lose when they can’t come to the United States. But the issue of what the United States loses? I mean, it’s called a “brain drain.” Other countries are now calling this a “brain gain,” that they’ll get the students. But the shutting down of scientific labs, the research around Alzheimer’s, around cancer?
JAMEEL JAFFER: Yeah. I mean, I think it’s obvious what’s going to happen. The most talented students and faculty from abroad, who, until, you know, very recently, have come to the United States, will instead go to Europe, or they’ll go to Australia, or they’ll go to Canada. And all of those countries —
AMY GOODMAN: Or China or Russia.
JAMEEL JAFFER: Or China. And they’ll — you know, all those countries are seeing this as a huge opportunity, as I suppose they should. But it’s very sad for the United States, because the United States, since the Second World War, has really led in higher education. You know, these universities — Harvard, Columbia, Stanford — these are the envy of the world, you know? And like I said earlier, I just cannot imagine the theory, any theory, under which these policies are good for the United States at any level.
AMY GOODMAN: Jameel Jaffer, director of the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University.
Coming up, we look at Israel’s use of Palestinians as human shields in Gaza and the West Bank. We’ll talk to Nadav Weiman, a former Israeli soldier who heads the group Breaking the Silence. Back in 20 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Contra Todo,” “Against Everything,” by Ileana Cabra Joglar, better known as iLe, performing in our Democracy Now! studio.
*************************
Mosquito Protocol: Ex-Israeli Soldier on Army’s Systematic Use of Palestinians as Human Shields
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/ ... an_shields
Israel has repeatedly claimed without evidence that Hamas endangers civilians by hiding behind human shields. It turns out, however, that Israel has systematically used Palestinians as human shields in violation of both international and Israeli law. A new investigation by the Associated Press joins reports by +972 Magazine, Haaretz and the Red Cross in documenting how Palestinians have been used as human shields to inspect buildings, tunnels and other sites in Gaza and the West Bank. The investigation includes testimony and evidence from both Israeli soldiers and Palestinian civilians, collected in part by the anti-occupation Israeli veterans’ group Breaking the Silence. In what is being called the “mosquito procedure,” Israeli soldiers are “ordered by senior officers to grab Palestinians next to them and to use them as human shields,” explains Breaking the Silence’s executive director, Nadav Weiman. “Dehumanization of Palestinians in Israel [has] become something so common that it also leads to these kind[s] of practices inside the IDF.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: We turn now to Gaza, where more evidence is coming to light about how Israel has systematically used Palestinians as human shields in violation of both international and Israeli law. That’s the conclusion of a new investigation by the Associated Press based on interviews with Israeli soldiers and with Palestinians who said they were used as human shields to inspect buildings, tunnels and other sites in Gaza and the occupied West Bank. The AP reports the Israeli soldiers said the practice was used in part to spare combat dogs from injury or death. One Israeli sergeant admitted to using Palestinians as young as 16 years old as human shields.
AMY GOODMAN: In February, the news outlet +972 revealed how Israel used an 80-year-old man as a human shield. Troops tied an explosive cord around his neck, then forced him to search abandoned buildings. After he finished the mission, he was ordered to flee, but then another Israeli unit fatally shot him and his wife Haaretz and the Red Cross have also documented Israel’s use of human shields.
The AP report is based in part on testimonies collected by Breaking the Silence, a group made up of former Israeli soldiers opposed to the Israeli occupation. The group has also released photos of Palestinians being used as human shields in Gaza.
We’re joined now by the group’s executive director, Nadav Weiman. He’s a former Israeli soldier, joining us from Tel Aviv.
Thanks so much for being with us. Tell us what information you collected, the Israeli soldiers you talked to, and how exactly they’re using Palestinians as human shields.
NADAV WEIMAN: So, Amy, I’ve got to say that from the beginning of this war, we got testimonies from soldiers that told us that they were ordered by senior officers to grab Palestinians next to them and to use them as human shields, meaning that they were ordered to send Palestinians — some of them were dressed up with IDF uniforms, had GoPro cameras on their head or on their chest, and then they were sent into tunnels and houses to check that there isn’t any IEDs or explosives over there, so the soldiers could enter safely or clear the area. And we got testimonies from different units, different times, different places in the Gaza Strip, which shows, as you said, that it’s widely spread, this protocol.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Nadav, as far as you know, how long has this practice been in place?
NADAV WEIMAN: Now, the first testimony that we have is from December 2023, meaning immediately after the ground invasion started. And the last testimony that we had is from the beginning of this year, beginning of 2025, just before the ceasefire. And it’s something that the IDF is using more and more and more, more units and more areas throughout the world.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And to what extent are you aware of soldiers resisting these orders to use Palestinians as human shields?
NADAV WEIMAN: Yeah, so, it’s interesting. Now, every — almost every soldier in the IDF learned about the fact that we used Palestinians as human shields during the Second Intifada. Back then, we called it the “neighbor procedure,” when you come to arrest a high-ranking Palestinian or you know that he’s armed, so you grab the next-door neighbor, and you told the neighbor, “You knock on the door. Not me.” And maybe he will get shot. And if nobody shot him, then we told him, “Get inside the house. Open all of the doors, and open all of the lights,” so we will be more safe. And that was banned by the Supreme Court in Israel in the end of the Second Intifada. So, the reservists in the Israeli army grew up on that history, that we did something, it was bad, but it was banned, and that’s it.
And now they got a command that is exactly that, but, I can say, even worse, actually. Right? Because it’s dressing them up in IDF uniform. Some of the soldiers told us that it’s maybe that they will be the target, so they will get shot. Now, the thing is, is that our testifiers told us there was a debate inside their unit, but it’s our testifiers, right? I just read an op-ed in Haaretz of an officer that served in Gaza, and he said that almost every platoon is using human shields. Right? So, our testifiers told us there was a debate. They came to the senior officers and told them, “Hey, you know, that we were trained to fight, not to use human beings as human shields, or that’s dehumanization of Palestinians, or that’s immoral or illegal,” or I don’t know what. But I cannot tell you what’s going on in the greater IDF at the moment.
AMY GOODMAN: So, explain, Nadav Weiman, why this is called the “mosquito procedure.” And also talk about what these Israeli soldiers told you about what happens to the Palestinians, many forced into houses, buildings, tunnels, that are suspected of being booby-trapped, allegedly made to perform tasks like looking for explosives in tunnels.
NADAV WEIMAN: Yeah, so, first of all, a lot of things that the IDF has names for, I don’t know the reason. But I can say that mosquito, like, it’s a bug that flies in the air, and, like, you can kill it. Who cares about it? And that was the relationship a lot of times between the soldiers and those Palestinian individuals that were used. And that’s the word: They were “used.” Right? We have a testifier that called them a “sub-army of slaves.”
Now, the protocol is quite simple. You need that individual with you for a period of time — two days, three days, a week, three weeks. So, it means that only when he’s scanning a tunnel or a house or an alley, so he doesn’t have handcuffs or a blindfold. The rest of the time, when he’s with you inside the house, you need to feed him. You need to take him to the bathroom. But he’s also handcuffed and blindfolded, so you need to help him. In some units, they were — the mosquitoes inside the house were used to clean the house where the soldiers stayed. So, it’s not only — you know, don’t only think about that time in the tunnel when they need to endanger their life. Think about the rest of the time, the majority of the day, that they were living with the soldiers inside the house. But again, eventually, they were supposed to be released. So, it’s — again, I’m quoting that soldier — a “sub-army of slaves.”
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And, Nadav, could you talk about the context in which this news has been coming out, where there’s mounting anger against Netanyahu, protests all across the country yesterday, for refusing to agree to a deal that would guarantee the release of Israeli hostages in Gaza? If you could explain what the mood is in Israel, the repeated calls for Netanyahu to step down? You’ve said that he’s acting like a dictator.
NADAV WEIMAN: Yeah, so, from the very beginning of this war, we and other human rights organizations, we called for a deal to release our hostages, ceasefire and enter humanitarian aid into Gaza. Now, at the beginning, we were a minority at the protests. But as this war — it’s hard for me to call it a war, because, as a soldier, they told me that a war, it’s two armies fighting one another. So, as this intensive operation in Gaza went so long, and we killed so many civilians, and we lost so many of our soldiers, and also we — also some of our hostages, more and more Israelis are resisting this war. And if you look at polls in Israel at the moment, you can see that the majority of Israelis, meaning even Bibi’s voters, I believe, are against the continuation of this war, and pro-hostage deal and pro-ending this war. And you can see the atmosphere on the streets.
What happened yesterday, it was the 600th day of this operation, or since October 7th, and we saw a lot of anger. You know, protesters in Tel Aviv took over the headquarters of the Likud party in Tel Aviv for a couple of hours, right? And they put signs. They said it’s the embassy of Qatar, because of the allegation that Qatar paid for the close advisers of Bibi to support them more than anything else. But I can say that what changed is, in the mid-March, when we returned fighting in Gaza, when we continued bombing in Gaza, and we broke the ceasefire, and we stopped releasing our hostages, the majority of the audience in Israel understood that this is a war to protect Bibi’s seat and Bibi’s government, not to release our hostages, not to fight Hamas and not to defend our borders, because if that was the case, we will go to a hostage deal, like Witkoff helped us achieve in the minute Trump stepped into office. Now, what we saw yesterday is more and more Israelis understanding that we are being lied to, that our soldiers are sent to die and to be killed for themselves without any good reason, without releasing our hostages or ending this war.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn for a last example to the occupied West Bank, Israel admitting to strapping a wounded Palestinian man to the hood of an Israeli military vehicle during a raid on Jenin. Relatives and neighbors of the man, Mujahid Azmi, said Israeli soldiers used him as a human shield instead of allowing him to get medical care after he’d been shot. This is 13-year-old Alaa Azmi speaking last year.
ALAA AZMI: [translated] We told them we want an ambulance for the wounded person in the room, so the army told us to bring him to them. We got him outside. And for about an hour or a half an hour, we kept asking for an ambulance. Then we called one. Fifteen minutes later, two Jeeps came, and they got in here. The troops told us to turn around and not to look. And they put Mujahid on the Jeep’s hood and took him.
AMY GOODMAN: After a video of the incident went viral, the Israeli military released a statement claiming the action was, quote, “in violation of orders and standard operating procedures.” Nadav Weiman, if you can talk about how Israel is responding now to this latest news of this much more widespread use of exactly this kind of example?
NADAV WEIMAN: Now, first of all, I’ve got to say that IDF spokespersons a lot of times when they are confronted with something bad that soldiers did that are against regulation, they say, “It’s against regulation. We will educate the soldiers. A mistake.” And that’s it — no investigation, no nothing.
Now, I’ve got to say that now the IDF announced that six investigations were opened after the IDF soldiers used Palestinians as human shields in Gaza. And it’s a joke, right? Because we have so many more incidents. And even Yaniv Kubovich from Haaretz newspaper published a couple of months ago that Herzi Halevi, then-commander-in-chief of the IDF, was sitting in the meeting room while the mosquito protocol was discussed, meaning that everybody knew.
Now, I’ve got to say, that connects to something a lot bigger in the Israeli society, and that’s dehumanization of Palestinians. Right? Since October 7th, it’s even on steroids, right? We have government members that are openly talking about genocide. Right? When the head of the Labor Party, Yair Golan, last week said that the right-wing politician likes to kill Palestinian kids and babies, he was called as a traitor by our government. You know, we have ministers saying there isn’t any innocent in Gaza, that all of the Palestinians are assisting terror or terrorists by themselves. And that seeps down into the IDF, into commands that soldiers are getting. And if you connect that with the fact that we have more and more officers and commanders in the IDF that comes from the religious right wing and from the settler movement and believe that maybe it’s a holy war, not a war of defending ourselves, you can understand why you have such a huge amount of those kind of incidents. Dehumanization of Palestinians in Israel became something so common that it also leads to these kind of practices inside the IDF.
AMY GOODMAN: Nadav Weiman, we want to thank you for being with us, executive director of Breaking the Silence, a whistleblower group of former Israeli soldiers.
When we come back, Israeli troops have fatally shot at least 10 Palestinians as they attempted to collect food and aid amidst the chaotic unveiling of a new Israeli-U.S.-backed aid distribution plan run by a shadowy U.S. group. We’ll speak to Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News, in 20 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Way of Life” by T-Rosemond in our Democracy Now! studio.
****************************
Jeremy Scahill: Shadowy Israeli-U.S. Aid Plan Is Weapon in “Netanyahu’s War of Annihilation” in Gaza
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 29, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/29/ ... aid_scheme
“The point of this is to lure Palestinians as though they’re animals going into a cage, lure them with the bait of promise of aid, and then entrap them in the south of Gaza.” As starving Palestinians in Gaza compete for the limited trickle of supplies admitted into the enclave by a new U.S.- and Israeli-backed humanitarian aid scheme, journalist Jeremy Scahill of Drop Site News says the sparse aid is actually another Israeli military tactic “meant to serve as part of Netanyahu’s war of annihilation. … They’re using food as a weapon of war in an effort to further dehumanize Palestinians.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman, with Nermeen Shaikh.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: And Israeli-U.S. plan to sideline the United Nations aid delivery system is continuing to cause chaos in Gaza. At least 10 Palestinians have been shot dead as Israeli troops have repeatedly opened fire at newly established aid distribution sites.
The aid is being distributed by a shadow U.S. group registered in Delaware called the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. A separate U.S. company called Safe Reach Solutions is helping to provide security. The New York Times reports that firm is run by a former senior CIA officer named Philip Reilly, who reportedly helped train the Contras in Nicaragua in the 1980s.
The U.N. and international aid groups have condemned the new Israeli-U.S. plan. This is UNRWA Commissioner-General Philippe Lazzarini.
PHILIPPE LAZZARINI: The model of aid distribution proposed by Israel does not align with core humanitarian principle. It will deprive a large part of Gaza, the highly vulnerable people, of desperately needed assistance.
AMY GOODMAN: We’re joined now by Jeremy Scahill, co-founder of Drop Site News, recently wrote an article headlined “Netanyahu: Gaza Aid Scheme Offers Israel Symbolic Cover to Finish the Genocide.” Jeremy Scahill has also been reporting on proposals for a new ceasefire in Gaza.
We’ll get to that in a minute, Jeremy. But why don’t you lay out what is going on? This shadowy group that has moved in, condemned by humanitarian aid organizations, by the United Nations, talk about who they are and what’s happening.
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, first of all, Amy, we should be very clear that this cutout of a company — you know, “cutout” is a term of espionage — it was established by people with ties to the CIA and Israeli intelligence, was meant to serve as part of Netanyahu’s war of annihilation. Netanyahu himself said the quiet part out loud in a recent speech, when he said that he was getting some pressure even from his most passionate backers in the Republicans in the Senate. And he said, you know, that they didn’t want the optics of starving Palestinians, and that this could hinder the ability of the United States to continue arming and supporting Netanyahu, and so they wanted to give the veneer of some form of aid.
And Netanyahu and Israel have been at war against UNRWA, the U.N. agency that was established in the aftermath of the Nakba in the late 1940s, when the state of Israel was imposed on Palestine as a European colonial-settler state. And so, this serves two purposes. It allowed Netanyahu to say, “Look, we’re letting aid in, and we’re doing it so that Hamas can’t steal it” — which, by the way, was a lie. And even Biden’s top humanitarian official, David Satterfield, said this week that there was no evidence ever presented by Israel that Hamas was stealing or hoarding the aid. So, part of it was just was to give the veneer of we’re doing something humanitarian. The other part of it was to continue the war against UNRWA, to destroy the premier aid organization serving Palestinian refugees, forcibly displaced people. And UNRWA, its very existence, Netanyahu and Israel hate, because it recognizes the international laws that say that the Palestinians have a right to return to their land that they started to be — to lose in 1947, 1948, when the Nakba began.
So, they created this shell company, with ties to American intelligence officers, as a way of further destroying UNRWA, but also serving Netanyahu’s agenda. They then bring in an American mercenary company that — you know, Blackwater-style guys that you saw in Iraq and Afghanistan throughout the so-called war on terror. And then they created what international aid officials have said are concentration camp or internment camp-like conditions. Others have likened it to ghetto-style conditions, where Palestinians are going to be forced to stand out in the heat all day in barbed-wire fence enclosures, looking like a cage, and then they get a box with a paltry amount of food aid in it. There’s no medicine. There’s no infant formula. This is all just trickery that is being used to further the genocide.
And, Amy, I’ve been talking to people. A personal friend of mine whose family is from Khan Younis, four members of his family were shot sniper style yesterday by the Israeli military when they went to pick up these aid boxes at one of the two sites, the one near Rafah.
What is happening is that the Israelis are also using this as an intelligence operation. They’ve snatched, kidnapped a number of Palestinians. They’ve interrogated them. When they don’t get the answers they want, they’ve disappeared them.
They haven’t given any mechanism for how people are supposed to line up or know where to go. What we’re hearing from sources on the ground is that word just spreads via WhatsApp and text messages. “Oh, there’s going to be aid delivered in this place.” People go there, and it’s just pure chaos.
So, none of this is by accident. This is by design. And you have, on the one hand, a pittance of aid that is being actually distributed, relative to what is needed just to have — just to address the basic starvation factor in Gaza right now. And on the other hand, Israel is using this and the desperation of people to further dehumanize Palestinians. And when they go to try to desperately grab whatever aid they can, as we saw happen at a U.N. warehouse, then they say, “Well, Hamas is shooting starving people trying to get food.” No, Israel has intentionally starved the population of Gaza now for three months. They have continued the campaign of dehumanization, and they’re using food as a weapon of war in an effort to further dehumanize Palestinians.
And the last thing I’ll say about this is Netanyahu and Bezalel Smotrich, who’s in the war cabinet, both said that the point of this is to lure Palestinians, as though they’re animals going into a cage, lure them with the bait of promise of aid, and then entrap them in the south of Gaza, where they can either kill them in an increasingly shrinking killing cage or lock that cage and ship them off to another country. They call it Trump’s plan, but actually it’s been Netanyahu life’s work to try to erase Palestinians as a people and as a territory.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, on Wednesday, the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation posted a video online showing Palestinians lined up, cheering at a new aid distribution site. The post includes this message: “Humanity shines as thousands cheer the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, heralding a new era of hope and compassion.”
MASKED MAN: Isn’t this crazy? Look at that.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: So, the video shows a man who’s totally masked, making a heart sign. The Pulitzer Prize-winning Palestinian poet Mosab Abu Toha responded to the video by writing, quote, “Concentration Camp! Humiliating people starved for 86 days. Shame on this world.” Jeremy, your response?
JEREMY SCAHILL: I mean, there are no words to offer in response, because we know that the entire point of this was to serve the Israeli genocide against the Palestinian people. We know that the agenda at play here was to try to lure them with food as a bait, to try to wipe them out. This is part of the life’s work, the central life’s work of Benjamin Netanyahu. And, in fact, a recent public opinion poll in Israel said that 82% of Jewish Israelis want Palestinians removed from Gaza.
The world understands what the agenda is. Many governments that are now starting to speak up were enablers of this. Many news organizations are starting to speak up that were enablers of this. History should never forget what the United States facilitated under both Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
AMY GOODMAN: Very quickly, Jeremy, the issue of the ceasefire proposals? You’ve spoken —
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: — with Hamas officials. Explain what’s happening right now.
JEREMY SCAHILL: Yeah, well, Amy, I actually just saw the latest draft that was circulated by Steve Witkoff. This was announced yesterday with Donald Trump. And basically, what’s happening here is Hamas had agreed to a version of this framework that they were told by a U.S. emissary would satisfy Donald Trump. The Israelis went nuts over that. And so, what’s happening right now is there’s an attempt to amend language.
It boils down to this, Amy: Israel wants to be able to continue the genocide if it determines it wants to do so. Hamas has said it’s a red line if the deal does not include a clear path to negotiations for a permanent end to the war.
So, what is happening right now is that there are reviews happening on Hamas’s side, on Israel’s side, and we’re going to have to see. Donald Trump is the defining factor. Everyone involved knows that the only person capable of ending this genocidal war is Donald Trump. It’s a sick reality. It has to do with his business interests in the Gulf and elsewhere and his image of himself. But it all boils down to that. It has nothing to do with a humanitarian objective or saving Palestinian lives. It has everything to do with whether Donald Trump decides Netanyahu’s war is bad for his business politically and his personal family business.
AMY GOODMAN: We just have 30 seconds, but you’ve reported someone who served as a backdoor negotiator for the Trump administration is Dr. Bishara Bahbah. Can you explain who he is?
JEREMY SCAHILL: Bishara Bahbah was the head of Arab Americans for Trump. You know, Donald Trump tried to hit Kamala Harris, because he knew that she was very unpopular because of her Gaza stance. He’s been the U.S. emissary that’s been dealing directly with Hamas. I’m told that often what happens is Bahbah is in the room with Hamas officials. They then get Witkoff on the line, or they communicate by text messages. You know, this is a lower-level official, but it seems clear that that backdoor communication is what led to Witkoff announcing that there may be a breakthrough imminently.
AMY GOODMAN: Jeremy Scahill, we want to thank you so much for being with us, co-founder of Drop Site News. We’ll link to your recent reports.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 5:57 pm
Judge blocks Trump administration’s ban on Harvard accepting international students. Ivy League school filed suit accusing White House of unconstitutional retaliation for defying its demands
by Michael Sainato, Lucy Campbell and agencies
The Guardian
Fri 23 May 2025 14.38 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... n-students
A US federal judge on Friday blocked the government from revoking Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students just hours after the elite college sued the Trump administration over its abrupt ban the day before on enrolling foreign students.
US district judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued the temporary restraining order late on Friday morning, freezing the policy that had been abruptly imposed on the university, based in nearby Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Thursday.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has accused Columbia University of violating civil rights laws, while overseas governments had expressed alarm at the administration’s actions against Harvard as part of its latest assault on elite higher education in the US.
Harvard University announced on Friday morning that it was challenging the Trump administration’s decision to bar the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign students, calling it unconstitutional retaliation for the school previously defying the White House’s political demands.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston, Harvard said the government’s action violates the first amendment of the US constitution and will have an “immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders”.
“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission,” Harvard said in its suit. The institution added that it planned to file for a temporary restraining order to block the Department of Homeland Security from carrying out the move.
The Trump White House called the lawsuit “frivolous” but the court filing from the 389-year-old elite, private university, the oldest and wealthiest in the US, said: “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”
Harvard enrolls almost 6,800 foreign students at its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most are graduate students and they come from more than 100 countries.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services’ office for civil rights late on Thursday cited Columbia University, claiming the New York university acted with “deliberate indifference towards student-on-student harassment of Jewish students from October 7, 2023, through the present”, marking the date when Hamas led the deadly attack on Israel out of Gaza that sparked a ferocious military response from the Jewish state, prompting prolonged pro-Palestinian protests on US streets and college campuses.
“The findings carefully document the hostile environment Jewish students at Columbia University have had to endure for over 19 months, disrupting their education, safety, and well-being,” said Anthony Archeval, the acting director of the office for civil rights at HHS, in a statement on the action.
It continued: “We encourage Columbia University to work with us to come to an agreement that reflects meaningful changes that will truly protect Jewish students.” Columbia University had not yet issued a statement on the citation as of early Friday morning.
Orders by the Trump administration earlier this month to investigate pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University raised alarms within the Department of Justice, the New York Times reported. A federal judge denied a search warrant for the investigation.
Earlier this year, Columbia University agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration in response to $400m worth of grants and federal funds to the university being cancelled over claims of inaction by the university to protect Jewish students.
Burroughs said Harvard had shown it could be harmed before there was an opportunity to hear the case in full. The judge, an Obama administration appointee, scheduled hearings for 27 May and 29 May to consider next steps in the case.
The Harvard Crimson student newspaper reported that the Department of Homeland Security gave Harvard 72 hours to turn over all documents on all international students’ disciplinary records and paper, audio or video records on protest activity over the past five years in order to have the “opportunity” to have its eligibility to enroll foreign students reinstated.
Before Harvard filed suit, the Chinese government early on Friday had said the move to block foreign students from the school and oblige current ones to leave would only hurt the international standing of the US. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology extended an open invitation to Harvard international students and those accepted in response to the action against Harvard.
On Friday afternoon, despite the judge’s ruling, Chinese students at Harvard were cancelling flights home and seeking legal advice on staying in the US and saying they were scared in case Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents came to their accommodation to take them away, as they have done to other foreign students.
The former German health minister and alumnus of Harvard, Karl Lauterbach, called the action against Harvard “research policy suicide”. Germany’s research minister, Dorothee Baer, had also, before Harvard sued, urged the Trump administration to reverse its decision, calling it “fatal”.
Harvard’s lawsuit lists as the plaintiffs the “President and fellows of Harvard college” versus defendants including the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), the Department of Justice and the Department of State, as well as the government’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program and individual cabinet members – Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary; Pam Bondi, the attorney general; Marco Rubio, the secretary of state; and Todd Lyons, the acting director of Ice.
The White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said on Friday: “If only Harvard cared this much about ending the scourge of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators on their campus they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.”
She added: “Harvard should spend their time and resources on creating a safe campus environment instead of filing frivolous lawsuits.”
Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, wrote an open letter to students, academics and staff condemning an “unlawful” and “unwarranted” action by the administration.
“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body,” it said.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting
***********************************
Trump vs. Academic Freedom: President Escalates Attacks on Harvard & International Students
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 27, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/27/ ... ents_trump
A court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students. The move would cause over a quarter of Harvard’s student body to lose visas that allow them to study in the United States. One of the students affected is Francesco Anselmetti, a member of the graduate student union, who emphasizes that visa revocations would affect graduate researchers and teaching staff, constituting “one of the largest threats of vast deportation on a unionized workforce in American history.” It is the latest attack by the Trump administration against universities that receive federal funding.
When announcing the revocation order, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem accused Harvard of “antisemitism” and “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party,” but Harvard professor Alison Frank Johnson warns that the prestigious university is only a test case for Trump’s wider crackdown on knowledge production and academic freedom. “Harvard is not really the target here. It’s the independent scholarship that’s being produced by universities.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We turn now to President Trump’s escalating war on Harvard University and academia as a whole. On Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a move by the Trump administration to bar Harvard from enrolling international students. They make up well over a quarter of Harvard’s student body. A hearing on the case will be held today.
On Monday, Trump threatened to redirect $3 billion in federal grants from Harvard to trade schools. CNN is reporting the Trump administration is also poised to cancel $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard University.
On Monday, Trump slammed Harvard for accepting so many international students and for not handing over detailed personal information about them.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Part of the problem with Harvard is that there are about 31%, almost 31%, of foreigners coming to Harvard. We give them billions of dollars, which is ridiculous. … We have Americans that want to go there and to other places, and they can’t go there because you have 31% foreign. Now, no foreign government contributes money to Harvard. We do. So, why are they doing so many, number one? Number two, we want a list of those foreign students, and we’ll find out whether or not they’re OK. Many will be OK, I assume. And I assume, with Harvard, many will be bad. And then the other thing is they’re very antisemitic.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump is escalating his threats as Harvard resists requests by the federal government to hand over detailed personal information about its international students. On Monday, Trump wrote on Truth Social the information is needed to determine, quote, “how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” unquote.
On Monday, Democracy Now! reached Francesco Anselmetti, a British Italian international graduate student in Harvard’s joint Ph.D. program in history and Middle East studies. He’s a member of Harvard’s graduate student union. He responded to Trump’s threats.
FRANCESCO ANSELMETTI: Trump’s revocation of Harvard’s ability to enroll and register international students is — of course, it’s an attack on Harvard’s international community. It’s also, seemingly, one of the largest, perhaps the largest, threat of mass deportation on a unionized workforce in American history. I mean, this is an attack on American academia as it is an attack on American labor. Around 25% of the university’s community, including around 4,000 workers, many of whom do the bulk of teaching at Harvard, many of whom, you know, despite a federal judge blocking the Trump administration’s action, are left in a position of extreme precarity and uncertainty over the short- and medium-term future.
We expect, you know, the Harvard — we expect Harvard to continue fighting for its international students in the courts, but we expect them to do so also in part because it’s in their interest, right? What we aren’t so sure about is whether it is in their interest to truly stand up for the free speech and intellectual autonomy it claims to be defending. In order for it to do so, it would have to seriously consider the claims of various student groups that have been operating on campus over the last two years in solidarity with Palestinian rights, groups which Harvard has had really no trouble in disciplining, in some cases banning. And the irony here is that, of course, these decisions from Harvard have — represent caving to outside pressures, right? These, in many cases, have been decisions that Harvard has been pressured to do in response to right-wing groups, in response to donors who represent, you know, interests that are — that want to eradicate any pro-Palestine sentiment on American university campuses.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Harvard graduate student Francesco Anselmetti speaking to Democracy Now! Harvard’s UAW unions have condemned the Trump administration attacks on graduate student workers.
We’re joined now by Alison Frank Johnson, a professor of history at Harvard University, the chair of the German Department. She’s also a member of the American Association of University Professors, the AAUP.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Professor. If you can start off by talking about what Trump is demanding, what exactly this means, as students who are in Cambridge and are around the world not knowing whether they are being forced to leave as we speak?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: That’s right. This is a — these measures are targeting not only the students who haven’t arrived yet, who’ve been admitted but are still at home, packing, planning to go to college, to start their doctoral programs, but also students that are well into programs they’ve already started, some of them supposed to graduate on Thursday, the day after tomorrow, some of them six years into a seven-year Ph.D. program, some of them freshmen and sophomores at college.
Even before these latest measures targeting international students, F-1 and J-1 visa holders were announced, we had already seen the harassment of international students and scholars coming into the United States. I know many international students who were afraid to go and do research, to go to archives, to go accept collaborative grant offers from other universities, which actually do many times fund research that’s being done at Harvard, afraid to leave the country because they didn’t know if they’d be let back in, even before this was happening. So, this is a massive escalation, but it’s not the beginning of the attacks on the embeddedness of the research that we do in a global community.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Professor, we had a segment last week talking about how the European Union, Canada, the U.K., even Australia have been increasing the amount of money that they’re devoting to scientific research, hoping to lure Americans who are now being targeted by this war on science of the Trump administration. Could you talk, the discussions you’ve been having with your colleagues about whether some of them are considering leaving, going to other countries, and what the long-term impact on America’s lead in science and technology and research would be as a result of this?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Absolutely. So, I’m a historian of modern European history. Three scholars in my field who work at Yale recently very publicly announced that they were leaving for Canada. So far, my colleagues at Harvard and I are trying to prevent that from happening. So, our focus right now is to try to work together to ensure that Harvard continues to be a place where people will want to and be able to do cutting-edge research. And so, we are not yet planning for this mass exodus, but we have — we’re aware that that is one potential outcome, one we very much want to avoid.
The work being done at Harvard where grants have been cut — in fact, I think today the Trump administration announced they were cutting all contracts and all grants with Harvard University — that affects people working on tuberculosis, on ALS, on soft robotics, on diabetes, obviously, on cancer, repairing eye damage, people working on doing things like, you know, translating the Dead Sea Scrolls — that work has already been done — reducing school absenteeism. This is useful research. It’s useful to any country that will host it, and, in fact, it’s useful to the whole world, no matter where it takes place. So, I do understand that there will be attempts to poach some of the best scholars that we have at the university, although, as I said, my colleagues and I right now are trying to — that’s not the outcome that we want. We don’t want to — we don’t want to see people get well-paying jobs and fellowship opportunities elsewhere. We want to save this university.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk about the range of demands that the Trump administration has made of Harvard in relation to these foreign students, what exactly they want, the information they want?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Well, for better or for worse, it’s not entirely clear what they want. I think what they want is to destroy Harvard University as a way of destroying independent research and scholarship that they can’t control, intimidating the other universities that they haven’t yet targeted by destroying Harvard. So, whatever Harvard does, it’s not going to be sufficient.
You heard from the graduate student that you already interviewed that the university has actually taken many of the steps that the Trump administration has requested and demanded, including dismissing the director of the Center for Middle East Studies, including providing lots of information about our international students and accepting a definition of “antisemitism” that the regime favors. They also provided all legally required information related to the visa program that is being canceled, you know, SEVP. They did that.
So, when the Trump administration says that they haven’t provided the information that’s required, it’s not clear what exactly it is that Harvard even legally could provide that they still want. So, Harvard does have an obligation to protect the privacy of its students — I think, to a lesser extent, of its employees, but certainly of its students. It can’t just divulge anything to anyone. The federal government is the entity that has issued every single one of these students their visas, so, presumably, they already have access to the names and countries of origin of all of the students whose visas they have approved.
I think that whatever their demands are — and they certainly extend beyond what the law requires — even if Harvard were to meet them, they would come up with a new set of demands that it hadn’t met. It’s very clear that what they want to do is run the university into the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, I wanted to ask you two quick questions. You talked about some of the grants and what would be shut down. What about the grants around scientific research? I mean, you have the situation where the Harvard School of Public Health, apparently, The Wall Street Journal is reporting, that they are cutting funding for the School of Public Health, laying off people, also reducing graduate student admissions. What about other schools? And also, Trump’s comments when he says, “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard” — as you point out, they already have the list, because they give them the visas; they know who’s there, unless they want much more personal information — but Trump says, “so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country.” What this means, not only for your school, but for the universities around the country?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Yes, I think that Harvard is being made an example of, but Harvard is not really the target here. It’s the independent scholarship that’s being produced by universities, universities that work also to solve medical problems that aren’t very profitable, universities that are answerable to the truth and to future generations rather than to shareholders. And those universities do things like work on cures for cancer and work on cures for tuberculosis and work on cures for diabetes, and that work is obviously very — it’s obviously essential.
But we also do things like talk about climate change, right? We also do things like talk about the impact of income inequality. We also do things like talk about the importance of recognizing people’s identities, their sexual and gender-based identities, for their own mental health. We also talk about things like the segment that you aired before about what’s happening right now in Gaza. And those messages, whether it’s that vaccines work or that there is human-caused climate change or that we need to attend to the terrible tragedy that’s occurring in the Middle East, are messages that the administration doesn’t like, right? Universities, not only Harvard, do this work because they care about the truth. They don’t just care about what’s politically expedient for the current administration.
And I think that the assertion that the administration should decide which students are allowed to come to Harvard, which scholars are allowed to come to Harvard, whose ideas are dangerous — dangerous to whom? Right? Dangerous to an administration that isn’t interested in admitting that vaccines work, that isn’t interested in admitting that there’s climate change, that we should be reducing our dependency on fossil fuels? Dangerous to an administration whose foreign policy seems to run on friendships with bullies? That’s the kind of control that they want to have, and Harvard can’t let them have it, because we won’t be the last one they try to get it from.
AMY GOODMAN: Alison Frank Johnson, I want to thank you for being with us. We’ll follow what happens with the hearing today and beyond, not only at Harvard, but at schools all over the country right now. Professor of history at Harvard University, chair of the German Department, speaking to us from Munich, Germany. She’s also a member of the American Association of University Professors.
Up next, we go to Georgia, where a pregnant woman who’s been declared brain dead has been kept on life support for over three months, against the wishes of her family, because of Georgia’s six-week abortion ban. Back in 30 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Crying in the Streets,” performed by Zeshan B in our Democracy Now! studio.
by Michael Sainato, Lucy Campbell and agencies
The Guardian
Fri 23 May 2025 14.38 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2 ... n-students
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70349156/president-and-fellows-of-harvard-college-v-department-of-homeland-security/President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Homeland Security (1:25-cv-11472)
District Court, D. Massachusetts
Last Updated: May 29, 2025, 1:53 p.m.
Assigned To: Allison Dale Burroughs
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_2.pdf
1. May 23, 2025. COMPLAINT against All Defendants Filing fee: $ 405, receipt number AMADC-11026907 (Fee Status: Filing Fee paid), filed by President and Fellows of Harvard College. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 1. DHS Appeals Website, # 2 Exhibit 2. ICE Appeals Website, # 3 Exhibit 3. DHS Loss of SEVP Certification Website, # 4 Exhibit 4. February 3, 2025 DOJ Press Release, # 5 Exhibit 5. February 26, 2025 Jewish News Syndicate Article, # 6 Exhibit 6. February 28, 2025 DOJ Press Release, # 7 Exhibit 7. March 31, 2025 Federal Task Force Letter to Harvard, # 8 Exhibit 8. April 3, 2025 Federal Task Force Letter to Harvard, # 9 Exhibit 9. April 11, 2025 Federal Task Force Demand Letter to Harvard, # 10 Exhibit 10. Garber Letter, Promise of American Education, # 11 Exhibit 11. April 14, 2025 Letter from Harvard, # 12 Exhibit 12. April 14, 2025 Funding Freeze Order, # 13 Exhibit 13. April 15, 2025 Truth Social Post, # 14 Exhibit 14. April 15, 2025 New York Times Article, # 15 Exhibit 15. April 16, 2025 President Trump Truth Social Post, # 16 Exhibit 16. April 16, 2025 DHS Records Request, # 17 Exhibit 17. April 16, 2025 DHS Press Release re: Records Request, # 18 Exhibit 18. April 24, 2025 President Trump Truth Social Post, # 19 Exhibit 19. April 30, 2025 Letter from Harvard, # 20 Exhibit 20. May 2, 2025 President Trump Truth Social Post, # 21 Exhibit 21. May 5, 2025 Secretary McMahon Letter to Harvard, # 22 Exhibit 22. May 7, 2025 DHS E-Mail to Harvard, # 23 Exhibit 23. May 13 & 14, 2025 DHS E-Mails with Harvard, # 24 Exhibit 24. May 14, 2025 Harvard Production Letter, # 25 Exhibit 25. May 22, 2025 DHS Decertification Letter, # 26 Exhibit 26. May 22, 2025 Noem Tweet, # 27 Exhibit 27. May 22, 2025 DHS Press Release, # 28 Exhibit 28. March 28, 2025 Garber Message, Our Resolve, # 29 Civil Cover Sheet, # 30 Category Form, # 31 Supplement Certification of Basis for Designating as Related Case)(Lehotsky, Steven) (Entered: 05/23/2025)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 83.4.0.pdf
4. May 23, 2025. MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order by President and Fellows of Harvard College. (Attachments: # 1 Supplement Memorandum in Support, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Affidavit Lehotsky Declaration, # 4 Affidavit Martin Declaration, # 5 Affidavit Elliott Declaration)(Lehotsky, Steven) (Entered: 05/23/2025)
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... 11.0_7.pdf
11. May 23, 2025. Judge Allison D. Burroughs: ORDER entered granting 4 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order. Plaintiff shall serve defendants a copy of this order. (KF) (Entered: 05/23/2025)
50. May 29, 2025. Electronic Clerk's Notes for proceedings held before Judge Allison D. Burroughs: Hearing on Preliminary Injunction held on 5/29/2025. Notice of Intent to Withdraw SEVP certification was sent to Harvard last night (5/28/25). TRO will remain in place while parties confer and submit either a joint proposed PI Order or individual proposed Orders for the judge to consider, after which time a final PI order will be issued. Status quo to remain in place while the Notice of Intent to Withdraw process is ongoing. (Court Reporter: Kelly Mortellite at [email protected].)(Attorneys present: Bhabha, Gershengorn, Hartz, Lehotsky, Orloff, Davis, Farqhar) (KF) (Entered: 05/29/2025)
A US federal judge on Friday blocked the government from revoking Harvard University’s ability to enroll foreign students just hours after the elite college sued the Trump administration over its abrupt ban the day before on enrolling foreign students.
US district judge Allison Burroughs in Boston issued the temporary restraining order late on Friday morning, freezing the policy that had been abruptly imposed on the university, based in nearby Cambridge, Massachusetts, on Thursday.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has accused Columbia University of violating civil rights laws, while overseas governments had expressed alarm at the administration’s actions against Harvard as part of its latest assault on elite higher education in the US.
Harvard University announced on Friday morning that it was challenging the Trump administration’s decision to bar the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign students, calling it unconstitutional retaliation for the school previously defying the White House’s political demands.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Boston, Harvard said the government’s action violates the first amendment of the US constitution and will have an “immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders”.
“With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard’s student body, international students who contribute significantly to the university and its mission,” Harvard said in its suit. The institution added that it planned to file for a temporary restraining order to block the Department of Homeland Security from carrying out the move.
The Trump White House called the lawsuit “frivolous” but the court filing from the 389-year-old elite, private university, the oldest and wealthiest in the US, said: “Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.”
Harvard enrolls almost 6,800 foreign students at its campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Most are graduate students and they come from more than 100 countries.
Meanwhile, the Department of Health and Human Services’ office for civil rights late on Thursday cited Columbia University, claiming the New York university acted with “deliberate indifference towards student-on-student harassment of Jewish students from October 7, 2023, through the present”, marking the date when Hamas led the deadly attack on Israel out of Gaza that sparked a ferocious military response from the Jewish state, prompting prolonged pro-Palestinian protests on US streets and college campuses.
“The findings carefully document the hostile environment Jewish students at Columbia University have had to endure for over 19 months, disrupting their education, safety, and well-being,” said Anthony Archeval, the acting director of the office for civil rights at HHS, in a statement on the action.
...
Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear: His decision to allow a minuscule amount of aid to enter Gaza is a tactical one aimed at quieting international condemnation of Israel’s forced starvation of Gaza and to clear the path of a final solution imposed on the Palestinians of Gaza.
"We're going to take control of all the Gaza Strip,” Netanyahu vowed Monday in a video released by his office announcing that Israel would begin delivering “minimal humanitarian aid: food and medicine only.” Netanyahu claimed that international pressure, including from pro-Israel Republican senators and the White House, required the appearance of humanitarian intervention. "Our best friends in the world—senators I know as strong supporters of Israel—have warned that they cannot support us if images of mass starvation emerge," he said. “They come to me and say, ‘We’ll give you all the help you need to win the war… but we can’t be receiving pictures of famine,’” Netanyahu added. To continue the war of annihilation, he asserted, “We need to do it in a way that they won't stop us.”
Netanyahu’s coalitional ally Bezalel Smotrich—an extreme right-wing government minister and longtime advocate of starving, mass killing, and depopulating Gaza—endorsed Netanyahu’s move. Smotrich said the aid scheme would allow “our friends in the world to continue to provide us with an international umbrella of protection against the Security Council and the Hague Tribunal, and for us to continue to fight, God willing, until victory.”
In what he described as an emergency press conference to address criticism from his own base, Smotrich laid out the Netanyahu government’s genocidal agenda and explained why the appearance of allowing aid is necessary on a strategic level. “The [aid] that will enter Gaza in the coming days is the tiniest amount. A handful of bakeries that will hand out pita bread to people in public kitchens. People in Gaza will get a pita and a food plate, and that's it. Exactly what we are seeing in the videos: people standing in line and waiting to have someone serve them, with some soup plate,” Smotrich said.
“Truth be told, until the last of the hostages returns, we should also not let water into the Gaza Strip. But the reality is that if we do that, the world will force us to halt the war immediately, and to lose. It would be winning the battle, and losing the war. I'm committed to winning the war,” Smotrich declared. “We are disassembling Gaza, and leaving it as piles of rubble, with total destruction [which has] no precedent globally. And the world isn't stopping us. There are pressures. There are those who attack [us]; they are trying to [make us] stop; they are not succeeding. You know why they aren't succeeding? Because we are navigating [the campaign] responsibly and wisely, and that's how we'll continue to do [it]."
Smotrich said that the Israeli forces are initiating a campaign to force Palestinians into the south of Gaza “and from there, God willing, to third countries, as part of President Trump's plan. This is a change of the course of history—nothing less.”
-- Netanyahu: Gaza Aid Scheme Offers Israel Symbolic Cover to Finish the Genocide. In order to conquer and seize Gaza, “We need to do it in a way” where the world “won’t stop us," Netanyahu says. By Jeremy Scahill
It continued: “We encourage Columbia University to work with us to come to an agreement that reflects meaningful changes that will truly protect Jewish students.” Columbia University had not yet issued a statement on the citation as of early Friday morning.
Orders by the Trump administration earlier this month to investigate pro-Palestinian protesters at Columbia University raised alarms within the Department of Justice, the New York Times reported. A federal judge denied a search warrant for the investigation.
Earlier this year, Columbia University agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration in response to $400m worth of grants and federal funds to the university being cancelled over claims of inaction by the university to protect Jewish students.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk about the range of demands that the Trump administration has made of Harvard in relation to these foreign students, what exactly they want, the information they want?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Well, for better or for worse, it’s not entirely clear what they want. I think what they want is to destroy Harvard University as a way of destroying independent research and scholarship that they can’t control, intimidating the other universities that they haven’t yet targeted by destroying Harvard. So, whatever Harvard does, it’s not going to be sufficient.
You heard from the graduate student that you already interviewed that the university has actually taken many of the steps that the Trump administration has requested and demanded, including dismissing the director of the Center for Middle East Studies, including providing lots of information about our international students and accepting a definition of “antisemitism” that the regime favors. They also provided all legally required information related to the visa program that is being canceled, you know, SEVP. They did that.
So, when the Trump administration says that they haven’t provided the information that’s required, it’s not clear what exactly it is that Harvard even legally could provide that they still want. So, Harvard does have an obligation to protect the privacy of its students — I think, to a lesser extent, of its employees, but certainly of its students. It can’t just divulge anything to anyone. The federal government is the entity that has issued every single one of these students their visas, so, presumably, they already have access to the names and countries of origin of all of the students whose visas they have approved.
I think that whatever their demands are — and they certainly extend beyond what the law requires — even if Harvard were to meet them, they would come up with a new set of demands that it hadn’t met. It’s very clear that what they want to do is run the university into the ground.
-- Trump vs. Academic Freedom: President Escalates Attacks on Harvard & International Students, by Amy Goodman
Burroughs said Harvard had shown it could be harmed before there was an opportunity to hear the case in full. The judge, an Obama administration appointee, scheduled hearings for 27 May and 29 May to consider next steps in the case.
The Harvard Crimson student newspaper reported that the Department of Homeland Security gave Harvard 72 hours to turn over all documents on all international students’ disciplinary records and paper, audio or video records on protest activity over the past five years in order to have the “opportunity” to have its eligibility to enroll foreign students reinstated.
Before Harvard filed suit, the Chinese government early on Friday had said the move to block foreign students from the school and oblige current ones to leave would only hurt the international standing of the US. The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology extended an open invitation to Harvard international students and those accepted in response to the action against Harvard.
On Friday afternoon, despite the judge’s ruling, Chinese students at Harvard were cancelling flights home and seeking legal advice on staying in the US and saying they were scared in case Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agents came to their accommodation to take them away, as they have done to other foreign students.
The former German health minister and alumnus of Harvard, Karl Lauterbach, called the action against Harvard “research policy suicide”. Germany’s research minister, Dorothee Baer, had also, before Harvard sued, urged the Trump administration to reverse its decision, calling it “fatal”.
Harvard’s lawsuit lists as the plaintiffs the “President and fellows of Harvard college” versus defendants including the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice), the Department of Justice and the Department of State, as well as the government’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program and individual cabinet members – Kristi Noem, the homeland security secretary; Pam Bondi, the attorney general; Marco Rubio, the secretary of state; and Todd Lyons, the acting director of Ice.
The White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson said on Friday: “If only Harvard cared this much about ending the scourge of anti-American, anti-Semitic, pro-terrorist agitators on their campus they wouldn’t be in this situation to begin with.”
She added: “Harvard should spend their time and resources on creating a safe campus environment instead of filing frivolous lawsuits.”
Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, wrote an open letter to students, academics and staff condemning an “unlawful” and “unwarranted” action by the administration.
“The revocation continues a series of government actions to retaliate against Harvard for our refusal to surrender our academic independence and to submit to the federal government’s illegal assertion of control over our curriculum, our faculty, and our student body,” it said.
The Associated Press and Reuters contributed reporting
***********************************
Trump vs. Academic Freedom: President Escalates Attacks on Harvard & International Students
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 27, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/27/ ... ents_trump
A court has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s attempt to prevent Harvard University from enrolling international students. The move would cause over a quarter of Harvard’s student body to lose visas that allow them to study in the United States. One of the students affected is Francesco Anselmetti, a member of the graduate student union, who emphasizes that visa revocations would affect graduate researchers and teaching staff, constituting “one of the largest threats of vast deportation on a unionized workforce in American history.” It is the latest attack by the Trump administration against universities that receive federal funding.
When announcing the revocation order, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem accused Harvard of “antisemitism” and “coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party,” but Harvard professor Alison Frank Johnson warns that the prestigious university is only a test case for Trump’s wider crackdown on knowledge production and academic freedom. “Harvard is not really the target here. It’s the independent scholarship that’s being produced by universities.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org, The War and Peace Report. I’m Amy Goodman, with Juan González.
We turn now to President Trump’s escalating war on Harvard University and academia as a whole. On Friday, a federal judge temporarily blocked a move by the Trump administration to bar Harvard from enrolling international students. They make up well over a quarter of Harvard’s student body. A hearing on the case will be held today.
On Monday, Trump threatened to redirect $3 billion in federal grants from Harvard to trade schools. CNN is reporting the Trump administration is also poised to cancel $100 million in federal contracts with Harvard University.
On Monday, Trump slammed Harvard for accepting so many international students and for not handing over detailed personal information about them.
PRESIDENT DONALD TRUMP: Part of the problem with Harvard is that there are about 31%, almost 31%, of foreigners coming to Harvard. We give them billions of dollars, which is ridiculous. … We have Americans that want to go there and to other places, and they can’t go there because you have 31% foreign. Now, no foreign government contributes money to Harvard. We do. So, why are they doing so many, number one? Number two, we want a list of those foreign students, and we’ll find out whether or not they’re OK. Many will be OK, I assume. And I assume, with Harvard, many will be bad. And then the other thing is they’re very antisemitic.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump is escalating his threats as Harvard resists requests by the federal government to hand over detailed personal information about its international students. On Monday, Trump wrote on Truth Social the information is needed to determine, quote, “how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country,” unquote.
On Monday, Democracy Now! reached Francesco Anselmetti, a British Italian international graduate student in Harvard’s joint Ph.D. program in history and Middle East studies. He’s a member of Harvard’s graduate student union. He responded to Trump’s threats.
FRANCESCO ANSELMETTI: Trump’s revocation of Harvard’s ability to enroll and register international students is — of course, it’s an attack on Harvard’s international community. It’s also, seemingly, one of the largest, perhaps the largest, threat of mass deportation on a unionized workforce in American history. I mean, this is an attack on American academia as it is an attack on American labor. Around 25% of the university’s community, including around 4,000 workers, many of whom do the bulk of teaching at Harvard, many of whom, you know, despite a federal judge blocking the Trump administration’s action, are left in a position of extreme precarity and uncertainty over the short- and medium-term future.
We expect, you know, the Harvard — we expect Harvard to continue fighting for its international students in the courts, but we expect them to do so also in part because it’s in their interest, right? What we aren’t so sure about is whether it is in their interest to truly stand up for the free speech and intellectual autonomy it claims to be defending. In order for it to do so, it would have to seriously consider the claims of various student groups that have been operating on campus over the last two years in solidarity with Palestinian rights, groups which Harvard has had really no trouble in disciplining, in some cases banning. And the irony here is that, of course, these decisions from Harvard have — represent caving to outside pressures, right? These, in many cases, have been decisions that Harvard has been pressured to do in response to right-wing groups, in response to donors who represent, you know, interests that are — that want to eradicate any pro-Palestine sentiment on American university campuses.
AMY GOODMAN: That was Harvard graduate student Francesco Anselmetti speaking to Democracy Now! Harvard’s UAW unions have condemned the Trump administration attacks on graduate student workers.
We’re joined now by Alison Frank Johnson, a professor of history at Harvard University, the chair of the German Department. She’s also a member of the American Association of University Professors, the AAUP.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Professor. If you can start off by talking about what Trump is demanding, what exactly this means, as students who are in Cambridge and are around the world not knowing whether they are being forced to leave as we speak?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: That’s right. This is a — these measures are targeting not only the students who haven’t arrived yet, who’ve been admitted but are still at home, packing, planning to go to college, to start their doctoral programs, but also students that are well into programs they’ve already started, some of them supposed to graduate on Thursday, the day after tomorrow, some of them six years into a seven-year Ph.D. program, some of them freshmen and sophomores at college.
Even before these latest measures targeting international students, F-1 and J-1 visa holders were announced, we had already seen the harassment of international students and scholars coming into the United States. I know many international students who were afraid to go and do research, to go to archives, to go accept collaborative grant offers from other universities, which actually do many times fund research that’s being done at Harvard, afraid to leave the country because they didn’t know if they’d be let back in, even before this was happening. So, this is a massive escalation, but it’s not the beginning of the attacks on the embeddedness of the research that we do in a global community.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And, Professor, we had a segment last week talking about how the European Union, Canada, the U.K., even Australia have been increasing the amount of money that they’re devoting to scientific research, hoping to lure Americans who are now being targeted by this war on science of the Trump administration. Could you talk, the discussions you’ve been having with your colleagues about whether some of them are considering leaving, going to other countries, and what the long-term impact on America’s lead in science and technology and research would be as a result of this?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Absolutely. So, I’m a historian of modern European history. Three scholars in my field who work at Yale recently very publicly announced that they were leaving for Canada. So far, my colleagues at Harvard and I are trying to prevent that from happening. So, our focus right now is to try to work together to ensure that Harvard continues to be a place where people will want to and be able to do cutting-edge research. And so, we are not yet planning for this mass exodus, but we have — we’re aware that that is one potential outcome, one we very much want to avoid.
The work being done at Harvard where grants have been cut — in fact, I think today the Trump administration announced they were cutting all contracts and all grants with Harvard University — that affects people working on tuberculosis, on ALS, on soft robotics, on diabetes, obviously, on cancer, repairing eye damage, people working on doing things like, you know, translating the Dead Sea Scrolls — that work has already been done — reducing school absenteeism. This is useful research. It’s useful to any country that will host it, and, in fact, it’s useful to the whole world, no matter where it takes place. So, I do understand that there will be attempts to poach some of the best scholars that we have at the university, although, as I said, my colleagues and I right now are trying to — that’s not the outcome that we want. We don’t want to — we don’t want to see people get well-paying jobs and fellowship opportunities elsewhere. We want to save this university.
JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And could you talk about the range of demands that the Trump administration has made of Harvard in relation to these foreign students, what exactly they want, the information they want?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Well, for better or for worse, it’s not entirely clear what they want. I think what they want is to destroy Harvard University as a way of destroying independent research and scholarship that they can’t control, intimidating the other universities that they haven’t yet targeted by destroying Harvard. So, whatever Harvard does, it’s not going to be sufficient.
You heard from the graduate student that you already interviewed that the university has actually taken many of the steps that the Trump administration has requested and demanded, including dismissing the director of the Center for Middle East Studies, including providing lots of information about our international students and accepting a definition of “antisemitism” that the regime favors. They also provided all legally required information related to the visa program that is being canceled, you know, SEVP. They did that.
So, when the Trump administration says that they haven’t provided the information that’s required, it’s not clear what exactly it is that Harvard even legally could provide that they still want. So, Harvard does have an obligation to protect the privacy of its students — I think, to a lesser extent, of its employees, but certainly of its students. It can’t just divulge anything to anyone. The federal government is the entity that has issued every single one of these students their visas, so, presumably, they already have access to the names and countries of origin of all of the students whose visas they have approved.
I think that whatever their demands are — and they certainly extend beyond what the law requires — even if Harvard were to meet them, they would come up with a new set of demands that it hadn’t met. It’s very clear that what they want to do is run the university into the ground.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we go, I wanted to ask you two quick questions. You talked about some of the grants and what would be shut down. What about the grants around scientific research? I mean, you have the situation where the Harvard School of Public Health, apparently, The Wall Street Journal is reporting, that they are cutting funding for the School of Public Health, laying off people, also reducing graduate student admissions. What about other schools? And also, Trump’s comments when he says, “We are still waiting for the Foreign Student Lists from Harvard” — as you point out, they already have the list, because they give them the visas; they know who’s there, unless they want much more personal information — but Trump says, “so that we can determine, after a ridiculous expenditure of BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, how many radicalized lunatics, troublemakers all, should not be let back into our Country.” What this means, not only for your school, but for the universities around the country?
ALISON FRANK JOHNSON: Yes, I think that Harvard is being made an example of, but Harvard is not really the target here. It’s the independent scholarship that’s being produced by universities, universities that work also to solve medical problems that aren’t very profitable, universities that are answerable to the truth and to future generations rather than to shareholders. And those universities do things like work on cures for cancer and work on cures for tuberculosis and work on cures for diabetes, and that work is obviously very — it’s obviously essential.
But we also do things like talk about climate change, right? We also do things like talk about the impact of income inequality. We also do things like talk about the importance of recognizing people’s identities, their sexual and gender-based identities, for their own mental health. We also talk about things like the segment that you aired before about what’s happening right now in Gaza. And those messages, whether it’s that vaccines work or that there is human-caused climate change or that we need to attend to the terrible tragedy that’s occurring in the Middle East, are messages that the administration doesn’t like, right? Universities, not only Harvard, do this work because they care about the truth. They don’t just care about what’s politically expedient for the current administration.
And I think that the assertion that the administration should decide which students are allowed to come to Harvard, which scholars are allowed to come to Harvard, whose ideas are dangerous — dangerous to whom? Right? Dangerous to an administration that isn’t interested in admitting that vaccines work, that isn’t interested in admitting that there’s climate change, that we should be reducing our dependency on fossil fuels? Dangerous to an administration whose foreign policy seems to run on friendships with bullies? That’s the kind of control that they want to have, and Harvard can’t let them have it, because we won’t be the last one they try to get it from.
AMY GOODMAN: Alison Frank Johnson, I want to thank you for being with us. We’ll follow what happens with the hearing today and beyond, not only at Harvard, but at schools all over the country right now. Professor of history at Harvard University, chair of the German Department, speaking to us from Munich, Germany. She’s also a member of the American Association of University Professors.
Up next, we go to Georgia, where a pregnant woman who’s been declared brain dead has been kept on life support for over three months, against the wishes of her family, because of Georgia’s six-week abortion ban. Back in 30 seconds.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: “Crying in the Streets,” performed by Zeshan B in our Democracy Now! studio.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 6:49 pm
Netanyahu: Gaza Aid Scheme Offers Israel Symbolic Cover to Finish the Genocide. In order to conquer and seize Gaza, “We need to do it in a way” where the world “won’t stop us," Netanyahu says.
Jeremy Scahill
May 19, 2025
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/netanyah ... fire-hamas
Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear: His decision to allow a minuscule amount of aid to enter Gaza is a tactical one aimed at quieting international condemnation of Israel’s forced starvation of Gaza and to clear the path of a final solution imposed on the Palestinians of Gaza.
"We're going to take control of all the Gaza Strip,” Netanyahu vowed Monday in a video released by his office announcing that Israel would begin delivering “minimal humanitarian aid: food and medicine only.” Netanyahu claimed that international pressure, including from pro-Israel Republican senators and the White House, required the appearance of humanitarian intervention. "Our best friends in the world—senators I know as strong supporters of Israel—have warned that they cannot support us if images of mass starvation emerge," he said. “They come to me and say, ‘We’ll give you all the help you need to win the war… but we can’t be receiving pictures of famine,’” Netanyahu added. To continue the war of annihilation, he asserted, “We need to do it in a way that they won't stop us.”
Netanyahu’s coalitional ally Bezalel Smotrich—an extreme right-wing government minister and longtime advocate of starving, mass killing, and depopulating Gaza—endorsed Netanyahu’s move. Smotrich said the aid scheme would allow “our friends in the world to continue to provide us with an international umbrella of protection against the Security Council and the Hague Tribunal, and for us to continue to fight, God willing, until victory.”
In what he described as an emergency press conference to address criticism from his own base, Smotrich laid out the Netanyahu government’s genocidal agenda and explained why the appearance of allowing aid is necessary on a strategic level. “The [aid] that will enter Gaza in the coming days is the tiniest amount. A handful of bakeries that will hand out pita bread to people in public kitchens. People in Gaza will get a pita and a food plate, and that's it. Exactly what we are seeing in the videos: people standing in line and waiting to have someone serve them, with some soup plate,” Smotrich said.
“Truth be told, until the last of the hostages returns, we should also not let water into the Gaza Strip. But the reality is that if we do that, the world will force us to halt the war immediately, and to lose. It would be winning the battle, and losing the war. I'm committed to winning the war,” Smotrich declared. [i][u]“We are disassembling Gaza, and leaving it as piles of rubble, with total destruction [which has] no precedent globally. And the world isn't stopping us. There are pressures. There are those who attack [us]; they are trying to [make us] stop; they are not succeeding. You know why they aren't succeeding? Because we are navigating [the campaign] responsibly and wisely, and that's how we'll continue to do [it]."
Smotrich said that the Israeli forces are initiating a campaign to force Palestinians into the south of Gaza “and from there, God willing, to third countries, as part of President Trump's plan. This is a change of the course of history—nothing less."
In recent days, Trump has resumed promoting the threat he first floated on February 4 when Netanyahu visited him at the White House: that the U.S. would seize Gaza and create a Middle East Riviera. “I think I’d be proud to have the United States have it, take it, make it a freedom zone,” Trump said Thursday, an assertion he repeated over the weekend in an interview with FOX News. “Gaza is a nasty place. It's been that way for years. I think it should become a free zone, you know, freedom, I call it a freedom zone,” Trump told host Bret Baier.
On Sunday, Netanyahu said that allowing “a basic amount of food” to enter Gaza was pursued out of “the operational need to enable the expansion of the intense fighting to defeat Hamas.” He said that Israel would resume limited aid deliveries on an interim basis starting approximately a week ahead of a longer term aid plan that would circumvent the UN and other international agencies. The emerging Israeli policy offers enough food to Palestinians in Gaza to ward off international condemnation that could impact its war, while preparing to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza.
Netanyahu’s announcement comes amid renewed talks over a possible Gaza ceasefire and exchange of captives deal. Netanyahu has insisted he will not make any agreement that ends the war without the total elimination of Hamas and the demilitarization of the entire Gaza Strip. Hamas has said it will not release any more Israeli captives held in Gaza unless an internationally certified deal is reached that includes the total withdrawal of Israeli forces and a long-term truce.
“We are ready to release the prisoners in one batch, provided the occupation commits to an internationally guaranteed ceasefire,” said Sami Abu Zuhri, head of Hamas’s Political Bureau Abroad, on Sunday. He told Al Jazeera Mubashar, “We will not hand over our prisoners to the occupation as long as it continues to insist on continuing its aggression against Gaza indefinitely.”
Strategies of Conquest
The Trump administration has publicly continued to fully back Netanyahu as the Israeli army intensifies its campaign of terror bombings and forced displacement across Gaza. The White House has offered no public criticism of Netanyahu’s operation, called “Gideon’s Chariot,” aimed at seizing control of all of Gaza in what officials have described as a “conquest.”
Before Trump set off on his Middle East tour, during which he notably did not stop in Israel, Netanyahu announced this new phase to his war of annihilation in Gaza. If Hamas did not surrender and agree to release all Israeli captives by the time Trump returned to Washington, D.C., Israel would initiate a large-scale ground invasion and occupation of the entire Gaza Strip.
Over the weekend, Israeli forces began intensifying ground operations and expanded its relentless campaign of bombings and air strikes. Israeli forces attacked several hospitals and camps for displaced people in operations that killed more than 500 Palestinians in just a few days. Missile strikes rained down on the southern city of Khan Younis accompanied by helicopter gunship attacks and artillery shelling. On Monday, Israel issued sweeping forced evacuation orders in the south, including the entire governorate of Khan Younis, that forced panicked residents to grab what they could and flee to sites Israel has previously designated as safe zones, including Al-Mawasi, which the Israeli military then later attacked.
Trump has pursued an increasingly close alliance with Arab Gulf leaders, who represent massive business opportunities for both his political and personal agenda. Trump’s deal-making has created some technical hurdles for Netanyahu’s murderous agenda. While the rulers of these states did not publicly demand that Trump impose a ceasefire or intervene to halt Netanyahu’s genocidal march, reports indicate that they did privately urge him to act swiftly to resume aid shipments to Gaza and to utilize U.S. influence to compel Netanyahu to halt the genocide.
During his recent tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, Trump said little about Gaza, but he did pledge to confront the humanitarian crisis and said that aid delivery would resume. “Look, people are starving,” Trump said Saturday in an interview on FOX News. “I’ve already started working on that.” Israeli officials have said that the White House had begun pressuring Netanyahu to allow a partial lifting of the blockade.
“I don’t think there’s any daylight between President Trump’s position and Prime Minister Netanyahu's position,” said Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, on Sunday in an interview with ABC News. “Everyone is concerned about the humanitarian conditions in Gaza,” he added. “We do not want to see a humanitarian crisis, and we will not allow it to occur on President Trump’s watch.”
As Drop Site reported on Friday, Hamas said its decision to release U.S. citizen and Israeli soldier Edan Alexander last Monday was the result of a direct commitment from Witkoff. According to Basem Naim, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, Witkoff made a direct commitment that, two days after Alexander’s release, the Trump administration would compel Israel to lift the Gaza blockade and allow humanitarian aid to immediately enter the territory. Witkoff, Naim said, also promised that Trump would make a public call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for negotiations aimed at achieving a “permanent ceasefire.” Naim said the U.S. “threw [the deal] in the trash.”
Both Israel and the U.S. have been promoting plans to deliver aid to Gaza that would circumvent a ceasefire deal, which the United Nations and all aid groups operating in Gaza have said would be necessary in order to address the acute humanitarian crisis. Instead, the U.S. and Israel have concocted a scheme involving a newly established “non-governmental” foundation run by a former U.S. marine to take official charge of establishing zones, mostly in southern Gaza, to distribute a limited number of rations.
Palestinians wishing to receive aid would have to go through an Israeli security vetting process and subject themselves to checkpoints and facial recognition technology as a condition for receiving food. On Monday, Netanyahu said the sites would be located in “a sterile area controlled entirely by the IDF.”
The UN and over 200 non-governmental aid organizations have denounced the plan, saying it is unworkable and weaponizes aid as a tool of war. The main UN humanitarian organization operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories said the plan was aimed at dismantling the international infrastructure built over several decades and further enforcing Israeli dominance over access to basic life sustaining food and supplies for Palestinians in Gaza.
“It contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic – as part of a military strategy,” asserted the country team of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory on May 5. “It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement.”.
Jeremy Scahill
May 19, 2025
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/netanyah ... fire-hamas
Benjamin Netanyahu has made it clear: His decision to allow a minuscule amount of aid to enter Gaza is a tactical one aimed at quieting international condemnation of Israel’s forced starvation of Gaza and to clear the path of a final solution imposed on the Palestinians of Gaza.
"We're going to take control of all the Gaza Strip,” Netanyahu vowed Monday in a video released by his office announcing that Israel would begin delivering “minimal humanitarian aid: food and medicine only.” Netanyahu claimed that international pressure, including from pro-Israel Republican senators and the White House, required the appearance of humanitarian intervention. "Our best friends in the world—senators I know as strong supporters of Israel—have warned that they cannot support us if images of mass starvation emerge," he said. “They come to me and say, ‘We’ll give you all the help you need to win the war… but we can’t be receiving pictures of famine,’” Netanyahu added. To continue the war of annihilation, he asserted, “We need to do it in a way that they won't stop us.”
Netanyahu’s coalitional ally Bezalel Smotrich—an extreme right-wing government minister and longtime advocate of starving, mass killing, and depopulating Gaza—endorsed Netanyahu’s move. Smotrich said the aid scheme would allow “our friends in the world to continue to provide us with an international umbrella of protection against the Security Council and the Hague Tribunal, and for us to continue to fight, God willing, until victory.”
In what he described as an emergency press conference to address criticism from his own base, Smotrich laid out the Netanyahu government’s genocidal agenda and explained why the appearance of allowing aid is necessary on a strategic level. “The [aid] that will enter Gaza in the coming days is the tiniest amount. A handful of bakeries that will hand out pita bread to people in public kitchens. People in Gaza will get a pita and a food plate, and that's it. Exactly what we are seeing in the videos: people standing in line and waiting to have someone serve them, with some soup plate,” Smotrich said.
“Truth be told, until the last of the hostages returns, we should also not let water into the Gaza Strip. But the reality is that if we do that, the world will force us to halt the war immediately, and to lose. It would be winning the battle, and losing the war. I'm committed to winning the war,” Smotrich declared. [i][u]“We are disassembling Gaza, and leaving it as piles of rubble, with total destruction [which has] no precedent globally. And the world isn't stopping us. There are pressures. There are those who attack [us]; they are trying to [make us] stop; they are not succeeding. You know why they aren't succeeding? Because we are navigating [the campaign] responsibly and wisely, and that's how we'll continue to do [it]."
Smotrich said that the Israeli forces are initiating a campaign to force Palestinians into the south of Gaza “and from there, God willing, to third countries, as part of President Trump's plan. This is a change of the course of history—nothing less."
In recent days, Trump has resumed promoting the threat he first floated on February 4 when Netanyahu visited him at the White House: that the U.S. would seize Gaza and create a Middle East Riviera. “I think I’d be proud to have the United States have it, take it, make it a freedom zone,” Trump said Thursday, an assertion he repeated over the weekend in an interview with FOX News. “Gaza is a nasty place. It's been that way for years. I think it should become a free zone, you know, freedom, I call it a freedom zone,” Trump told host Bret Baier.
On Sunday, Netanyahu said that allowing “a basic amount of food” to enter Gaza was pursued out of “the operational need to enable the expansion of the intense fighting to defeat Hamas.” He said that Israel would resume limited aid deliveries on an interim basis starting approximately a week ahead of a longer term aid plan that would circumvent the UN and other international agencies. The emerging Israeli policy offers enough food to Palestinians in Gaza to ward off international condemnation that could impact its war, while preparing to ethnically cleanse Palestinians from Gaza.
Netanyahu’s announcement comes amid renewed talks over a possible Gaza ceasefire and exchange of captives deal. Netanyahu has insisted he will not make any agreement that ends the war without the total elimination of Hamas and the demilitarization of the entire Gaza Strip. Hamas has said it will not release any more Israeli captives held in Gaza unless an internationally certified deal is reached that includes the total withdrawal of Israeli forces and a long-term truce.
“We are ready to release the prisoners in one batch, provided the occupation commits to an internationally guaranteed ceasefire,” said Sami Abu Zuhri, head of Hamas’s Political Bureau Abroad, on Sunday. He told Al Jazeera Mubashar, “We will not hand over our prisoners to the occupation as long as it continues to insist on continuing its aggression against Gaza indefinitely.”
Strategies of Conquest
The Trump administration has publicly continued to fully back Netanyahu as the Israeli army intensifies its campaign of terror bombings and forced displacement across Gaza. The White House has offered no public criticism of Netanyahu’s operation, called “Gideon’s Chariot,” aimed at seizing control of all of Gaza in what officials have described as a “conquest.”
Before Trump set off on his Middle East tour, during which he notably did not stop in Israel, Netanyahu announced this new phase to his war of annihilation in Gaza. If Hamas did not surrender and agree to release all Israeli captives by the time Trump returned to Washington, D.C., Israel would initiate a large-scale ground invasion and occupation of the entire Gaza Strip.
Over the weekend, Israeli forces began intensifying ground operations and expanded its relentless campaign of bombings and air strikes. Israeli forces attacked several hospitals and camps for displaced people in operations that killed more than 500 Palestinians in just a few days. Missile strikes rained down on the southern city of Khan Younis accompanied by helicopter gunship attacks and artillery shelling. On Monday, Israel issued sweeping forced evacuation orders in the south, including the entire governorate of Khan Younis, that forced panicked residents to grab what they could and flee to sites Israel has previously designated as safe zones, including Al-Mawasi, which the Israeli military then later attacked.
Trump has pursued an increasingly close alliance with Arab Gulf leaders, who represent massive business opportunities for both his political and personal agenda. Trump’s deal-making has created some technical hurdles for Netanyahu’s murderous agenda. While the rulers of these states did not publicly demand that Trump impose a ceasefire or intervene to halt Netanyahu’s genocidal march, reports indicate that they did privately urge him to act swiftly to resume aid shipments to Gaza and to utilize U.S. influence to compel Netanyahu to halt the genocide.
During his recent tour of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, Trump said little about Gaza, but he did pledge to confront the humanitarian crisis and said that aid delivery would resume. “Look, people are starving,” Trump said Saturday in an interview on FOX News. “I’ve already started working on that.” Israeli officials have said that the White House had begun pressuring Netanyahu to allow a partial lifting of the blockade.
“I don’t think there’s any daylight between President Trump’s position and Prime Minister Netanyahu's position,” said Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy, on Sunday in an interview with ABC News. “Everyone is concerned about the humanitarian conditions in Gaza,” he added. “We do not want to see a humanitarian crisis, and we will not allow it to occur on President Trump’s watch.”
As Drop Site reported on Friday, Hamas said its decision to release U.S. citizen and Israeli soldier Edan Alexander last Monday was the result of a direct commitment from Witkoff. According to Basem Naim, a member of Hamas’s political bureau, Witkoff made a direct commitment that, two days after Alexander’s release, the Trump administration would compel Israel to lift the Gaza blockade and allow humanitarian aid to immediately enter the territory. Witkoff, Naim said, also promised that Trump would make a public call for an immediate ceasefire in Gaza and for negotiations aimed at achieving a “permanent ceasefire.” Naim said the U.S. “threw [the deal] in the trash.”
Both Israel and the U.S. have been promoting plans to deliver aid to Gaza that would circumvent a ceasefire deal, which the United Nations and all aid groups operating in Gaza have said would be necessary in order to address the acute humanitarian crisis. Instead, the U.S. and Israel have concocted a scheme involving a newly established “non-governmental” foundation run by a former U.S. marine to take official charge of establishing zones, mostly in southern Gaza, to distribute a limited number of rations.
Palestinians wishing to receive aid would have to go through an Israeli security vetting process and subject themselves to checkpoints and facial recognition technology as a condition for receiving food. On Monday, Netanyahu said the sites would be located in “a sterile area controlled entirely by the IDF.”
The UN and over 200 non-governmental aid organizations have denounced the plan, saying it is unworkable and weaponizes aid as a tool of war. The main UN humanitarian organization operating in the Occupied Palestinian Territories said the plan was aimed at dismantling the international infrastructure built over several decades and further enforcing Israeli dominance over access to basic life sustaining food and supplies for Palestinians in Gaza.
“It contravenes fundamental humanitarian principles and appears designed to reinforce control over life-sustaining items as a pressure tactic – as part of a military strategy,” asserted the country team of the UN Humanitarian Coordinator for the Occupied Palestinian Territory on May 5. “It is dangerous, driving civilians into militarized zones to collect rations, threatening lives, including those of humanitarian workers, while further entrenching forced displacement.”.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 8:51 pm
Part 1 of 2
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_1.pdf
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC.,
1111 North Capitol Street NE,
Washington, DC 20002;
ROARING FORK PUBLIC RADIO, INC. D/B/A
ASPEN PUBLIC RADIO,
110 E. Hallam Street, Suite 134,
Aspen, CO 81611;
COLORADO PUBLIC RADIO,
7409 S. Alton Court,
Centennial, CO 80112;
KUTE INC. D/B/A KSUT PUBLIC RADIO,
15150 CO-172,
Ignacio, CO 81137,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500;
RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, in his official capacity
as Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503;
SCOTT BESSENT, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20220;
MARIA ROSARIO JACKSON, in her official
capacity as Chair of the National Endowment
for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20506;
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 725
17th Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20220;
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, 400
7th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20506;
THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC
BROADCASTING, 401 9th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20004,
Defendants.
Case 1:25-cv-01674-RDM
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) and Plaintiffs Roaring Fork Public
Radio, Inc. d/b/a Aspen Public Radio (Aspen Public Radio), Colorado Public Radio (CPR), and
KUTE, Inc. d/b/a KSUT Public Radio (KSUT) (together, the Local Member Stations) bring this
action to challenge an Executive Order that violates the expressed will of Congress and the First
Amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of
association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans
across the country rely on for vital news and information.
2. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official,
high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox” in matters of politics or opinion. West Va.
State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). As the Supreme Court reiterated just last
year, “it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—
to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their
audiences.” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 719 (2024). These fundamental First
Amendment principles apply in full force in the context of public media and doom Executive Order
14290, which expressly aims to punish and control Plaintiffs’ news coverage and other speech the
Administration deems “biased.” The Order also violates due process, the Separation of Powers
and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. It cannot stand.
3. By statute and longstanding public policy, Congress has for decades promoted,
supported and protected from governmental interference the speech of private entities in the public
broadcasting system, including NPR and non-commercial radio stations like the Local Member
Stations. In so doing, Congress recognized not only that promoting and supporting public
broadcasting serves the public interest, but also that such speech remains private—and thus fully
protected from censorship, retaliation or other forms of governmental interference, consistent with
the Constitution and our country’s democratic traditions. Yet the President—criticizing what he
perceives as “bias” in the award-winning journalism and cultural programming produced by
NPR—has issued an Executive Order that thwarts Congress’s intent and the First Amendment
rights of Plaintiffs to be free from the government’s attempts to control their private speech, and
their rights to be free from retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech, journalistic
activities, and expressive association.
4. Congress enacted the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (the Act) because it
determined that broad access to free, high-quality, independent public radio and television
programming produced and aired by private entities for the benefit of all Americans was a public
good. The Act created the infrastructure for a public radio system that, today, reaches
approximately 99 percent of the U.S. population over the airwaves and, in doing so, serves the
same fundamental purpose—to foster an engaged and informed citizenry—as the First
Amendment. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010) (“The
right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a
precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.”)
5. Two pillars of the Act have been central to its success. First, Congress appropriated
federal funding to support independent public broadcasting—funding that it has continued to
appropriate, year after year, with bipartisan support. Second, to achieve Congress’s “cardinal
objective” that public broadcasting be shielded from “extraneous interference and control,” the
Act creates an “elaborate structure . . . to insulate [broadcasters] from government interference,”
FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 386-89 (1984)—including by interposing
a private entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the Corporation or CPB), between the
government and the ultimate recipients of appropriated funds.
6. For more than 50 years, NPR has been a vital source for news and cultural
programming, ranging from Morning Edition and All Things Considered to Planet Money and Tiny
Desk Radio. NPR serves an audience of more than 43 million Americans each week, including
through a network of local public radio stations like the Local Member Stations that are dedicated
to serving their communities. And as the entity selected by the nation’s public radio stations to
manage and operate the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS)—the nation’s public radio
interconnection system—NPR for decades has provided critical infrastructure services for an even
larger group of radio stations, ensuring, among other things, that federal emergency alerts reach
those residing in the most remote corners of the country.
7. NPR and the Local Member Stations benefit from, and participate in, the structure
for public radio created by Congress in the Act, including its funding mechanisms, and the
statutory and constitutional protections that insulate them from governmental interference with
their editorial decisions.
8. On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14290, entitled “Ending
Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” (the Order), 90 Fed. Reg. 19415, which contradicts these
statutory precepts and violates the Constitution. Contrary to Congress’s intent to support an
independent public radio and television system, and statutory requirements that expressly shield
the Corporation and entities like Plaintiffs from governmental interference, the Order directs
federal agencies as well as the Corporation to withhold all federal funding from NPR and the
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The Order further directs the Corporation to “cease indirect
funding to NPR and PBS” by mandating that local radio and television stations that receive grants
from CPB, like the Local Member Stations, not use those federal funds to acquire NPR or PBS
programming, and by revising existing grant agreements to prohibit grantees “from funding NPR
or PBS.” Order § 2(b).
9. It is not always obvious when the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose
in violation of the First Amendment. “But this wolf comes as a wolf.” Morrison v. Olson, 487
U.S. 654, 699 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The Order targets NPR and PBS expressly because,
in the President’s view, their news and other content is not “fair, accurate, or unbiased.” Order
§ 1. And the “Fact Sheet” and press release accompanying the Order, which echo prior statements
by President Trump and members of his Administration, only drive home the Order’s overt
retaliatory purpose. They deride NPR’s content as “left-wing propaganda,” and underline the
President’s antipathy toward NPR’s news coverage and its editorial choices. See “Fact Sheet:
President Donald J. Trump Ends Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” (May 1, 2025)
(asserting that NPR published articles “insist[ing] COVID-19 did not originate in a lab” and
“refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story”);1 Press Release, “President Trump Finally Ends
the Madness of NPR, PBS” (May 2, 2025) (asserting that NPR “apologized for calling illegal
immigrants ‘illegal’”).2
10. The Order is unlawful in multiple ways. It flatly contravenes statutes duly enacted
by Congress and violates the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause by disregarding
Congress’s express commands. It also violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of
speech and of the press. The Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish
NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free
exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radio stations across the country.
The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First
Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive
association and editorial discretion. This is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” an
assault on the First Amendment that is “all the more blatant.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). In the words of the D.C. Circuit, such “viewpoint
discrimination is poison.” Frederick Douglass Found., Inc. v. District of Columbia, 82 F.4th 1122,
1141 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ((internal quotations omitted)). Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical
funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution’s Due Process
Clause.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) is a private nonprofit corporation. It is
headquartered in, and incorporated under the laws of, the District of Columbia.
12. Plaintiff Roaring Fork Public Radio, Inc. d/b/a Aspen Public Radio (Aspen Public
Radio) is a public radio station based in Aspen, Colorado. It has been an NPR Member station
since 1990.
13. Plaintiff Colorado Public Radio (CPR) is a public radio network based in
Centennial, Colorado, with offices in Denver, Grand Junction, and Colorado Springs. It has been
an NPR Member station since 1973.
14. Founded by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in 1976, Plaintiff KUTE Inc., d/b/a
KSUT Public Radio (KSUT), is a public radio network based in Ignacio, Colorado. It has been an
NPR Member station since 1984.
15. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his
official capacity.
16. Defendant Russell T. Vought is Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
He is sued in his official capacity.
17. Defendant Scott Bessent is Secretary the United States Department of the Treasury.
He is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant Maria Rosario Jackson is Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts.
She is sued in her official capacity.
19. Defendant Office of Management and Budget is a federal agency established within
the Executive Office of the President headquartered in Washington, D.C.
20. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is a federal agency
headquartered in Washington, D.C.
21. Defendant National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency
headquartered in Washington, D.C.
22. Defendant Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a nonprofit corporation
headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Corporation is named as a defendant solely for the
purpose of obtaining complete relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this action arises under the
Constitution of the United States and federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because the individual
Defendants are United States officials, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
24. The Court is authorized to award the requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202 and pursuant to its inherent equitable powers.
25. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Columbia; and under 28
U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the federal agency defendants reside in the District of Columbia.
BACKGROUND
The Public Broadcasting Act and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
26. Congress, determining that “it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and
development of public radio and television broadcasting,” established the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (the Corporation or CPB) in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (the Act). 47
U.S.C. § 396(a)(1), (b).
27. The Corporation was established as a private “nonprofit corporation” and is not “an
agency or establishment of the United States Government.” Id. § 396(b).
28. The Corporation is overseen by a Board of Directors appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate. Id. § 396(c)(2).
29. The Corporation’s primary purposes include to “facilitate the full development of
public telecommunications in which programs of high quality” and “creativity” will be “obtained
from diverse sources” and “made available to public telecommunications entities”; to “assist in the
establishment and development of one or more interconnection systems to be used for the
distribution of public telecommunications services”; and to “assist in the establishment and
development of one or more systems of public telecommunications entities.” Id. § 396(g)(1).
30. The Public Broadcasting Act details how the Corporation must allocate its general
appropriation from Congress. After administrative and system support expenses, the Corporation
must spend 25 percent of that appropriation to support public radio and 75 percent to support public
television. 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A).
31. Of the amount designated for public radio funding, the Corporation must make 70
percent available to public radio stations that meet certain criteria. A further 23 percent must be
made available to those public radio stations exclusively for “acquiring or producing programming
that is to be distributed nationally and is designed to serve the needs of a national audience.” Id.
§ 396(k)(3)(A)(iii). The remaining 7 percent must be made available for the production of public
radio programming. Id.
32. The Corporation distributes the vast majority of public radio funding to local public
radio stations. In general, stations may apply for two types of grants from the Corporation,
consistent with the provision of the Public Broadcasting Act. The first, called “unrestricted”
Community Service Grants (CSGs), can be used to fund programming and production, educational
outreach, broadcasting, transmission, distribution, and other operational expenses. See id.
§ 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(I). The second, called “restricted” CSGs, must be used to acquire or produce
programming that is distributed nationally and serves the needs of national audiences. See id
§ 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III). Member stations may use restricted grant funds to acquire NPR content
or content from other national producers. Public radio stations may also use these funds to produce
programming locally and distribute it regionally or nationally. For some local public radio stations
in rural or remote areas, CPB grants constitute 50 percent or more of their operating budgets.
33. The Public Broadcasting Act separately establishes a Satellite Interconnection Fund
to fund interconnection systems used for the distribution of public telecommunications services.
Id. §§ 396(g)(1)(B), (k)(10). Subject to other statutory requirements, all funds appropriated to the
Satellite Interconnection Fund “shall be distributed by the Corporation” to public education
television stations or the entity they designate for interconnection purposes, and “to those public
telecommunications entities participating in the public radio satellite interconnection system or the
national entity they designate for satellite interconnection purposes.” Id. § 396(k)(10)(D)(i).
Those funds must be used “exclusively for the capital costs of the replacement, refurbishment, or
upgrading of their national satellite interconnection systems and associated maintenance of such
systems.” Id. The Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS) is the nation’s public radio
interconnection system.
34. Congress has appropriated $535 million in general funding for the Corporation for
Fiscal Years 2025, 2026, and 2027. See Pub. L. No. 117-328, Div. H, tit. IV (for Fiscal Year
2025); Pub. L. No. 118-47, Div. D, tit. IV (for Fiscal Year 2026); Pub. L. No. 119-4, Div. A, tit. I,
§ 1112 (extending prior appropriations “in the same amount” for Fiscal Year 2027). Additionally,
Congress has appropriated $60 million for interconnection services for Fiscal Year 2025. See Pub.
L. No. 118-47, Div. D, tit. IV ($60 million for interconnection services for Fiscal Year 2024); Pub.
L. No. 119-4, Div. A, tit. I, § 1101(a)(8) (extending appropriations at the same levels as Fiscal
Year 2024).
35. In enacting the Public Broadcasting Act, one of Congress’s overriding goals was to
guarantee the Corporation, and the public broadcasting entities that receive federal funds from the
Corporation, “maximum protection from extraneous inference and control.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 396(a)(1).
36. The Act expressly denies “authoriz[ation to] any department, agency, officer, or
employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over public
telecommunications, or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors, or over the
charter or bylaws of the Corporation, or over the curriculum, program of instruction, or personnel
of any . . . public telecommunications entity.” Id. § 398(a). This provision has only one exception,
concerning the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Id. § 398(b).
37. The Act further clarifies that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to
authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications
programs and services.” Id. § 398(c). Still another provision in the Act makes clear that the
Corporation is to “carry out its purposes and functions . . . in ways that will most effectively assure
the maximum freedom of the public telecommunications entities and systems from interference
with, or control of, program content or other activities.” Id. § 396(g)(1)(D).
38. In addition to making clear that the Corporation is “not . . . an agency or
establishment of the United States Government,” id. § 396(b), the Act also makes clear that the
CPB’s Board members “shall not, by reason of such membership, be deemed to be officers or
employees of the United States,” id. § 396(d)(2). The Board is fully empowered to choose CPB’s
President and other officers, who are not government employees, and who “shall serve at the
pleasure of the Board.” Id. § 396(e)(1). The Board is expressly prohibited from using any
“political test or qualification” in selecting officers or taking other personnel actions. Id. §
396(e)(2).
39. In order to further ensure that the Corporation allocates funding in a manner that is
free from political influence and aligned with Congress’s goals, the Act directs the Corporation to
distribute funds to public radio stations “in accordance with eligibility criteria . . . that promote the
public interest in public broadcasting, and on the basis of a formula designed to” provide for the
financial needs of those stations in relation to their audiences; provide incentives for non-federal
financial support; and “assure that each eligible licensee and permittee of a public radio station
receives a basic grant.” Id. § 396(k)(6)(B). Accordingly, each year CPB publishes its “Radio
Community Services Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria” (Eligibility Criteria).3
40. The Eligibility Criteria for local public radio stations require that stations comply
with the Public Broadcasting Act’s requirements. Those requirements include, among other
things, that recipients must conduct open meetings; maintain open financial records; establish a
community advisory board; and produce employment statistical reports. See Eligibility Criteria at
4-6; 47 U.S.C. §§ 396(k)(4), (5), (8), (11), (12). Recipients must also meet various technical
requirements with respect to recordkeeping, operations, staffing, audience service, and training.
Eligibility Criteria at 6-13. The Eligibility Criteria do not take into account the content or
viewpoint of a local public radio station’s programming.
41. If a public radio station meets the Eligibility Criteria, it is entitled to receive funding
in accordance with a specific formula promulgated by the Corporation. See Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, “Fiscal Year 2025 Radio Station Grant Calculations.”4 That formula reflects the
Public Broadcasting Act’s requirement that a fixed portion of grant funds must be spent on
programming designed to serve a national audience. Id.; see 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III).
The National Endowment for the Arts
42. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent federal agency that
supports the arts through grant programs. As relevant here, it is authorized to award grants to
nonprofit organizations for purposes such as “enabling cultural organizations and institutions to increase the levels of continuing support and to increase the range of contributors to the programs
of such organizations or institutions”; “providing administrative and management improvements
for cultural organizations and institutions”; “enabling cultural organizations and institutions to
increase audience participation in, and appreciation of, programs sponsored by such organizations
and institutions”; and “stimulating artistic activity and awareness which are in keeping with the
varied cultural traditions of this Nation.” 20 U.S.C. § 954(p)
43. When considering grant applications, NEA is required to ensure that “applications
are consistent with the purposes of this section” and that “artistic excellence and artistic merit are
the criteria by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of
decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” Id. § 954(d).
National Public Radio
44. NPR is an independent, nonprofit media organization that serves millions of
Americans each day. NPR is not a public radio station, nor does it operate one. Instead, NPR
produces, acquires, and distributes programming, including national news programming, that is
made available to independent locally owned and operated public radio stations around the
country. NPR’s mission is to work with those local public radio stations to cultivate an informed
public, fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and cultures.
45. A local public radio station may choose to become an NPR Member station. NPR’s
commitment to its Member stations is to provide benefits that help them deliver on their mission
to the American people, grow audiences across platforms, and build sustainable business models.
46. NPR Member stations pay a membership “core fee” to license certain NPR content,
which may include Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Weekend Edition, and receive
other benefits, including NPR-led advocacy on behalf of the public radio system, digital services,
and music licensing support, among other things. Member stations may also choose to license
additional content from NPR such as specific news, talk, entertainment, or music programs. NPR
Member stations participate in NPR’s governance, including voting for and serving on NPR’s
Board of Directors. A Member station’s “core fee” is calculated on an individualized basis based
on a variety of factors designed to ensure alignment with the station’s revenue size and reflect
NPR’s contribution to the station’s ability to generate revenue from its local audience. A Member
station’s “core fee” is not based on the amount of federal support that it may receive from the
Corporation. NPR currently has 246 Member stations across the country, including in the District
of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam, collectively operating more than 1,000 public radio
signals and hundreds of digital platforms.
47. All Things Considered, NPR’s flagship news program, is the most listened-to
afternoon drive-time, news radio program in the country. Since its debut in 1971, All Things
Considered has provided listeners with the biggest stories of the day, thoughtful commentaries,
and insightful features on arts and life, music and entertainment. All Things Considered and NPR’s
weekday morning radio news program, Morning Edition, draw on reporting from correspondents
based around the world, and producers and reporters in locations throughout the United States,
including reporters at local Member stations across the country.
48. NPR upholds the highest standards of public service in journalism. NPR’s
excellence in journalism has repeatedly been recognized. In recent years, for example, NPR has
won a Pulitzer Prize, eight Edward R. Murrow awards, two National Press Club awards, and an
Alfred I. duPont-Columbia award for its exceptional journalism.
49. NPR ensures the integrity and high standards of its journalism through multiple,
rigorous safeguards. It maintains an editorial firewall that protects against interference in editorial
decision-making by its management or external actors, and it requires all editorial staff to adhere
to stringent ethics policies set out in the NPR Ethics Handbook. Among other things, the NPR
Ethics Handbook prohibits staff connected with news coverage from making contributions to
political campaigns or referendums.
50. NPR also manages and operates the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS), the
nation’s public radio interconnection system. The PRSS is the satellite and terrestrial content
distribution system that serves as the nationwide infrastructure backbone of the public radio
system. The PRSS, which has been managed and operated by NPR for decades, delivers thousands
of hours of news, music, and other programming from a wide range of producers each year to
public radio stations across the country.
51. The PRSS plays a vital role in ensuring that essential information reaches all
Americans during times of emergency. It serves 379 public radio stations, including NPR’s 246
Member stations, and more than 1,200 radio signals, enabling essential information to reach
approximately 99 percent of Americans over the airwaves, including those living in rural or remote
communities. In the event of a nationwide crisis, the PRSS receives Presidential alerts from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which it transmits to public radio stations
throughout the country. The PRSS has been named as a resource in at least 20 states’ emergency
plans, and public radio stations are included in more than 35 states’ emergency plans.
52. Each of the public radio stations participating in the PRSS (collectively, the
Interconnected Stations) is a stakeholder in its collective assets and a customer of the services it
provides. Interconnected Stations own their own downlink and uplink equipment. For purposes
of the Public Broadcasting Act, the Interconnected Stations have “designate[d]” NPR as the
“national entity” responsible for managing and operating the PRSS. 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(10)(D)(i).
53. NPR is funded primarily through sponsorships, donations from individuals and
private entities, membership and licensing fees from local public radio stations, direct funding
from the Corporation, and direct funding from other government grants, including grants awarded
by the NEA.
54. In total, NPR receives approximately $100 million, or approximately 31 percent of
its annual operating revenue through membership fees and the licensing of content to its 246
Member stations and other public radio stations.
55. Member stations choose to acquire content from NPR for a variety of reasons,
including audience interest, the needs of their local communities, the relative cost of acquiring
such programming, especially in comparison to its value to the station, and their own journalistic
and editorial judgments about the quality of NPR’s programming. In many rural areas, NPR
Member stations are the only free providers of local and national news, and reliable emergency
information.
56. NPR also receives direct funds through grants from CPB. For Fiscal Year 2024, it
spent approximately $11.1 million, in total, in grants from the Corporation for programming and
to support the PRSS. NPR must apply for such grants and comply with the terms of any applicable
grant agreements, including, for example, by producing reports.
57. Approximately $6.8 million of that funding came from a grant specifically
designated to support the PRSS.
58. Approximately $4.3 million of that funding came from competitive grants used,
among other things, to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones, produce
content regarding the war in Ukraine, and provide support for local news stations in rural areas.
59. For the past several years, NPR also has received grants from the NEA. In 2024,
NPR was awarded approximately $65,000 in NEA grant funding.
The Local Member Stations
60. Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and KSUT are three NPR Member
stations serving communities in the state of Colorado. Each of the Local Member Stations provides
free, high-quality local news programming for the communities they serve.
61. Aspen Public Radio is a nonprofit, member-supported, non-commercial community
service of Roaring Fork Public Radio, Inc., serving communities in the Roaring Fork, Crystal,
Colorado, Fryingpan, and Eagle River valleys. Its mission is to support, nourish, and enrich its
community by providing informative, entertaining, and educational radio and digital programming
in a reliable and professional manner.
62. Founded in 1980 as Roaring Fork Public Radio Translator, Aspen Public Radio has
grown from broadcasting daily hog prices from the University of Wyoming into one of the most
relied upon news institutions in the Roaring Fork Valley. Aspen Public Radio broadcasts awardwinning
reporting by a team of local journalists, as well as over two dozen national public radio
programs, including from NPR, and international news from the BBC.
63. Aspen Public Radio has been an NPR Member station since 1990. For nearly its
entire existence, NPR programming has been part of the station’s broadcast offerings. The
station’s tag line is “NPR News for Aspen and the Valley,” and the high-quality journalism the
NPR network provides is core to Aspen Public Radio’s identity as a public radio broadcaster.
Aspen Public Radio chooses to air NPR programming because it is a trusted brand. Aspen Public
Radio’s audience has repeatedly asked for NPR programming, which provides access to a broader
network of journalists and perspectives of communities all across the country. As an NPR Member
station, Aspen Public Radio is also provided the opportunity to distribute its local reporting through
national NPR programming, which is a critical way for Aspen Public Radio to execute its mission.
NPR’s programming accounts for approximately 92 hours of content aired weekly, including
between 12-15 hours per day on weekdays.
64. Colorado Public Radio (CPR) is a nonprofit, member-supported, non-commercial
community service of Public Broadcasting of Colorado. It is home to CPR News, CPR Classical,
and Indie 102.3. CPR News includes a locally produced program called “Colorado Matters,” local
newscasts throughout the day, and national and international news, including from NPR. CPR
also operates KRCC, a public radio station in Colorado Springs that broadcasts non-commercial
News/Talk programming, including from NPR. KRCC is a member-supported, non-commercial
community service of Colorado College.
65. CPR’s programming airs on 19 full-power stations, augmented by 20 translators.
Their combined signal reaches approximately 90 percent of Colorado.
66. CPR’s mission is to deliver meaningful news, music, and cultural experiences to
Coloradans. Over the years, CPR’s newsroom has received a number of journalism awards,
including RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Awards, Public Radio News Directors Incorporated
(PRNDI) Awards, and Colorado Broadcasters Association (CBA) Awards.
67. CPR has been an NPR Member station since 1973. It chooses to air NPR’s
programming because it offers an efficient and trusted way to deliver national and international
news directly from communities across the country and around the globe. NPR programs go
beyond daily headlines, sharing stories that inspire, spark curiosity, and highlight our shared
human experience. As part of the NPR Network, CPR’s reporting reaches a national audience,
helping to elevate the voice and visibility of Colorado on the national stage. CPR News broadcasts
approximately ten hours per day of NPR programming.
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap ... .1.0_1.pdf
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC.,
1111 North Capitol Street NE,
Washington, DC 20002;
ROARING FORK PUBLIC RADIO, INC. D/B/A
ASPEN PUBLIC RADIO,
110 E. Hallam Street, Suite 134,
Aspen, CO 81611;
COLORADO PUBLIC RADIO,
7409 S. Alton Court,
Centennial, CO 80112;
KUTE INC. D/B/A KSUT PUBLIC RADIO,
15150 CO-172,
Ignacio, CO 81137,
Plaintiffs,
v.
DONALD J. TRUMP, in his official capacity as
President of the United States,
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20500;
RUSSELL T. VOUGHT, in his official capacity
as Director of the Office of Management and
Budget, 725 17th Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503;
SCOTT BESSENT, in his official capacity as
Secretary of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania
Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20220;
MARIA ROSARIO JACKSON, in her official
capacity as Chair of the National Endowment
for the Arts, 400 7th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20506;
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, 725
17th Street NW,
Washington, D.C. 20503;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, D.C. 20220;
NATIONAL ENDOWMENT FOR THE ARTS, 400
7th Street SW
Washington, D.C. 20506;
THE CORPORATION FOR PUBLIC
BROADCASTING, 401 9th Street NW
Washington, D.C. 20004,
Defendants.
Case 1:25-cv-01674-RDM
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
INTRODUCTION
1. Plaintiff National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) and Plaintiffs Roaring Fork Public
Radio, Inc. d/b/a Aspen Public Radio (Aspen Public Radio), Colorado Public Radio (CPR), and
KUTE, Inc. d/b/a KSUT Public Radio (KSUT) (together, the Local Member Stations) bring this
action to challenge an Executive Order that violates the expressed will of Congress and the First
Amendment’s bedrock guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of
association, and also threatens the existence of a public radio system that millions of Americans
across the country rely on for vital news and information.
2. “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official,
high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox” in matters of politics or opinion. West Va.
State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). As the Supreme Court reiterated just last
year, “it is no job for government to decide what counts as the right balance of private expression—
to ‘un-bias’ what it thinks biased, rather than to leave such judgments to speakers and their
audiences.” Moody v. NetChoice, LLC, 603 U.S. 707, 719 (2024). These fundamental First
Amendment principles apply in full force in the context of public media and doom Executive Order
14290, which expressly aims to punish and control Plaintiffs’ news coverage and other speech the
Administration deems “biased.” The Order also violates due process, the Separation of Powers
and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1. It cannot stand.
3. By statute and longstanding public policy, Congress has for decades promoted,
supported and protected from governmental interference the speech of private entities in the public
broadcasting system, including NPR and non-commercial radio stations like the Local Member
Stations. In so doing, Congress recognized not only that promoting and supporting public
broadcasting serves the public interest, but also that such speech remains private—and thus fully
protected from censorship, retaliation or other forms of governmental interference, consistent with
the Constitution and our country’s democratic traditions. Yet the President—criticizing what he
perceives as “bias” in the award-winning journalism and cultural programming produced by
NPR—has issued an Executive Order that thwarts Congress’s intent and the First Amendment
rights of Plaintiffs to be free from the government’s attempts to control their private speech, and
their rights to be free from retaliation aimed at punishing and chilling protected speech, journalistic
activities, and expressive association.
4. Congress enacted the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (the Act) because it
determined that broad access to free, high-quality, independent public radio and television
programming produced and aired by private entities for the benefit of all Americans was a public
good. The Act created the infrastructure for a public radio system that, today, reaches
approximately 99 percent of the U.S. population over the airwaves and, in doing so, serves the
same fundamental purpose—to foster an engaged and informed citizenry—as the First
Amendment. See Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 339 (2010) (“The
right of citizens to inquire, to hear, to speak, and to use information to reach consensus is a
precondition to enlightened self-government and a necessary means to protect it.”)
5. Two pillars of the Act have been central to its success. First, Congress appropriated
federal funding to support independent public broadcasting—funding that it has continued to
appropriate, year after year, with bipartisan support. Second, to achieve Congress’s “cardinal
objective” that public broadcasting be shielded from “extraneous interference and control,” the
Act creates an “elaborate structure . . . to insulate [broadcasters] from government interference,”
FCC v. League of Women Voters of Cal., 468 U.S. 364, 386-89 (1984)—including by interposing
a private entity, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (the Corporation or CPB), between the
government and the ultimate recipients of appropriated funds.
6. For more than 50 years, NPR has been a vital source for news and cultural
programming, ranging from Morning Edition and All Things Considered to Planet Money and Tiny
Desk Radio. NPR serves an audience of more than 43 million Americans each week, including
through a network of local public radio stations like the Local Member Stations that are dedicated
to serving their communities. And as the entity selected by the nation’s public radio stations to
manage and operate the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS)—the nation’s public radio
interconnection system—NPR for decades has provided critical infrastructure services for an even
larger group of radio stations, ensuring, among other things, that federal emergency alerts reach
those residing in the most remote corners of the country.
7. NPR and the Local Member Stations benefit from, and participate in, the structure
for public radio created by Congress in the Act, including its funding mechanisms, and the
statutory and constitutional protections that insulate them from governmental interference with
their editorial decisions.
8. On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14290, entitled “Ending
Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” (the Order), 90 Fed. Reg. 19415, which contradicts these
statutory precepts and violates the Constitution. Contrary to Congress’s intent to support an
independent public radio and television system, and statutory requirements that expressly shield
the Corporation and entities like Plaintiffs from governmental interference, the Order directs
federal agencies as well as the Corporation to withhold all federal funding from NPR and the
Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). The Order further directs the Corporation to “cease indirect
funding to NPR and PBS” by mandating that local radio and television stations that receive grants
from CPB, like the Local Member Stations, not use those federal funds to acquire NPR or PBS
programming, and by revising existing grant agreements to prohibit grantees “from funding NPR
or PBS.” Order § 2(b).
9. It is not always obvious when the government has acted with a retaliatory purpose
in violation of the First Amendment. “But this wolf comes as a wolf.” Morrison v. Olson, 487
U.S. 654, 699 (1988) (Scalia, J., dissenting). The Order targets NPR and PBS expressly because,
in the President’s view, their news and other content is not “fair, accurate, or unbiased.” Order
§ 1. And the “Fact Sheet” and press release accompanying the Order, which echo prior statements
by President Trump and members of his Administration, only drive home the Order’s overt
retaliatory purpose. They deride NPR’s content as “left-wing propaganda,” and underline the
President’s antipathy toward NPR’s news coverage and its editorial choices. See “Fact Sheet:
President Donald J. Trump Ends Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” (May 1, 2025)
(asserting that NPR published articles “insist[ing] COVID-19 did not originate in a lab” and
“refused to cover the Hunter Biden laptop story”);1 Press Release, “President Trump Finally Ends
the Madness of NPR, PBS” (May 2, 2025) (asserting that NPR “apologized for calling illegal
immigrants ‘illegal’”).2
10. The Order is unlawful in multiple ways. It flatly contravenes statutes duly enacted
by Congress and violates the Separation of Powers and the Spending Clause by disregarding
Congress’s express commands. It also violates the First Amendment’s guarantees of freedom of
speech and of the press. The Order’s objectives could not be clearer: the Order aims to punish
1 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/ ... ld-jtrump-
ends-the-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/.
2 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/202 ... hemadness-
of-npr-pbs/.
NPR for the content of news and other programming the President dislikes and chill the free
exercise of First Amendment rights by NPR and individual public radio stations across the country.
The Order is textbook retaliation and viewpoint-based discrimination in violation of the First
Amendment, and it interferes with NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ freedom of expressive
association and editorial discretion. This is an “egregious form of content discrimination,” an
assault on the First Amendment that is “all the more blatant.” Rosenberger v. Rector & Visitors
of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 829 (1995). In the words of the D.C. Circuit, such “viewpoint
discrimination is poison.” Frederick Douglass Found., Inc. v. District of Columbia, 82 F.4th 1122,
1141 (D.C. Cir. 2023) ((internal quotations omitted)). Lastly, by seeking to deny NPR critical
funding with no notice or meaningful process, the Order violates the Constitution’s Due Process
Clause.
PARTIES
11. Plaintiff National Public Radio, Inc. (NPR) is a private nonprofit corporation. It is
headquartered in, and incorporated under the laws of, the District of Columbia.
12. Plaintiff Roaring Fork Public Radio, Inc. d/b/a Aspen Public Radio (Aspen Public
Radio) is a public radio station based in Aspen, Colorado. It has been an NPR Member station
since 1990.
13. Plaintiff Colorado Public Radio (CPR) is a public radio network based in
Centennial, Colorado, with offices in Denver, Grand Junction, and Colorado Springs. It has been
an NPR Member station since 1973.
14. Founded by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in 1976, Plaintiff KUTE Inc., d/b/a
KSUT Public Radio (KSUT), is a public radio network based in Ignacio, Colorado. It has been an
NPR Member station since 1984.
15. Defendant Donald J. Trump is the President of the United States. He is sued in his
official capacity.
16. Defendant Russell T. Vought is Director of the Office of Management and Budget.
He is sued in his official capacity.
17. Defendant Scott Bessent is Secretary the United States Department of the Treasury.
He is sued in his official capacity.
18. Defendant Maria Rosario Jackson is Chair of the National Endowment for the Arts.
She is sued in her official capacity.
19. Defendant Office of Management and Budget is a federal agency established within
the Executive Office of the President headquartered in Washington, D.C.
20. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is a federal agency
headquartered in Washington, D.C.
21. Defendant National Endowment for the Arts is an independent federal agency
headquartered in Washington, D.C.
22. Defendant Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a nonprofit corporation
headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Corporation is named as a defendant solely for the
purpose of obtaining complete relief.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
23. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction because this action arises under the
Constitution of the United States and federal statutes, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, and because the individual
Defendants are United States officials, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2).
24. The Court is authorized to award the requested relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and
2202 and pursuant to its inherent equitable powers.
25. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
part of the events giving rise to the claims occurred in the District of Columbia; and under 28
U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the federal agency defendants reside in the District of Columbia.
BACKGROUND
The Public Broadcasting Act and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting
26. Congress, determining that “it is in the public interest to encourage the growth and
development of public radio and television broadcasting,” established the Corporation for Public
Broadcasting (the Corporation or CPB) in the Public Broadcasting Act of 1967 (the Act). 47
U.S.C. § 396(a)(1), (b).
27. The Corporation was established as a private “nonprofit corporation” and is not “an
agency or establishment of the United States Government.” Id. § 396(b).
28. The Corporation is overseen by a Board of Directors appointed by the President
and confirmed by the Senate. Id. § 396(c)(2).
29. The Corporation’s primary purposes include to “facilitate the full development of
public telecommunications in which programs of high quality” and “creativity” will be “obtained
from diverse sources” and “made available to public telecommunications entities”; to “assist in the
establishment and development of one or more interconnection systems to be used for the
distribution of public telecommunications services”; and to “assist in the establishment and
development of one or more systems of public telecommunications entities.” Id. § 396(g)(1).
30. The Public Broadcasting Act details how the Corporation must allocate its general
appropriation from Congress. After administrative and system support expenses, the Corporation
must spend 25 percent of that appropriation to support public radio and 75 percent to support public
television. 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A).
31. Of the amount designated for public radio funding, the Corporation must make 70
percent available to public radio stations that meet certain criteria. A further 23 percent must be
made available to those public radio stations exclusively for “acquiring or producing programming
that is to be distributed nationally and is designed to serve the needs of a national audience.” Id.
§ 396(k)(3)(A)(iii). The remaining 7 percent must be made available for the production of public
radio programming. Id.
32. The Corporation distributes the vast majority of public radio funding to local public
radio stations. In general, stations may apply for two types of grants from the Corporation,
consistent with the provision of the Public Broadcasting Act. The first, called “unrestricted”
Community Service Grants (CSGs), can be used to fund programming and production, educational
outreach, broadcasting, transmission, distribution, and other operational expenses. See id.
§ 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(I). The second, called “restricted” CSGs, must be used to acquire or produce
programming that is distributed nationally and serves the needs of national audiences. See id
§ 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III). Member stations may use restricted grant funds to acquire NPR content
or content from other national producers. Public radio stations may also use these funds to produce
programming locally and distribute it regionally or nationally. For some local public radio stations
in rural or remote areas, CPB grants constitute 50 percent or more of their operating budgets.
33. The Public Broadcasting Act separately establishes a Satellite Interconnection Fund
to fund interconnection systems used for the distribution of public telecommunications services.
Id. §§ 396(g)(1)(B), (k)(10). Subject to other statutory requirements, all funds appropriated to the
Satellite Interconnection Fund “shall be distributed by the Corporation” to public education
television stations or the entity they designate for interconnection purposes, and “to those public
telecommunications entities participating in the public radio satellite interconnection system or the
national entity they designate for satellite interconnection purposes.” Id. § 396(k)(10)(D)(i).
Those funds must be used “exclusively for the capital costs of the replacement, refurbishment, or
upgrading of their national satellite interconnection systems and associated maintenance of such
systems.” Id. The Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS) is the nation’s public radio
interconnection system.
34. Congress has appropriated $535 million in general funding for the Corporation for
Fiscal Years 2025, 2026, and 2027. See Pub. L. No. 117-328, Div. H, tit. IV (for Fiscal Year
2025); Pub. L. No. 118-47, Div. D, tit. IV (for Fiscal Year 2026); Pub. L. No. 119-4, Div. A, tit. I,
§ 1112 (extending prior appropriations “in the same amount” for Fiscal Year 2027). Additionally,
Congress has appropriated $60 million for interconnection services for Fiscal Year 2025. See Pub.
L. No. 118-47, Div. D, tit. IV ($60 million for interconnection services for Fiscal Year 2024); Pub.
L. No. 119-4, Div. A, tit. I, § 1101(a)(8) (extending appropriations at the same levels as Fiscal
Year 2024).
35. In enacting the Public Broadcasting Act, one of Congress’s overriding goals was to
guarantee the Corporation, and the public broadcasting entities that receive federal funds from the
Corporation, “maximum protection from extraneous inference and control.” 47 U.S.C.
§ 396(a)(1).
36. The Act expressly denies “authoriz[ation to] any department, agency, officer, or
employee of the United States to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over public
telecommunications, or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors, or over the
charter or bylaws of the Corporation, or over the curriculum, program of instruction, or personnel
of any . . . public telecommunications entity.” Id. § 398(a). This provision has only one exception,
concerning the enforcement of antidiscrimination laws. Id. § 398(b).
37. The Act further clarifies that “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to
authorize any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise any
direction, supervision, or control over the content or distribution of public telecommunications
programs and services.” Id. § 398(c). Still another provision in the Act makes clear that the
Corporation is to “carry out its purposes and functions . . . in ways that will most effectively assure
the maximum freedom of the public telecommunications entities and systems from interference
with, or control of, program content or other activities.” Id. § 396(g)(1)(D).
38. In addition to making clear that the Corporation is “not . . . an agency or
establishment of the United States Government,” id. § 396(b), the Act also makes clear that the
CPB’s Board members “shall not, by reason of such membership, be deemed to be officers or
employees of the United States,” id. § 396(d)(2). The Board is fully empowered to choose CPB’s
President and other officers, who are not government employees, and who “shall serve at the
pleasure of the Board.” Id. § 396(e)(1). The Board is expressly prohibited from using any
“political test or qualification” in selecting officers or taking other personnel actions. Id. §
396(e)(2).
39. In order to further ensure that the Corporation allocates funding in a manner that is
free from political influence and aligned with Congress’s goals, the Act directs the Corporation to
distribute funds to public radio stations “in accordance with eligibility criteria . . . that promote the
public interest in public broadcasting, and on the basis of a formula designed to” provide for the
financial needs of those stations in relation to their audiences; provide incentives for non-federal
financial support; and “assure that each eligible licensee and permittee of a public radio station
receives a basic grant.” Id. § 396(k)(6)(B). Accordingly, each year CPB publishes its “Radio
Community Services Grants General Provisions and Eligibility Criteria” (Eligibility Criteria).3
40. The Eligibility Criteria for local public radio stations require that stations comply
with the Public Broadcasting Act’s requirements. Those requirements include, among other
things, that recipients must conduct open meetings; maintain open financial records; establish a
community advisory board; and produce employment statistical reports. See Eligibility Criteria at
4-6; 47 U.S.C. §§ 396(k)(4), (5), (8), (11), (12). Recipients must also meet various technical
requirements with respect to recordkeeping, operations, staffing, audience service, and training.
Eligibility Criteria at 6-13. The Eligibility Criteria do not take into account the content or
viewpoint of a local public radio station’s programming.
41. If a public radio station meets the Eligibility Criteria, it is entitled to receive funding
in accordance with a specific formula promulgated by the Corporation. See Corporation for Public
Broadcasting, “Fiscal Year 2025 Radio Station Grant Calculations.”4 That formula reflects the
Public Broadcasting Act’s requirement that a fixed portion of grant funds must be spent on
programming designed to serve a national audience. Id.; see 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III).
The National Endowment for the Arts
42. The National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is an independent federal agency that
supports the arts through grant programs. As relevant here, it is authorized to award grants to
nonprofit organizations for purposes such as “enabling cultural organizations and institutions to increase the levels of continuing support and to increase the range of contributors to the programs
of such organizations or institutions”; “providing administrative and management improvements
for cultural organizations and institutions”; “enabling cultural organizations and institutions to
increase audience participation in, and appreciation of, programs sponsored by such organizations
and institutions”; and “stimulating artistic activity and awareness which are in keeping with the
varied cultural traditions of this Nation.” 20 U.S.C. § 954(p)
3 Available at
https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/FY% ... Provisions%2
0and%20Eligibility%20Criteria.pdf.
4 Available at
https://cpb.org/sites/default/files/Rad ... lculations%
20-%20FY%202025.pdf.
43. When considering grant applications, NEA is required to ensure that “applications
are consistent with the purposes of this section” and that “artistic excellence and artistic merit are
the criteria by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of
decency and respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” Id. § 954(d).
National Public Radio
44. NPR is an independent, nonprofit media organization that serves millions of
Americans each day. NPR is not a public radio station, nor does it operate one. Instead, NPR
produces, acquires, and distributes programming, including national news programming, that is
made available to independent locally owned and operated public radio stations around the
country. NPR’s mission is to work with those local public radio stations to cultivate an informed
public, fostering a deeper understanding and appreciation of events, ideas, and cultures.
45. A local public radio station may choose to become an NPR Member station. NPR’s
commitment to its Member stations is to provide benefits that help them deliver on their mission
to the American people, grow audiences across platforms, and build sustainable business models.
46. NPR Member stations pay a membership “core fee” to license certain NPR content,
which may include Morning Edition, All Things Considered, and Weekend Edition, and receive
other benefits, including NPR-led advocacy on behalf of the public radio system, digital services,
and music licensing support, among other things. Member stations may also choose to license
additional content from NPR such as specific news, talk, entertainment, or music programs. NPR
Member stations participate in NPR’s governance, including voting for and serving on NPR’s
Board of Directors. A Member station’s “core fee” is calculated on an individualized basis based
on a variety of factors designed to ensure alignment with the station’s revenue size and reflect
NPR’s contribution to the station’s ability to generate revenue from its local audience. A Member
station’s “core fee” is not based on the amount of federal support that it may receive from the
Corporation. NPR currently has 246 Member stations across the country, including in the District
of Columbia, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Guam, collectively operating more than 1,000 public radio
signals and hundreds of digital platforms.
47. All Things Considered, NPR’s flagship news program, is the most listened-to
afternoon drive-time, news radio program in the country. Since its debut in 1971, All Things
Considered has provided listeners with the biggest stories of the day, thoughtful commentaries,
and insightful features on arts and life, music and entertainment. All Things Considered and NPR’s
weekday morning radio news program, Morning Edition, draw on reporting from correspondents
based around the world, and producers and reporters in locations throughout the United States,
including reporters at local Member stations across the country.
48. NPR upholds the highest standards of public service in journalism. NPR’s
excellence in journalism has repeatedly been recognized. In recent years, for example, NPR has
won a Pulitzer Prize, eight Edward R. Murrow awards, two National Press Club awards, and an
Alfred I. duPont-Columbia award for its exceptional journalism.
49. NPR ensures the integrity and high standards of its journalism through multiple,
rigorous safeguards. It maintains an editorial firewall that protects against interference in editorial
decision-making by its management or external actors, and it requires all editorial staff to adhere
to stringent ethics policies set out in the NPR Ethics Handbook. Among other things, the NPR
Ethics Handbook prohibits staff connected with news coverage from making contributions to
political campaigns or referendums.
50. NPR also manages and operates the Public Radio Satellite System (PRSS), the
nation’s public radio interconnection system. The PRSS is the satellite and terrestrial content
distribution system that serves as the nationwide infrastructure backbone of the public radio
system. The PRSS, which has been managed and operated by NPR for decades, delivers thousands
of hours of news, music, and other programming from a wide range of producers each year to
public radio stations across the country.
51. The PRSS plays a vital role in ensuring that essential information reaches all
Americans during times of emergency. It serves 379 public radio stations, including NPR’s 246
Member stations, and more than 1,200 radio signals, enabling essential information to reach
approximately 99 percent of Americans over the airwaves, including those living in rural or remote
communities. In the event of a nationwide crisis, the PRSS receives Presidential alerts from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), which it transmits to public radio stations
throughout the country. The PRSS has been named as a resource in at least 20 states’ emergency
plans, and public radio stations are included in more than 35 states’ emergency plans.
52. Each of the public radio stations participating in the PRSS (collectively, the
Interconnected Stations) is a stakeholder in its collective assets and a customer of the services it
provides. Interconnected Stations own their own downlink and uplink equipment. For purposes
of the Public Broadcasting Act, the Interconnected Stations have “designate[d]” NPR as the
“national entity” responsible for managing and operating the PRSS. 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(10)(D)(i).
53. NPR is funded primarily through sponsorships, donations from individuals and
private entities, membership and licensing fees from local public radio stations, direct funding
from the Corporation, and direct funding from other government grants, including grants awarded
by the NEA.
54. In total, NPR receives approximately $100 million, or approximately 31 percent of
its annual operating revenue through membership fees and the licensing of content to its 246
Member stations and other public radio stations.
55. Member stations choose to acquire content from NPR for a variety of reasons,
including audience interest, the needs of their local communities, the relative cost of acquiring
such programming, especially in comparison to its value to the station, and their own journalistic
and editorial judgments about the quality of NPR’s programming. In many rural areas, NPR
Member stations are the only free providers of local and national news, and reliable emergency
information.
56. NPR also receives direct funds through grants from CPB. For Fiscal Year 2024, it
spent approximately $11.1 million, in total, in grants from the Corporation for programming and
to support the PRSS. NPR must apply for such grants and comply with the terms of any applicable
grant agreements, including, for example, by producing reports.
57. Approximately $6.8 million of that funding came from a grant specifically
designated to support the PRSS.
58. Approximately $4.3 million of that funding came from competitive grants used,
among other things, to provide safety and security for journalists working in war zones, produce
content regarding the war in Ukraine, and provide support for local news stations in rural areas.
59. For the past several years, NPR also has received grants from the NEA. In 2024,
NPR was awarded approximately $65,000 in NEA grant funding.
The Local Member Stations
60. Aspen Public Radio, Colorado Public Radio, and KSUT are three NPR Member
stations serving communities in the state of Colorado. Each of the Local Member Stations provides
free, high-quality local news programming for the communities they serve.
61. Aspen Public Radio is a nonprofit, member-supported, non-commercial community
service of Roaring Fork Public Radio, Inc., serving communities in the Roaring Fork, Crystal,
Colorado, Fryingpan, and Eagle River valleys. Its mission is to support, nourish, and enrich its
community by providing informative, entertaining, and educational radio and digital programming
in a reliable and professional manner.
62. Founded in 1980 as Roaring Fork Public Radio Translator, Aspen Public Radio has
grown from broadcasting daily hog prices from the University of Wyoming into one of the most
relied upon news institutions in the Roaring Fork Valley. Aspen Public Radio broadcasts awardwinning
reporting by a team of local journalists, as well as over two dozen national public radio
programs, including from NPR, and international news from the BBC.
63. Aspen Public Radio has been an NPR Member station since 1990. For nearly its
entire existence, NPR programming has been part of the station’s broadcast offerings. The
station’s tag line is “NPR News for Aspen and the Valley,” and the high-quality journalism the
NPR network provides is core to Aspen Public Radio’s identity as a public radio broadcaster.
Aspen Public Radio chooses to air NPR programming because it is a trusted brand. Aspen Public
Radio’s audience has repeatedly asked for NPR programming, which provides access to a broader
network of journalists and perspectives of communities all across the country. As an NPR Member
station, Aspen Public Radio is also provided the opportunity to distribute its local reporting through
national NPR programming, which is a critical way for Aspen Public Radio to execute its mission.
NPR’s programming accounts for approximately 92 hours of content aired weekly, including
between 12-15 hours per day on weekdays.
64. Colorado Public Radio (CPR) is a nonprofit, member-supported, non-commercial
community service of Public Broadcasting of Colorado. It is home to CPR News, CPR Classical,
and Indie 102.3. CPR News includes a locally produced program called “Colorado Matters,” local
newscasts throughout the day, and national and international news, including from NPR. CPR
also operates KRCC, a public radio station in Colorado Springs that broadcasts non-commercial
News/Talk programming, including from NPR. KRCC is a member-supported, non-commercial
community service of Colorado College.
65. CPR’s programming airs on 19 full-power stations, augmented by 20 translators.
Their combined signal reaches approximately 90 percent of Colorado.
66. CPR’s mission is to deliver meaningful news, music, and cultural experiences to
Coloradans. Over the years, CPR’s newsroom has received a number of journalism awards,
including RTNDA Edward R. Murrow Awards, Public Radio News Directors Incorporated
(PRNDI) Awards, and Colorado Broadcasters Association (CBA) Awards.
67. CPR has been an NPR Member station since 1973. It chooses to air NPR’s
programming because it offers an efficient and trusted way to deliver national and international
news directly from communities across the country and around the globe. NPR programs go
beyond daily headlines, sharing stories that inspire, spark curiosity, and highlight our shared
human experience. As part of the NPR Network, CPR’s reporting reaches a national audience,
helping to elevate the voice and visibility of Colorado on the national stage. CPR News broadcasts
approximately ten hours per day of NPR programming.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 8:51 pm
Part 2 of 2
68. KSUT was founded by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in 1976 as one of only eight
Tribal radio stations in the country. It has been an independent, non-profit corporation since 1986.
Since 1998, KSUT has broadcast two complementary and comprehensive programming
services—Four Corners Public Radio and Tribal Radio—from its studios in Ignacio, Colorado.
KSUT serves 14 communities in the Four Corners region, including Durango, Silverton, Cortez,
Mancos, and Pagosa Springs, Colorado; Aztec, Bloomfield and Farmington, New Mexico; and
four distinct Federally Recognized Tribes including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, and portions of the Navajo Nation and Jicarilla Apache Nation. KSUT airs news,
eclectic music, entertainment, storytelling, and documentary programming.
69. KSUT’s coverage area encompasses approximately 27,000 square miles of mostly
rural land. For most of its coverage area, KSUT is the only public radio station available and the
only available source of free, reliable local and regional news and information.
70. KSUT has been an NPR Member station since 1984. It chooses to air NPR’s
programming because it is high-quality, affordable, and resonates with KSUT’s listeners. On
weekdays, NPR’s programming accounts for seven hours of daily content aired on Four Corners
Public Radio and four hours of daily content on Tribal Radio.
71. Each of the Local Member Stations receives federal funding from the Corporation
in the form of Community Service Grants (CSGs). For Fiscal Year 2025, approximately $210,000
of Aspen Public Radio’s operating revenue comes from CSG funds, comprising approximately
10.8 percent of its budget. Approximately $1.4 million of CPR’s operating revenue comes from
CSG funds, comprising approximately six percent of its budget. $333,000 of KSUT’s operating
revenue comes from CSG funds, comprising approximately 19 percent of its budget.
72. Each of the Local Member Stations pays programming and membership fees to
NPR in part with restricted CSG funds they receive from the Corporation—that is, with funds that
must be used to acquire or produce programming that is distributed nationally and serves the needs
of national audiences. See 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III).
73. Each of the Local Member Stations is also a stakeholder in the nation’s public radio
interconnection system and relies on the PRSS to distribute content from public radio producers.
The Local Member Stations also rely on the PRSS infrastructure to distribute critical emergency
alerts. Like all Interconnected Stations, the Local Member Stations pay fees to NPR for its
management and operation of the PRSS.
President Trump and his Administration Attack NPR and Threaten Retaliation
74. Since his first term in office, President Trump has repeatedly expressed his
disagreement with the editorial decisions reflected in the speech and viewpoints of programming
offered by NPR and PBS. For example, on January 26, 2020, President Trump promoted a socialmedia
post claiming that NPR was a “big-government, Democrat Party propaganda operation,”
and questioning “Why does NPR still exist?”5
75. On March 25, 2025, President Trump announced in a press conference that he
would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because of his belief that they are “biased.”6
76. On March 27, 2025, President Trump wrote on social media: “NPR and PBS, two
horrible and completely biased platforms (Networks!), should be DEFUNDED by Congress,
IMMEDIATELY. Republicans, don’t miss this opportunity to rid our Country of this giant SCAM,
both being arms of the Radical Left Democrat Party. JUST SAY NO AND, MAKE AMERICA
GREAT AGAIN!!!”7
77. On April 1, 2025, President Trump wrote on social media: “REPUBLICANS
MUST DEFUND AND TOTALLY DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM NPR & PBS, THE
RADICAL LEFT ‘MONSTERS’ THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!”8
78. On April 10, 2025, President Trump wrote on social media: “NO MORE
FUNDING FOR NPR, A TOTAL SCAM! … THEY ARE A LIBERAL DISINFORMATION
MACHINE. NOT ONE DOLLAR!!!”9
79. On April 14, 2025, the White House issued a press release entitled “The NPR, PBS
Grift Has Ripped Us Off for Too Long.”10 In it, the White House accused NPR and PBS of
“spread[ing] radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news,’” and provided a list of purported
“examples of the trash that passes for ‘news’ at NPR and PBS.”
80. On April 15, 2025, Director Vought stated during an interview that NPR and PBS’s
journalism “is not just left-wing indoctrination” but “is worse than that,” and accused NPR and
PBS of “dividing on the basis of wokeism.”11
The Administration Purports to Fire Three CPB Board Members
and Assert Control over CPB
81. On the evening of April 28, 2025, the White House’s Deputy Director of
Presidential Personnel, Trent Morse, emailed three of the Corporation’s Board members the
following message:
Complaint ¶¶ 34-35, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, No. 25-cv-1305, Dkt. 1
(D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2025).
82. The following day, the Corporation, its unanimous Board, and the three purportedly
terminated Board members sued to challenge the attempted removal. Id.; see also Plaintiffs’
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt.
2 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2025). That suit remains pending.
83. Also on April 29, 2025, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials
emailed the remaining two Board members requesting a meeting to “discuss getting a DOGE team
assigned to the organization.” Reply at 24, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt.
12 (D.D.C. May 9, 2025); see also Reply Ex. A, Supplemental Declaration of Evan Slavitt ¶ 12,
Dkt. 12-1.
84. The Corporation has averred that, at the time of the Administration’s purported
termination of three of its Board members, the Corporation “was negotiating the extension” of its
current “PRSS Interconnection grant [with NPR]”— which “expires on September 30, 2025”—
“for an additional $35,962,000 using funds that Congress has already appropriated for that specific
purpose.” Reply at 20, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt. 12; see also Reply
Ex. A, Supplemental Declaration of Evan Slavitt ¶¶ 35-36, Dkt. 12-1. According to the
Corporation, “[i]f the PRSS Interconnection Grant is not extended, the PRSS system will cease
operations and the resulting effects will be catastrophic.” Id.
President Trump Issues the Executive Order Purporting to Terminate All Funding to NPR
and PBS Based on the Content and Perceived Viewpoint of Their Speech
85. On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14290, titled “Ending
Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” (the Order), which purports to direct federal agencies as
well as the Corporation to stop NPR and PBS from receiving any federal funding.
86. Section 1 of the Order announces that its purpose is to terminate federal funding to
NPR and PBS based on the perceived viewpoint of some their programming: It alleges that
“neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events.” Order § 1; see
also id. § 2(a) (funding termination is necessary to “ensure that Federal funding does not support
biased and partisan news coverage”).
87. Section 1 admits that the Order is motivated by a desire to abrogate the Public
Broadcasting Act and appropriations legislation by executive fiat: “[T]oday the media landscape
is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media
in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of
journalistic independence.” Id. § 1.
88. Section 1 states that the President “therefore” instructs the Corporation “and all
executive departments and agencies” to “cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS.” Id.
89. Section 2 of the Order purports to direct the Corporation to terminate funding
streams that benefit NPR and PBS. First, it states that the “CPB Board shall cease direct funding
to NPR and PBS, consistent with my Administration’s policy to ensure that Federal funding does
not support biased and partisan news coverage. The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct
funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding.” Id.
§ 2(a). Second, it states that the CPB Board “shall [cease to] provide indirect funding to NPR and
PBS, including by ensuring that [local public stations] do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.”
Id. § 2(b). The CPB Board shall do this, the Order states, by revising its 2025 Eligibility Criteria
“to prohibit direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS” by June 30, 2025. Id. The Order further
states that “the CPB Board shall take all other necessary steps to minimize or eliminate its indirect
funding of NPR and PBS.” Id.
90. Section 2 of the Order also appears to dictate that no CPB money shall go to any
public broadcasting station that acquires NPR or PBS content even with non-CPB money. It
provides that, “[t]o the extent permitted” by the 2024 Eligibility Criteria “and applicable law,” the
CPB Board shall “prohibit parties subject to [those criteria] from funding NPR or PBS after the
date of this order.” Id.
91. Section 3 of the Order concerns sources of funding other than the Corporation. It
directs “[t]he heads of all agencies” to “identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent
with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS.” Order § 3(a). The heads of
agencies shall then review any remaining funding for compliance with the terms of the grant,
contract, or other funding instrument under which the funding is received. Id. § 3(b).
92. A “Fact Sheet” and press release, which the White House published accompanying
the Order, confirm that the Order is motivated by a hostility toward the perceived viewpoints
expressed by NPR and PBS. The “Fact Sheet,” headlined “President Donald J. Trump Ends the
Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” alleges that “NPR and PBS have fueled partisanship
and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars.” Fact Sheet. It then lists specific news coverage
and editorial choices with which the President disagrees, ranging from coverage of the Covid-19
pandemic to content featured on Valentine’s Day. Id.
93. The press release, entitled “President Trump Finally Ends the Madness of NPR,
PBS,” accuses NPR and PBS of “spread[ing] radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”
Expanding on the “Fact Sheet,” the press release contains nineteen bullets and sub-bullets
cataloguing (and mischaracterizing) news and other content by NPR and PBS exemplifying the
types of editorial decisions that prompted the issuance of the Order.
94. As evidenced by the President’s statements leading up to the Order, the documents
accompanying it, and the text of the Order itself, the sole, express basis of the Order is the
President’s disapproval of the content of the speech and news reporting of NPR and PBS.
The Order’s Immediate Consequences for NPR and the Local Member Stations
95. The Order purports to direct the Corporation “and all executive departments and
agencies” to cease providing any direct or indirect funding to NPR or PBS.
96. Just one day after President Trump issued the Executive Order, the NEA terminated
a grant award to NPR.
97. This termination confirms that NEA is complying with the Order and has rendered
NPR ineligible to apply for grants going forward.
98. The Order purports to require the Corporation to revoke grants already awarded to
NPR and to preclude NPR from receiving such grants in the future, jeopardizing a critical source
of funding used (among other things) to protect journalists working in war zones and maintain
resiliency of the PRSS, the nation’s public radio distribution system.
99. By basing its directives on the content and perceived viewpoints expressed in
NPR’s programming, the Order puts NPR on notice that, if it is ever to receive federal funding
again, it must adapt its journalistic and editorial choices to suit the government’s preferences.
100. The Order further purports to require the Corporation to prohibit local stations from
using CPB grants to acquire NPR’s programming, notwithstanding a statutory requirement that
stations must use “restricted” funds to acquire or produce programming that is distributed
nationally and serves the needs of national audiences. See 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III).
101. The Order would therefore force local stations to redirect those funds to acquire
different national programming—in contravention of their own editorial choices—and to take
additional, non-federal funds out of their budgets to continue acquiring NPR’s programming.
102. As noted above, each of the Local Member Stations receives significant grant funds
from the Corporation, ranging between $210,000 and $1.4 million for Fiscal Year 2025. Some of
that funding must be used by the Local Member Stations to acquire or produce national
programming. All of the Local Member Stations use some portion of that funding to acquire NPR
programming. By prohibiting the Local Member Stations from using those funds in that manner,
the Order directly interferes with their journalistic and expressive independence and their editorial
choices—requiring them to use grant funds received from the Corporation to acquire different
national programming rather than NPR programming. If Local Member Stations wish to continue
airing NPR’s programming, they would have to use funds obtained from other sources.
103. More broadly, the Order puts the Local Member Stations and other public radio
stations that air NPR programming on notice that the government disapproves of their editorial
choices and will seize any available opportunities to retaliate if they continue to air NPR
programming.
104. The loss of all direct funding from CPB and the loss (or significant decline) of
revenue from local stations would be catastrophic for NPR. As described above, NPR’s direct
grants from CPB are used to support vital journalistic endeavors and to support the Public Radio
Satellite System—which serves as an essential public safety mechanism. NPR also receives
approximately $100 million annually from local public radio stations in fees, including the Local
Member Stations, constituting nearly a third of NPR’s operating budget.
105. After the Order was issued, the Corporation released a statement explaining that
“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority” and that “Congress
directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of
the federal government.” Corporation for Public Broadcasting, “Statement Regarding Executive
Order on Public Media” (May 2, 2025).12 The Corporation noted that, in creating CPB, “Congress
expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over
[CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors.’” Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 398(c)).
106. However, the President has already purported to remove three of the Corporation’s
five Board members, and the Executive Branch under his direction has unequivocally taken the
position that the President can remove any Board member at any time and for any reason. See generally Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt. 11 (D.D.C. May 6, 2025). Indeed, during
hearings regarding the Corporation’s motions for a temporary restraining order and for a
preliminary injunction, counsel for the government has repeatedly left open the possibility that the
President could attempt to install new Board members without the required advice and consent of
the Senate. 4/29/25 Tr. at 11-12 and 5/14/25 Tr. at 47-49, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v.
Trump. See also Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal at 7-19, Aviel v. Gor, No. 25-5105
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 7, 2025) (asserting that the President’s Article II authority empowers him to
unilaterally appoint “acting” Board members to the Inter-American Foundation after firing all
existing Board members, notwithstanding a statutory requirement that Board members must be
confirmed by the Senate); id. at 19-20 (arguing in the alternative that if the President cannot
appoint acting Board members, he must be permitted to fire the Foundation’s president directly).
The Administration’s efforts to “assign[]” DOGE officials to the Corporation further demonstrate
its intent to exert control over the Corporation’s functions.
107. To the extent CPB does not comply with the Order’s directives, the Order appears
to direct the Treasury Department (or any agency or instrumentality that may need to act in any
capacity or to any extent to fulfill the mandates of the Act) to withhold appropriated funds from
CPB because to disburse them would constitute “indirect funding of NPR and PBS” in violation
of Section 3(a) of the Order.
CLAIMS
COUNT 1
Lack of Constitutional and Statutory Authority
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
108. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
109. The President’s power to issue the Order, and any executive official’s power to
implement it, “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). But Congress, through the
Public Broadcasting Act, has expressly prohibited the actions directed by the Order—and no
provision of the Constitution allows the President to override Congress’s will.
110. The Act prohibits any “department, agency, officer, or employee of the United
States” from “exercis[ing] any direction, supervision, or control over public telecommunications,
or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors, or over the charter of bylaws of the
Corporation, or over the curriculum, program of instruction, or personnel of any . . . public
telecommunications entity.” 47 U.S.C. § 398(a). The Act further makes clear that the Corporation
is “not . . . an agency or establishment of the United States Government” and that its Board
members are not “officers or employees of the United States. Id. §§ 396(b), (d)(2).
111. The Order nevertheless purports to issue commands to the Corporation—including
that it cease all direct funding of NPR and PBS; prohibit local public radio and television stations
from acquiring NPR or PBS programming; and amend its Eligibility Criteria to effectuate the
Order’s directives.
112. The Order further violates provisions of the Act that require the Corporation to fund
local public stations in accordance with eligibility criteria that serve specific statutory objectives.
See 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(6)(B).
113. Moreover, the Order violates the Act by prohibiting the Corporation from funding
NPR’s management and operation of the PRSS, notwithstanding the Act’s requirement that the
Corporation “shall” distribute designated Satellite Interconnection Funds to “the national entity”
that public radio stations “designate for satellite interconnection purposes.” Id. § 396(k)(10)(D)(i).
114. The Order also violates statutes governing the NEA’s grant-making functions. In
particular, the NEA is required to ensure that “artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria
by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and
respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” 20 U.S.C. § 954(d)(1). By
unilaterally dictating that NPR cannot be eligible to receive any federal grants, the Order precludes
NPR from competing for grants from NEA based on its “artistic excellence and merit,” in violation
of the statute.
115. The President has no authority under the Constitution to take such actions. On the
contrary, the power of the purse is reserved to Congress, and the President has no inherent authority
to override Congress’s will on domestic spending decisions. By unilaterally imposing restrictions
and conditions on funds in contravention of Congress, the Order violates the Separation of Powers
and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
116. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “violations of federal law by
federal officials,” including to enjoin “unconstitutional actions.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child
Ctr., 575 U.S. 320, 327-28 (2015); see Am. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S.
94, 110 (1902). Judicial “[r]eview for ultra vires acts rests on the longstanding principle that if an
agency action is unauthorized by the statute under which [the agency] assumes to act, the agency
has violate[d] the law and the courts generally have jurisdiction to grant relief.” Nat’l Ass’n of
Postal Supervisors v. U.S. Postal Serv., 26 F.4th 960, 970 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (alterations in original;
internal quotations omitted). When a “statutory provision plainly delineates the outer limits of
agency authority and Congress has not expressly precluded judicial review,” plaintiffs have a cause
of action to enjoin ultra vires acts. Id. at 971. Moreover, with respect to the individual federalofficial
Defendants, “suits for specific relief against officers of the sovereign allegedly acting
beyond statutory authority or unconstitutionally are not barred by sovereign immunity.” Pollack
v. Hogan, 703 F.3d 117, 119-20 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).
117. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action,
including through the NEA’s termination of NPR’s grants, those actions also are reviewable under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706, for lack of statutory authority and
violations of the Constitution.
118. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 2
Violation of the First Amendment—Retaliation
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
119. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
120. “The Framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect
the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’” 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600
U.S. 570, 584 (2023) (quoting Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660-61 (2000)). “The
Constitution specifically selected the press . . . to play an important role in the discussion of public
affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966). “Suppression” of the press therefore
“muzzles one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately
selected to improve our society and keep it free.” Id.
121. While government officials have their own right to speak and to “do so forcefully,”
they cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle
Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024). In particular, “the First Amendment prohibits
government officials from retaliating against individuals for engaging in protected speech.”
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87, 90 (2018).
122. Yet retaliation is the Order’s plain purpose. The Order’s text and the materials that
accompanied it make unmistakably clear that the Order is intended to—and does—retaliate against
NPR because of its protected speech.
123. To demonstrate that unlawful retaliation has occurred, a plaintiff must show that
“(1) [it] engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took some
retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff’s position from
speaking again; and (3) a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse
action taken against him.” Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations
omitted).
124. NPR and the Local Member Stations have engaged in protected speech by airing
content produced or distributed by NPR, including the specific content listed in the Fact Sheet and
press release.
125. There can be no doubt the Order—which seeks to halt all direct and indirect funding
from CPB to NPR, precludes NPR from applying for any federal grants from any federal agency
in the future, and threatens CPB funding to the Local Member Stations—is an adverse action that
would chill an ordinary speaker. The Order also poses a threat to local public radio stations,
including the Local Member Stations, that they will incur official sanctions for airing NPR content.
In so doing, the Order will doubtless result in broader “‘self-censorship’ of speech that could not
be proscribed,” particularly by organizations that receive government funds, and will thereby
“discourage the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate that the First Amendment is intended
to protect.’” Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 75, 78 (2023) (quoting New York Times v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)); see also, e.g., Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50
(1988) (“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of
the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.”).
126. The “causal link” between NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ protected speech
and the Order’s punitive actions is spelled out by the Order itself and the materials that
accompanied it. The Order seeks to sanction NPR because it is purportedly “biased” and because
the President dislikes the content of certain of its programming.
127. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
128. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions also are reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
129. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 3
Violation of the First Amendment—Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
130. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
131. “At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that
viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.” Vullo, 602 U.S.
at 187. See also Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 156 (2015) (viewpoint
discrimination is a “‘more blatant’ and ‘egregious form of content discrimination’” (quoting
Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829. Because the Order imposes a viewpoint-based burden on NPR’s
and the Local Member Stations’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, it is per se
unconstitutional. See Reed, 576 U.S. at 156.
132. Congress is not obligated to support independent public radio with federal funds.
But the government cannot “‘deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally
protected . . . freedom of speech’. . . .” United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 210
(2003) (citation omitted). To put it another way, government funding decisions cannot
constitutionally “be aimed at the suppression of ideas thought inimical to the Government’s own
interest.” Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 549 (2001). The Order does just that. It
aims to silence NPR’s speech because the President dislikes the balance of viewpoints expressed
in NPR’s programming.
133. By effectuating its retaliatory and viewpoint discriminatory aims through the
Corporation and local public radio stations, the Order also engages in precisely the kind of thirdparty
coercion that the Supreme Court recently affirmed is unlawful. “[T]he government violate[s]
the First Amendment through coercion of a third party” when its conduct, “viewed in context,
could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish
or suppress the plaintiff’s speech.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 191. Here, the Order purports to issue a
direct command to the Corporation that it cease all direct and indirect funding of NPR. It further
seeks to coerce local public radio stations, including the Local Member Stations, by threatening
them with the loss of funds if they continue to exercise their editorial discretion in ways disfavored
by the Administration.
134. The Order likewise subjects the Local Member Stations to viewpoint-based
discrimination by dictating that federal funds cannot be used to acquire NPR’s programming. At
the outset, the Order would impose significant burdens on the Local Member Stations by requiring
them to segregate funds and prove to the government’s satisfaction that no CPB grants are being
used to acquire NPR’s programming. But the Order goes further: by decreeing that CPB funds
designated for acquiring national programming cannot be used to acquire NPR’s programming,
the Order would force the Local Member Stations to alter their own editorial choices and acquire
national programming from elsewhere to align with the government’s preferred viewpoints. But
the First Amendment prohibits “restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing
speech by some but not others.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340. Moreover, as the Supreme
Court has repeatedly held, the “‘exercise of editorial control and judgment’” is protected by the
First Amendment, and “‘governmental regulation’” cannot supplant “the ‘crucial process’ of
editorial choice.” Moody, 603 U.S. at 728-29 (quoting Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418
U.S. 241, 258 (1974)). It is hard to conceive of a more blatant scheme to regulate the exercise of
editorial discretion by Executive fiat.
135. The Order’s insistence that it is only intended to eliminate supposed “bias” in
NPR’s programming does not salvage it. On the contrary, it proves the Order serves no legitimate
government interest. “The government may not, in supposed pursuit of better expressive balance,
alter a private speaker’s own editorial choices about the mix of speech it wants to convey.” Moody,
603 U.S. at 734. “In case after case, the Court has barred the government from forcing a private
speaker to present views it wished to spurn in order to rejigger the expressive realm.” Id. at 733.
136. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
137. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions also are reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
138. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 4
Violation of First Amendment—Freedom of Association
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
139. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
140. By purporting to direct the Corporation to restrict funds for local public radio
stations that choose to affiliate with NPR, the Order further infringes on NPR’s and those stations’
freedom of association.
141. The Supreme Court has “long understood as implicit in the right to engage in
activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in
pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.”
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984). Government action that “may have
the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny” under the First
Amendment. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 (1958). See also, e.g.,
303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 586 (the First Amendment protects the right to speak, and, “[e]qually,
the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association”).
142. By directing the Corporation to prohibit local public radio stations that receive
federal funding from expending funds to become an NPR Member Station or to otherwise acquire
NPR’s programming, the Order cuts at the heart of NPR’s and those public radio stations’ freedom
to associate with one another for expressive purposes.
143. Further, the Interconnected Stations, which include but are not limited to NPR
Member Stations, have designated NPR to manage and operate the PRSS on their behalf. The
Order, including by directing the Corporation to cease federal funding to NPR, interferes with the
right of NPR and the Interconnected Stations to associate with one another.
144. The Order seeks to force local public radio stations to cut existing ties with NPR to
remain eligible to receive federal funding, including Corporation grants. And local public radio
stations may have to incur significant burdens to ensure they segregate non-federal funds to acquire
NPR’s programing or undertake other burdensome measures to demonstrate compliance with the
Order’s directives. Cf. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 337, 339 (government restriction that
“necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression” was “a ban on speech,” and potential alternative
means of expression through a political action committee did “not alleviate the First Amendment
problems” because of the associated burdens).
145. The Order’s interference with freedom of association among news media entities
only compounds its fundamental incompatibility with the First Amendment. NPR and its Member
stations are partners in newsgathering and reporting, and NPR regularly airs reporting from its
Member stations. The Order constitutes a governmental veto over the programming choices of
public radio stations—threatening those stations with the loss of funds if they choose to air
programming from a speaker that the government has decreed is off-limits.
146. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
147. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions are also reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
148. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 5
Violation of the Due Process Clause
(APA Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
150. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall
be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
151. The Order violates the Due Process Clause because it purports to order the
Corporation to terminate all direct and indirect funding to NPR, in disregard of NPR’s substantial
reliance interests in its continued eligibility for such funding. Furthermore, by directing the
Corporation to terminate funding needed by NPR to operate the PRSS, the Order impedes NPR’s
ability to perform its contractual obligations and agreements with Interconnected Stations. In so
doing, the Order deprives NPR of property rights with no pre-deprivation notice or meaningful
opportunity to be heard.
152. NPR has a protected property interest in its continued eligibility to receive federal
funding from the Corporation and from local public radio stations that receive grants from the
Corporation. A “statutory entitlement” is a property right under the Due Process Clause, see
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262 (1970), as is “[l]egitimate and reasonable reliance on a
promise from the state,” Forgue v. City of Chicago, 873 F.3d 962, 970 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotations omitted). Property rights “protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily
lives”; that reliance “must not be arbitrarily undermined.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth,
408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
153. The degree of pre-deprivation process to which someone is entitled under the Due
Process Clause “depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the
governmental interest in summary adjudication.” Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 263; see Nat’l Council of
Resistance of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192, 205-08 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (affording due process
prior to government action depriving organization of “protected property right”).
154. The sudden loss of all federal funding, including PRSS funding, as well as fees
from local public radio stations that otherwise would acquire programming from NPR would be
catastrophic to NPR. As described above, NPR receives about 31 percent of its total operating
revenue through fees from local public radio stations, including its Member stations, and additional
millions of dollars from CPB to support NPR’s coverage of particular issue areas, such as the
ongoing war in Ukraine. NPR relies on CPB grants to support essential functions, and without
federal funding, NPR would need to shutter or downsize collaborative newsrooms and rural
reporting initiatives and, at the same time, also eliminate or scale back critical national and
international coverage that serves the entire public radio system and is not replicable at scale on
the local level. Loss of all revenue from local public radio stations would dramatically harm NPR’s
ability to execute its journalistic mission.
155. Conversely, the government has no legitimate interest in summary termination of
NPR’s ability to receive federal funding and funding from public broadcasters. Year after year,
Congress has reauthorized funding for the Corporation knowing that a portion of that funding was
destined for NPR. If NPR continues to receive Congressionally appropriated funds while the
Government’s accusations are orderly adjudicated, the government will not seriously suffer harm.
156. Given NPR’s weighty interest in avoiding the loss of its property rights relative to
the government’s non-existent interest in abrogating those rights, NPR was entitled to meaningful
pre-deprivation process, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Goldberg,
397 U.S. at 267-68. NPR indisputably did not receive such process.
157. Moreover, the Order independently violates the Due Process Clause because it is
void for vagueness. “A law is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary
intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages
seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 72 F.4th
1286, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). The vagueness doctrine serves to ensure
that “regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly,” and to
require “precision and guidance . . . so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or
discriminatory way.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012). “When speech
is involved, rigorous adherence to those requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does
not chill protected speech.” Id. at 253-54; see also Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 665 (D.C. Cir.
2020) (courts will apply a “particularly stringent vagueness and fair-notice test” where an adverse
action “implicates important First Amendment rights” (brackets and internal quotations omitted)).
158. The Order punishes NPR because, in the government’s view, NPR does not
“present[] a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events.” Order § 1. NPR did not have
adequate notice that its journalistic activities would subject it to such punishment. Nor does the
Order—which carries the implicit threat of additional adverse consequences for NPR and its Local
Member Stations if their programming deviates from the government’s view of what is “fair” or
“unbiased” in the future—provide any semblance of sufficient notice. Whether reporting is “fair”
or “unbiased” inevitably will depend on the eye of the beholder, making the Order “so standardless
that it . . . encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Woodhull, 72 F.4th at 1303.
159. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
160. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions also are reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
161. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order:
162. Declaring that Executive Order 14290 and all actions implementing it are unlawful
and unconstitutional;
163. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants from implementing or
seeking to enforce Executive Order 14290;
164. Declaring that the National Endowment for the Arts may not withhold funding from
NPR on the basis of Executive Order 14290;
165. Declaring that the Corporation may not withhold funding from NPR on the basis of
Executive Order 14290;
166. Declaring that the Corporation may not withhold funding from the Local Member
Stations or condition their receipt of funding on the basis of Executive Order 14290;
167. Vacating any final agency action implementing Executive Order 14290;
168. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs;
169. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in accordance with
law; and
170. Issuing any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 27, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Miguel A. Estrada
Miguel A. Estrada (D.D.C. Bar No. 456289)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-4504
(202) 955-8500
[email protected]
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (D.D.C. Bar No.
420440)
Katie Townsend (D.D.C. Bar No. 1026115)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
(213) 229-7000
[email protected]
[email protected]
Elizabeth A. Allen (Pro Hac Vice Application
Pending)
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
1111 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 513-2000
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiff
National Public Radio, Inc.
Steven D. Zansberg (Pro Hac Vice Application
Pending)
Zansberg Beylkin LLC
100 Fillmore Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 564-3669
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs Roaring Fork Public
Radio, Inc. d/b/a Aspen Public Radio,
Colorado Public Radio, and KUTE, Inc. d/b/a
KSUT Public Radio
68. KSUT was founded by the Southern Ute Indian Tribe in 1976 as one of only eight
Tribal radio stations in the country. It has been an independent, non-profit corporation since 1986.
Since 1998, KSUT has broadcast two complementary and comprehensive programming
services—Four Corners Public Radio and Tribal Radio—from its studios in Ignacio, Colorado.
KSUT serves 14 communities in the Four Corners region, including Durango, Silverton, Cortez,
Mancos, and Pagosa Springs, Colorado; Aztec, Bloomfield and Farmington, New Mexico; and
four distinct Federally Recognized Tribes including the Southern Ute Indian Tribe, Ute Mountain
Ute Tribe, and portions of the Navajo Nation and Jicarilla Apache Nation. KSUT airs news,
eclectic music, entertainment, storytelling, and documentary programming.
69. KSUT’s coverage area encompasses approximately 27,000 square miles of mostly
rural land. For most of its coverage area, KSUT is the only public radio station available and the
only available source of free, reliable local and regional news and information.
70. KSUT has been an NPR Member station since 1984. It chooses to air NPR’s
programming because it is high-quality, affordable, and resonates with KSUT’s listeners. On
weekdays, NPR’s programming accounts for seven hours of daily content aired on Four Corners
Public Radio and four hours of daily content on Tribal Radio.
71. Each of the Local Member Stations receives federal funding from the Corporation
in the form of Community Service Grants (CSGs). For Fiscal Year 2025, approximately $210,000
of Aspen Public Radio’s operating revenue comes from CSG funds, comprising approximately
10.8 percent of its budget. Approximately $1.4 million of CPR’s operating revenue comes from
CSG funds, comprising approximately six percent of its budget. $333,000 of KSUT’s operating
revenue comes from CSG funds, comprising approximately 19 percent of its budget.
72. Each of the Local Member Stations pays programming and membership fees to
NPR in part with restricted CSG funds they receive from the Corporation—that is, with funds that
must be used to acquire or produce programming that is distributed nationally and serves the needs
of national audiences. See 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III).
73. Each of the Local Member Stations is also a stakeholder in the nation’s public radio
interconnection system and relies on the PRSS to distribute content from public radio producers.
The Local Member Stations also rely on the PRSS infrastructure to distribute critical emergency
alerts. Like all Interconnected Stations, the Local Member Stations pay fees to NPR for its
management and operation of the PRSS.
President Trump and his Administration Attack NPR and Threaten Retaliation
74. Since his first term in office, President Trump has repeatedly expressed his
disagreement with the editorial decisions reflected in the speech and viewpoints of programming
offered by NPR and PBS. For example, on January 26, 2020, President Trump promoted a socialmedia
post claiming that NPR was a “big-government, Democrat Party propaganda operation,”
and questioning “Why does NPR still exist?”5
75. On March 25, 2025, President Trump announced in a press conference that he
would “love to” defund NPR and PBS because of his belief that they are “biased.”6
5 @realDonaldTrump, Twitter (Jan. 26, 2020),
https://x.com/realdonaldtrump/status/12 ... 6594681856.
6 Ali Bianco & John Hendel, DOGE’s next target: NPR and PBS, Politico (Mar. 26, 2025),
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/2 ... g-00004556
76. On March 27, 2025, President Trump wrote on social media: “NPR and PBS, two
horrible and completely biased platforms (Networks!), should be DEFUNDED by Congress,
IMMEDIATELY. Republicans, don’t miss this opportunity to rid our Country of this giant SCAM,
both being arms of the Radical Left Democrat Party. JUST SAY NO AND, MAKE AMERICA
GREAT AGAIN!!!”7
77. On April 1, 2025, President Trump wrote on social media: “REPUBLICANS
MUST DEFUND AND TOTALLY DISASSOCIATE THEMSELVES FROM NPR & PBS, THE
RADICAL LEFT ‘MONSTERS’ THAT SO BADLY HURT OUR COUNTRY!”8
78. On April 10, 2025, President Trump wrote on social media: “NO MORE
FUNDING FOR NPR, A TOTAL SCAM! … THEY ARE A LIBERAL DISINFORMATION
MACHINE. NOT ONE DOLLAR!!!”9
79. On April 14, 2025, the White House issued a press release entitled “The NPR, PBS
Grift Has Ripped Us Off for Too Long.”10 In it, the White House accused NPR and PBS of
“spread[ing] radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news,’” and provided a list of purported
“examples of the trash that passes for ‘news’ at NPR and PBS.”
7 @readlDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Mar. 27, 2025),
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 2130631453.
8 @readlDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Apr. 1, 2025),
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 9657133828.
9 @readlDonaldTrump, Truth Social (Apr. 10, 2025),
https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrum ... 3824267212.
10 Available at https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/202 ... us-offfor-
too-long/.
80. On April 15, 2025, Director Vought stated during an interview that NPR and PBS’s
journalism “is not just left-wing indoctrination” but “is worse than that,” and accused NPR and
PBS of “dividing on the basis of wokeism.”11
The Administration Purports to Fire Three CPB Board Members
and Assert Control over CPB
81. On the evening of April 28, 2025, the White House’s Deputy Director of
Presidential Personnel, Trent Morse, emailed three of the Corporation’s Board members the
following message:
On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position on
the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is terminated effective immediately.
Thank you for your service.
Complaint ¶¶ 34-35, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, No. 25-cv-1305, Dkt. 1
(D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2025).
82. The following day, the Corporation, its unanimous Board, and the three purportedly
terminated Board members sued to challenge the attempted removal. Id.; see also Plaintiffs’
Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt.
2 (D.D.C. Apr. 29, 2025). That suit remains pending.
83. Also on April 29, 2025, Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials
emailed the remaining two Board members requesting a meeting to “discuss getting a DOGE team
assigned to the organization.” Reply at 24, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt.
12 (D.D.C. May 9, 2025); see also Reply Ex. A, Supplemental Declaration of Evan Slavitt ¶ 12,
Dkt. 12-1.
11 Frances Vinall, et al., Trump administration will ask Congress to cut funding for NPR and
PBS, Washington Post (Apr. 15, 2025), https://www.washingtonpost.com/style/2025/04/15/nprpbs-
funding-trump-administration/.
84. The Corporation has averred that, at the time of the Administration’s purported
termination of three of its Board members, the Corporation “was negotiating the extension” of its
current “PRSS Interconnection grant [with NPR]”— which “expires on September 30, 2025”—
“for an additional $35,962,000 using funds that Congress has already appropriated for that specific
purpose.” Reply at 20, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt. 12; see also Reply
Ex. A, Supplemental Declaration of Evan Slavitt ¶¶ 35-36, Dkt. 12-1. According to the
Corporation, “[i]f the PRSS Interconnection Grant is not extended, the PRSS system will cease
operations and the resulting effects will be catastrophic.” Id.
President Trump Issues the Executive Order Purporting to Terminate All Funding to NPR
and PBS Based on the Content and Perceived Viewpoint of Their Speech
85. On May 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14290, titled “Ending
Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media” (the Order), which purports to direct federal agencies as
well as the Corporation to stop NPR and PBS from receiving any federal funding.
86. Section 1 of the Order announces that its purpose is to terminate federal funding to
NPR and PBS based on the perceived viewpoint of some their programming: It alleges that
“neither entity presents a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events.” Order § 1; see
also id. § 2(a) (funding termination is necessary to “ensure that Federal funding does not support
biased and partisan news coverage”).
87. Section 1 admits that the Order is motivated by a desire to abrogate the Public
Broadcasting Act and appropriations legislation by executive fiat: “[T]oday the media landscape
is filled with abundant, diverse, and innovative news options. Government funding of news media
in this environment is not only outdated and unnecessary but corrosive to the appearance of
journalistic independence.” Id. § 1.
88. Section 1 states that the President “therefore” instructs the Corporation “and all
executive departments and agencies” to “cease Federal funding for NPR and PBS.” Id.
89. Section 2 of the Order purports to direct the Corporation to terminate funding
streams that benefit NPR and PBS. First, it states that the “CPB Board shall cease direct funding
to NPR and PBS, consistent with my Administration’s policy to ensure that Federal funding does
not support biased and partisan news coverage. The CPB Board shall cancel existing direct
funding to the maximum extent allowed by law and shall decline to provide future funding.” Id.
§ 2(a). Second, it states that the CPB Board “shall [cease to] provide indirect funding to NPR and
PBS, including by ensuring that [local public stations] do not use Federal funds for NPR and PBS.”
Id. § 2(b). The CPB Board shall do this, the Order states, by revising its 2025 Eligibility Criteria
“to prohibit direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS” by June 30, 2025. Id. The Order further
states that “the CPB Board shall take all other necessary steps to minimize or eliminate its indirect
funding of NPR and PBS.” Id.
90. Section 2 of the Order also appears to dictate that no CPB money shall go to any
public broadcasting station that acquires NPR or PBS content even with non-CPB money. It
provides that, “[t]o the extent permitted” by the 2024 Eligibility Criteria “and applicable law,” the
CPB Board shall “prohibit parties subject to [those criteria] from funding NPR or PBS after the
date of this order.” Id.
91. Section 3 of the Order concerns sources of funding other than the Corporation. It
directs “[t]he heads of all agencies” to “identify and terminate, to the maximum extent consistent
with applicable law, any direct or indirect funding of NPR and PBS.” Order § 3(a). The heads of
agencies shall then review any remaining funding for compliance with the terms of the grant,
contract, or other funding instrument under which the funding is received. Id. § 3(b).
92. A “Fact Sheet” and press release, which the White House published accompanying
the Order, confirm that the Order is motivated by a hostility toward the perceived viewpoints
expressed by NPR and PBS. The “Fact Sheet,” headlined “President Donald J. Trump Ends the
Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media,” alleges that “NPR and PBS have fueled partisanship
and left-wing propaganda with taxpayer dollars.” Fact Sheet. It then lists specific news coverage
and editorial choices with which the President disagrees, ranging from coverage of the Covid-19
pandemic to content featured on Valentine’s Day. Id.
93. The press release, entitled “President Trump Finally Ends the Madness of NPR,
PBS,” accuses NPR and PBS of “spread[ing] radical, woke propaganda disguised as ‘news.’”
Expanding on the “Fact Sheet,” the press release contains nineteen bullets and sub-bullets
cataloguing (and mischaracterizing) news and other content by NPR and PBS exemplifying the
types of editorial decisions that prompted the issuance of the Order.
94. As evidenced by the President’s statements leading up to the Order, the documents
accompanying it, and the text of the Order itself, the sole, express basis of the Order is the
President’s disapproval of the content of the speech and news reporting of NPR and PBS.
The Order’s Immediate Consequences for NPR and the Local Member Stations
95. The Order purports to direct the Corporation “and all executive departments and
agencies” to cease providing any direct or indirect funding to NPR or PBS.
96. Just one day after President Trump issued the Executive Order, the NEA terminated
a grant award to NPR.
97. This termination confirms that NEA is complying with the Order and has rendered
NPR ineligible to apply for grants going forward.
98. The Order purports to require the Corporation to revoke grants already awarded to
NPR and to preclude NPR from receiving such grants in the future, jeopardizing a critical source
of funding used (among other things) to protect journalists working in war zones and maintain
resiliency of the PRSS, the nation’s public radio distribution system.
99. By basing its directives on the content and perceived viewpoints expressed in
NPR’s programming, the Order puts NPR on notice that, if it is ever to receive federal funding
again, it must adapt its journalistic and editorial choices to suit the government’s preferences.
100. The Order further purports to require the Corporation to prohibit local stations from
using CPB grants to acquire NPR’s programming, notwithstanding a statutory requirement that
stations must use “restricted” funds to acquire or produce programming that is distributed
nationally and serves the needs of national audiences. See 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(3)(A)(iii)(III).
101. The Order would therefore force local stations to redirect those funds to acquire
different national programming—in contravention of their own editorial choices—and to take
additional, non-federal funds out of their budgets to continue acquiring NPR’s programming.
102. As noted above, each of the Local Member Stations receives significant grant funds
from the Corporation, ranging between $210,000 and $1.4 million for Fiscal Year 2025. Some of
that funding must be used by the Local Member Stations to acquire or produce national
programming. All of the Local Member Stations use some portion of that funding to acquire NPR
programming. By prohibiting the Local Member Stations from using those funds in that manner,
the Order directly interferes with their journalistic and expressive independence and their editorial
choices—requiring them to use grant funds received from the Corporation to acquire different
national programming rather than NPR programming. If Local Member Stations wish to continue
airing NPR’s programming, they would have to use funds obtained from other sources.
103. More broadly, the Order puts the Local Member Stations and other public radio
stations that air NPR programming on notice that the government disapproves of their editorial
choices and will seize any available opportunities to retaliate if they continue to air NPR
programming.
104. The loss of all direct funding from CPB and the loss (or significant decline) of
revenue from local stations would be catastrophic for NPR. As described above, NPR’s direct
grants from CPB are used to support vital journalistic endeavors and to support the Public Radio
Satellite System—which serves as an essential public safety mechanism. NPR also receives
approximately $100 million annually from local public radio stations in fees, including the Local
Member Stations, constituting nearly a third of NPR’s operating budget.
105. After the Order was issued, the Corporation released a statement explaining that
“CPB is not a federal executive agency subject to the President’s authority” and that “Congress
directly authorized and funded CPB to be a private nonprofit corporation wholly independent of
the federal government.” Corporation for Public Broadcasting, “Statement Regarding Executive
Order on Public Media” (May 2, 2025).12 The Corporation noted that, in creating CPB, “Congress
expressly forbade ‘any department, agency, officer, or employee of the United States to exercise
any direction, supervision, or control over educational television or radio broadcasting, or over
[CPB] or any of its grantees or contractors.’” Id. (quoting 47 U.S.C. § 398(c)).
12 Available at https://cpb.org/pressroom/Corporation-P ... Statement-
Regarding-Executive-Order-Public-Media.
106. However, the President has already purported to remove three of the Corporation’s
five Board members, and the Executive Branch under his direction has unequivocally taken the
position that the President can remove any Board member at any time and for any reason. See generally Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order,
Corporation for Public Broadcasting v. Trump, Dkt. 11 (D.D.C. May 6, 2025). Indeed, during
hearings regarding the Corporation’s motions for a temporary restraining order and for a
preliminary injunction, counsel for the government has repeatedly left open the possibility that the
President could attempt to install new Board members without the required advice and consent of
the Senate. 4/29/25 Tr. at 11-12 and 5/14/25 Tr. at 47-49, Corporation for Public Broadcasting v.
Trump. See also Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal at 7-19, Aviel v. Gor, No. 25-5105
(D.C. Cir. Apr. 7, 2025) (asserting that the President’s Article II authority empowers him to
unilaterally appoint “acting” Board members to the Inter-American Foundation after firing all
existing Board members, notwithstanding a statutory requirement that Board members must be
confirmed by the Senate); id. at 19-20 (arguing in the alternative that if the President cannot
appoint acting Board members, he must be permitted to fire the Foundation’s president directly).
The Administration’s efforts to “assign[]” DOGE officials to the Corporation further demonstrate
its intent to exert control over the Corporation’s functions.
107. To the extent CPB does not comply with the Order’s directives, the Order appears
to direct the Treasury Department (or any agency or instrumentality that may need to act in any
capacity or to any extent to fulfill the mandates of the Act) to withhold appropriated funds from
CPB because to disburse them would constitute “indirect funding of NPR and PBS” in violation
of Section 3(a) of the Order.
CLAIMS
COUNT 1
Lack of Constitutional and Statutory Authority
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
108. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
109. The President’s power to issue the Order, and any executive official’s power to
implement it, “must stem either from an act of Congress or from the Constitution itself.”
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579, 585 (1952). But Congress, through the
Public Broadcasting Act, has expressly prohibited the actions directed by the Order—and no
provision of the Constitution allows the President to override Congress’s will.
110. The Act prohibits any “department, agency, officer, or employee of the United
States” from “exercis[ing] any direction, supervision, or control over public telecommunications,
or over the Corporation or any of its grantees or contractors, or over the charter of bylaws of the
Corporation, or over the curriculum, program of instruction, or personnel of any . . . public
telecommunications entity.” 47 U.S.C. § 398(a). The Act further makes clear that the Corporation
is “not . . . an agency or establishment of the United States Government” and that its Board
members are not “officers or employees of the United States. Id. §§ 396(b), (d)(2).
111. The Order nevertheless purports to issue commands to the Corporation—including
that it cease all direct funding of NPR and PBS; prohibit local public radio and television stations
from acquiring NPR or PBS programming; and amend its Eligibility Criteria to effectuate the
Order’s directives.
112. The Order further violates provisions of the Act that require the Corporation to fund
local public stations in accordance with eligibility criteria that serve specific statutory objectives.
See 47 U.S.C. § 396(k)(6)(B).
113. Moreover, the Order violates the Act by prohibiting the Corporation from funding
NPR’s management and operation of the PRSS, notwithstanding the Act’s requirement that the
Corporation “shall” distribute designated Satellite Interconnection Funds to “the national entity”
that public radio stations “designate for satellite interconnection purposes.” Id. § 396(k)(10)(D)(i).
114. The Order also violates statutes governing the NEA’s grant-making functions. In
particular, the NEA is required to ensure that “artistic excellence and artistic merit are the criteria
by which applications are judged, taking into consideration general standards of decency and
respect for the diverse beliefs and values of the American public.” 20 U.S.C. § 954(d)(1). By
unilaterally dictating that NPR cannot be eligible to receive any federal grants, the Order precludes
NPR from competing for grants from NEA based on its “artistic excellence and merit,” in violation
of the statute.
115. The President has no authority under the Constitution to take such actions. On the
contrary, the power of the purse is reserved to Congress, and the President has no inherent authority
to override Congress’s will on domestic spending decisions. By unilaterally imposing restrictions
and conditions on funds in contravention of Congress, the Order violates the Separation of Powers
and the Spending Clause of the Constitution. See U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 1.
116. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “violations of federal law by
federal officials,” including to enjoin “unconstitutional actions.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child
Ctr., 575 U.S. 320, 327-28 (2015); see Am. School of Magnetic Healing v. McAnnulty, 187 U.S.
94, 110 (1902). Judicial “[r]eview for ultra vires acts rests on the longstanding principle that if an
agency action is unauthorized by the statute under which [the agency] assumes to act, the agency
has violate[d] the law and the courts generally have jurisdiction to grant relief.” Nat’l Ass’n of
Postal Supervisors v. U.S. Postal Serv., 26 F.4th 960, 970 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (alterations in original;
internal quotations omitted). When a “statutory provision plainly delineates the outer limits of
agency authority and Congress has not expressly precluded judicial review,” plaintiffs have a cause
of action to enjoin ultra vires acts. Id. at 971. Moreover, with respect to the individual federalofficial
Defendants, “suits for specific relief against officers of the sovereign allegedly acting
beyond statutory authority or unconstitutionally are not barred by sovereign immunity.” Pollack
v. Hogan, 703 F.3d 117, 119-20 (D.C. Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quotation marks omitted).
117. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action,
including through the NEA’s termination of NPR’s grants, those actions also are reviewable under
the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706, for lack of statutory authority and
violations of the Constitution.
118. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 2
Violation of the First Amendment—Retaliation
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
119. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
120. “The Framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect
the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’” 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600
U.S. 570, 584 (2023) (quoting Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 660-61 (2000)). “The
Constitution specifically selected the press . . . to play an important role in the discussion of public
affairs.” Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214, 219 (1966). “Suppression” of the press therefore
“muzzles one of the very agencies the Framers of our Constitution thoughtfully and deliberately
selected to improve our society and keep it free.” Id.
121. While government officials have their own right to speak and to “do so forcefully,”
they cannot “use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.” Nat’l Rifle
Ass’n v. Vullo, 602 U.S. 175, 188 (2024). In particular, “the First Amendment prohibits
government officials from retaliating against individuals for engaging in protected speech.”
Lozman v. City of Riviera Beach, 585 U.S. 87, 90 (2018).
122. Yet retaliation is the Order’s plain purpose. The Order’s text and the materials that
accompanied it make unmistakably clear that the Order is intended to—and does—retaliate against
NPR because of its protected speech.
123. To demonstrate that unlawful retaliation has occurred, a plaintiff must show that
“(1) [it] engaged in conduct protected under the First Amendment; (2) the defendant took some
retaliatory action sufficient to deter a person of ordinary firmness in plaintiff’s position from
speaking again; and (3) a causal link between the exercise of a constitutional right and the adverse
action taken against him.” Aref v. Lynch, 833 F.3d 242, 258 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal quotations
omitted).
124. NPR and the Local Member Stations have engaged in protected speech by airing
content produced or distributed by NPR, including the specific content listed in the Fact Sheet and
press release.
125. There can be no doubt the Order—which seeks to halt all direct and indirect funding
from CPB to NPR, precludes NPR from applying for any federal grants from any federal agency
in the future, and threatens CPB funding to the Local Member Stations—is an adverse action that
would chill an ordinary speaker. The Order also poses a threat to local public radio stations,
including the Local Member Stations, that they will incur official sanctions for airing NPR content.
In so doing, the Order will doubtless result in broader “‘self-censorship’ of speech that could not
be proscribed,” particularly by organizations that receive government funds, and will thereby
“discourage the ‘uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate that the First Amendment is intended
to protect.’” Counterman v. Colorado, 600 U.S. 66, 75, 78 (2023) (quoting New York Times v.
Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964)); see also, e.g., Hustler Mag., Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 50
(1988) (“At the heart of the First Amendment is the recognition of the fundamental importance of
the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern.”).
126. The “causal link” between NPR’s and the Local Member Stations’ protected speech
and the Order’s punitive actions is spelled out by the Order itself and the materials that
accompanied it. The Order seeks to sanction NPR because it is purportedly “biased” and because
the President dislikes the content of certain of its programming.
127. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
128. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions also are reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
129. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 3
Violation of the First Amendment—Viewpoint-Based Discrimination
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
130. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
131. “At the heart of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause is the recognition that
viewpoint discrimination is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.” Vullo, 602 U.S.
at 187. See also Reed v. Town of Gilbert, Ariz., 576 U.S. 155, 156 (2015) (viewpoint
discrimination is a “‘more blatant’ and ‘egregious form of content discrimination’” (quoting
Rosenberger, 515 U.S. at 829. Because the Order imposes a viewpoint-based burden on NPR’s
and the Local Member Stations’ exercise of their First Amendment rights, it is per se
unconstitutional. See Reed, 576 U.S. at 156.
132. Congress is not obligated to support independent public radio with federal funds.
But the government cannot “‘deny a benefit to a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally
protected . . . freedom of speech’. . . .” United States v. Am. Libr. Ass’n, Inc., 539 U.S. 194, 210
(2003) (citation omitted). To put it another way, government funding decisions cannot
constitutionally “be aimed at the suppression of ideas thought inimical to the Government’s own
interest.” Legal Servs. Corp. v. Velazquez, 531 U.S. 533, 549 (2001). The Order does just that. It
aims to silence NPR’s speech because the President dislikes the balance of viewpoints expressed
in NPR’s programming.
133. By effectuating its retaliatory and viewpoint discriminatory aims through the
Corporation and local public radio stations, the Order also engages in precisely the kind of thirdparty
coercion that the Supreme Court recently affirmed is unlawful. “[T]he government violate[s]
the First Amendment through coercion of a third party” when its conduct, “viewed in context,
could be reasonably understood to convey a threat of adverse government action in order to punish
or suppress the plaintiff’s speech.” Vullo, 602 U.S. at 191. Here, the Order purports to issue a
direct command to the Corporation that it cease all direct and indirect funding of NPR. It further
seeks to coerce local public radio stations, including the Local Member Stations, by threatening
them with the loss of funds if they continue to exercise their editorial discretion in ways disfavored
by the Administration.
134. The Order likewise subjects the Local Member Stations to viewpoint-based
discrimination by dictating that federal funds cannot be used to acquire NPR’s programming. At
the outset, the Order would impose significant burdens on the Local Member Stations by requiring
them to segregate funds and prove to the government’s satisfaction that no CPB grants are being
used to acquire NPR’s programming. But the Order goes further: by decreeing that CPB funds
designated for acquiring national programming cannot be used to acquire NPR’s programming,
the Order would force the Local Member Stations to alter their own editorial choices and acquire
national programming from elsewhere to align with the government’s preferred viewpoints. But
the First Amendment prohibits “restrictions distinguishing among different speakers, allowing
speech by some but not others.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 340. Moreover, as the Supreme
Court has repeatedly held, the “‘exercise of editorial control and judgment’” is protected by the
First Amendment, and “‘governmental regulation’” cannot supplant “the ‘crucial process’ of
editorial choice.” Moody, 603 U.S. at 728-29 (quoting Miami Herald Publ’g Co. v. Tornillo, 418
U.S. 241, 258 (1974)). It is hard to conceive of a more blatant scheme to regulate the exercise of
editorial discretion by Executive fiat.
135. The Order’s insistence that it is only intended to eliminate supposed “bias” in
NPR’s programming does not salvage it. On the contrary, it proves the Order serves no legitimate
government interest. “The government may not, in supposed pursuit of better expressive balance,
alter a private speaker’s own editorial choices about the mix of speech it wants to convey.” Moody,
603 U.S. at 734. “In case after case, the Court has barred the government from forcing a private
speaker to present views it wished to spurn in order to rejigger the expressive realm.” Id. at 733.
136. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
137. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions also are reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
138. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 4
Violation of First Amendment—Freedom of Association
(APA and Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
139. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
140. By purporting to direct the Corporation to restrict funds for local public radio
stations that choose to affiliate with NPR, the Order further infringes on NPR’s and those stations’
freedom of association.
141. The Supreme Court has “long understood as implicit in the right to engage in
activities protected by the First Amendment a corresponding right to associate with others in
pursuit of a wide variety of political, social, economic, educational, religious, and cultural ends.”
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U.S. 609, 622 (1984). Government action that “may have
the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny” under the First
Amendment. NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460-61 (1958). See also, e.g.,
303 Creative, 600 U.S. at 586 (the First Amendment protects the right to speak, and, “[e]qually,
the First Amendment protects acts of expressive association”).
142. By directing the Corporation to prohibit local public radio stations that receive
federal funding from expending funds to become an NPR Member Station or to otherwise acquire
NPR’s programming, the Order cuts at the heart of NPR’s and those public radio stations’ freedom
to associate with one another for expressive purposes.
143. Further, the Interconnected Stations, which include but are not limited to NPR
Member Stations, have designated NPR to manage and operate the PRSS on their behalf. The
Order, including by directing the Corporation to cease federal funding to NPR, interferes with the
right of NPR and the Interconnected Stations to associate with one another.
144. The Order seeks to force local public radio stations to cut existing ties with NPR to
remain eligible to receive federal funding, including Corporation grants. And local public radio
stations may have to incur significant burdens to ensure they segregate non-federal funds to acquire
NPR’s programing or undertake other burdensome measures to demonstrate compliance with the
Order’s directives. Cf. Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 337, 339 (government restriction that
“necessarily reduce[d] the quantity of expression” was “a ban on speech,” and potential alternative
means of expression through a political action committee did “not alleviate the First Amendment
problems” because of the associated burdens).
145. The Order’s interference with freedom of association among news media entities
only compounds its fundamental incompatibility with the First Amendment. NPR and its Member
stations are partners in newsgathering and reporting, and NPR regularly airs reporting from its
Member stations. The Order constitutes a governmental veto over the programming choices of
public radio stations—threatening those stations with the loss of funds if they choose to air
programming from a speaker that the government has decreed is off-limits.
146. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
147. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions are also reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
148. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
COUNT 5
Violation of the Due Process Clause
(APA Equitable Causes of Action—Ultra Vires)
149. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations of the preceding paragraphs.
150. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall
be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” U.S. Const. amend. V.
151. The Order violates the Due Process Clause because it purports to order the
Corporation to terminate all direct and indirect funding to NPR, in disregard of NPR’s substantial
reliance interests in its continued eligibility for such funding. Furthermore, by directing the
Corporation to terminate funding needed by NPR to operate the PRSS, the Order impedes NPR’s
ability to perform its contractual obligations and agreements with Interconnected Stations. In so
doing, the Order deprives NPR of property rights with no pre-deprivation notice or meaningful
opportunity to be heard.
152. NPR has a protected property interest in its continued eligibility to receive federal
funding from the Corporation and from local public radio stations that receive grants from the
Corporation. A “statutory entitlement” is a property right under the Due Process Clause, see
Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254, 262 (1970), as is “[l]egitimate and reasonable reliance on a
promise from the state,” Forgue v. City of Chicago, 873 F.3d 962, 970 (7th Cir. 2017) (internal
quotations omitted). Property rights “protect those claims upon which people rely in their daily
lives”; that reliance “must not be arbitrarily undermined.” Bd. of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth,
408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972).
153. The degree of pre-deprivation process to which someone is entitled under the Due
Process Clause “depends upon whether the recipient’s interest in avoiding that loss outweighs the
governmental interest in summary adjudication.” Goldberg, 397 U.S. at 263; see Nat’l Council of
Resistance of Iran v. Dep’t of State, 251 F.3d 192, 205-08 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (affording due process
prior to government action depriving organization of “protected property right”).
154. The sudden loss of all federal funding, including PRSS funding, as well as fees
from local public radio stations that otherwise would acquire programming from NPR would be
catastrophic to NPR. As described above, NPR receives about 31 percent of its total operating
revenue through fees from local public radio stations, including its Member stations, and additional
millions of dollars from CPB to support NPR’s coverage of particular issue areas, such as the
ongoing war in Ukraine. NPR relies on CPB grants to support essential functions, and without
federal funding, NPR would need to shutter or downsize collaborative newsrooms and rural
reporting initiatives and, at the same time, also eliminate or scale back critical national and
international coverage that serves the entire public radio system and is not replicable at scale on
the local level. Loss of all revenue from local public radio stations would dramatically harm NPR’s
ability to execute its journalistic mission.
155. Conversely, the government has no legitimate interest in summary termination of
NPR’s ability to receive federal funding and funding from public broadcasters. Year after year,
Congress has reauthorized funding for the Corporation knowing that a portion of that funding was
destined for NPR. If NPR continues to receive Congressionally appropriated funds while the
Government’s accusations are orderly adjudicated, the government will not seriously suffer harm.
156. Given NPR’s weighty interest in avoiding the loss of its property rights relative to
the government’s non-existent interest in abrogating those rights, NPR was entitled to meaningful
pre-deprivation process, including notice and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. See Goldberg,
397 U.S. at 267-68. NPR indisputably did not receive such process.
157. Moreover, the Order independently violates the Due Process Clause because it is
void for vagueness. “A law is unconstitutionally vague if it fails to provide a person of ordinary
intelligence fair notice of what is prohibited, or is so standardless that it authorizes or encourages
seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Woodhull Freedom Found. v. United States, 72 F.4th
1286, 1303 (D.C. Cir. 2023) (internal quotations omitted). The vagueness doctrine serves to ensure
that “regulated parties should know what is required of them so they may act accordingly,” and to
require “precision and guidance . . . so that those enforcing the law do not act in an arbitrary or
discriminatory way.” FCC v. Fox Television Stations, 567 U.S. 239, 253 (2012). “When speech
is involved, rigorous adherence to those requirements is necessary to ensure that ambiguity does
not chill protected speech.” Id. at 253-54; see also Karem v. Trump, 960 F.3d 656, 665 (D.C. Cir.
2020) (courts will apply a “particularly stringent vagueness and fair-notice test” where an adverse
action “implicates important First Amendment rights” (brackets and internal quotations omitted)).
158. The Order punishes NPR because, in the government’s view, NPR does not
“present[] a fair, accurate, or unbiased portrayal of current events.” Order § 1. NPR did not have
adequate notice that its journalistic activities would subject it to such punishment. Nor does the
Order—which carries the implicit threat of additional adverse consequences for NPR and its Local
Member Stations if their programming deviates from the government’s view of what is “fair” or
“unbiased” in the future—provide any semblance of sufficient notice. Whether reporting is “fair”
or “unbiased” inevitably will depend on the eye of the beholder, making the Order “so standardless
that it . . . encourages seriously discriminatory enforcement.” Woodhull, 72 F.4th at 1303.
159. Plaintiffs have an equitable cause of action to enjoin “unconstitutional actions” by
federal officials. Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327.
160. To the extent that the Executive Order is implemented via final agency action, those
actions also are reviewable under the APA, 5 U.S.C. § 706, for violations of the Constitution.
161. The Court should therefore declare that the Order is ultra vires, enjoin Defendants
from implementing it, and vacate any agency action implementing the Order.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
For these reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully request an order:
162. Declaring that Executive Order 14290 and all actions implementing it are unlawful
and unconstitutional;
163. Preliminarily and permanently enjoining the Defendants from implementing or
seeking to enforce Executive Order 14290;
164. Declaring that the National Endowment for the Arts may not withhold funding from
NPR on the basis of Executive Order 14290;
165. Declaring that the Corporation may not withhold funding from NPR on the basis of
Executive Order 14290;
166. Declaring that the Corporation may not withhold funding from the Local Member
Stations or condition their receipt of funding on the basis of Executive Order 14290;
167. Vacating any final agency action implementing Executive Order 14290;
168. Entering judgment in favor of Plaintiffs;
169. Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and attorney’s fees in accordance with
law; and
170. Issuing any other relief that the Court deems just and proper.
Dated: May 27, 2025
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Miguel A. Estrada
Miguel A. Estrada (D.D.C. Bar No. 456289)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
1700 M Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20036-4504
(202) 955-8500
[email protected]
Theodore J. Boutrous, Jr. (D.D.C. Bar No.
420440)
Katie Townsend (D.D.C. Bar No. 1026115)
GIBSON, DUNN & CRUTCHER LLP
333 South Grand Avenue
Los Angeles, CA 90071-3197
(213) 229-7000
[email protected]
[email protected]
Elizabeth A. Allen (Pro Hac Vice Application
Pending)
NATIONAL PUBLIC RADIO, INC.
1111 North Capitol Street, NE
Washington, D.C. 20002
(202) 513-2000
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiff
National Public Radio, Inc.
Steven D. Zansberg (Pro Hac Vice Application
Pending)
Zansberg Beylkin LLC
100 Fillmore Street, Suite 500
Denver, CO 80206
(303) 564-3669
[email protected]
Counsel for Plaintiffs Roaring Fork Public
Radio, Inc. d/b/a Aspen Public Radio,
Colorado Public Radio, and KUTE, Inc. d/b/a
KSUT Public Radio
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Thu May 29, 2025 9:12 pm
Trump Tariffs BLOCK Gets MAJOR Update at APPEALS COURT
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
May 29, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
Popok explains what a new Federal Appeals Court ruling really means that blocks last night's Court of International Trade order that Trump tear down his Tariff scheme as unconstitutional.
Transcript
Don't panic I'm here to manage
expectations We said it was a
fast-moving story about Donald Trump's
tariff policies That we had a really
amazing favorable ruling from the US
Court of International Trade just last
night That we had another ruling just a
few hours ago from Judge Contraras in
the DC court And that you put the two
things together and you have two
different major courts who have come out
and said Donald Trump doesn't have the
constitutional authority to impose
tariffs Never had it never will never
did Then we said there's going to be an
appeal And then we said there's going to
be an an attempt to get a stay from some
court So Donald Trump as we reported
yesterday filed his notice of appeal Uh
I think I Yes filed his notice of appeal
with a specialty court that sits in DC
called the Federal Circuit Federal
Circuit handles patent cases
intellectual property cases technology
cases and commerce and tariff cases
exclusively So you got to go there
There's about 11 judges there And we
just got a new ruling as I went on the
air right now from that court in which
they've granted an administrative stay
And they've blocked for now the decision
by the Court of International Trade to
tear down those tariffs But I said at
the beginning let me manage expectations
for you I think that's why you come here
to Legal AF You're here already Hit the
subscribe button Take a receipt as we
continue to build this channel Let's
focus What does it mean to have an
administrative stay All it means is that
an a court usually an appellet court
like Supreme Court or just below it
wants to get to the substance and the
merits of the appeal and doesn't want to
worry about disturbing the status quo
while they're doing it They don't want
to be rushed Appellet courts don't like
to be rushed They're very deliberative
They're usually tortoislike not hairlike
bodies Despite what you've watched with
the Supreme Court with its emergency
docket they like to go small uh slow
lots of briefing oral arguments
deliberation They get around to writing
an opinion on their timetable not yours
So in order to give him that time
without looking at the merits they don't
even look under the hood to see what the
merits of the case is They just say "We
don't want to be rushed We're going to
hold the ring We're going to put a pin
in it We're going to trap it in amber
for the for the next short amount of
time How long Who knows It's sort of
like when you used to watch uh soccer
games You know what the rest of the
world calls calls football You never
could figure out when the game was over
I mean then now they tell you 16 extra
minutes But before it was just like why
are they still playing after the
90minute mark Well how many more minutes
are they going to play You never knew
Same thing with federal courts and
appeal You never know how long
administrative states are going to last
they last until those those judges say
they're done And but it it is not an
indication that they've ruled on the
merits and that they're going to
overturn the decision by the court of
international trade Not at all But 11
judges that sit in this circuit got
together except for one that recused
yourself and 10 out of 11 said "Yeah
we're going to put a pin in it and we're
going to and we're going to consolidate
the case We want one set of briefs Get
your briefs in Here's your timetable
We'll probably have oral argument We'll
decide on the appeal I don't know
sometime over the summer In the meantime
we're going to do a little Heisman move
on the Court of International Trade
That's what this means So I don't want I
know the headlines are like court blocks
you know Trump favored It's not It's
pretty It's pretty agnostic Uh it does
not You cannot read from this And I
can't I've been doing this 35 years You
can't read from this which way if I I
would never bet on this I would not bet
my house my mortgage the life of my
child or my wife on which way this is
going to go because you don't know You
don't know When they read the briefs
when they hear from the advocates when
they have time to deliberate and
circulate an opinion they'll make a
decision Uh in the meantime the tariff
uh scheme took another hit for Donald
Trump Just like you know every other day
I talk about the Trump administration
being blocked enjoined stayed
attacked contempt proceedings started
against it because it's lawless cuz it's
rogue because he doesn't respect the
Constitution He's making it a doormat
And federal judges are using every power
in their toolbox every tool in their
toolbox along with the Supreme Court
along with the Constitution to to try to
constrain and put guard rails around an
outofc control lawless rogue president
one who's ferocious in his attack on our
institutions and our traditions And so
the law which was created remember we we
we work with precedent these these the
case law that we're dealing with is
already on the books It's like today's
newspaper It already happened So they
weren't anticipating Donald Trump I mean
there is some Trump related case law now
because of his bad behavior in the past
But the law is having difficulty
catching up to Donald Trump because it
wasn't anticipating Donald Trump The
rules of civil procedure and criminal
procedure and appellet procedure which
are the bibles for practitioners they
were written 5 months ago 8 months ago 8
years ago 10 years ago 20 years ago
They're not built for this either
Federal courts have never seen anything
like it except during Donald Trump's run
as a criminal defendant So that's what
we're that's what we're observing But I
don't want you to I don't want you to be
disheartened by my reporting about an
administrative stay They happen all the
time They I've reported on a half a
dozen of them with the United States
Supreme Court Half of those went Trump's
favor The other half didn't So all it
means is that appellet judges don't want
to be stampeded into making a decision
And they won't be And they have a a
major stop button pause button at their
disposal It's like you and me with the
remote control They can hit
pause and it stays paused until they're
ready to come back and watch television
That's just the way it is
Um Trump will make Oh thank God for the
Federal Circuit did the right thing By
the way the judges on the appellet court
that rule in his favor including the
Supreme Court they're unelected They're
unelected judges just like the ones he
attacks cuz that's our judiciary under
the federal rules and under the federal
process We don't elect our judges State
courts do You know for those that are
sort of doing the compare and contrast
the uh the com the comparative law class
here state courts a lot of state courts
up to the Supreme Court elect their
judges You run for office you run for
retention We don't do that in the feds
We think that's a right thing But Donald
Trump attacks it as a weakness Oh the
unelected judges compared to me I was
elected Okay you weren't elected in any
kind of landslide We just had a
controversial uh former president who
was replaced by a controversial uh
person without any uh in Kla Harris
without any primaries and uh and the the
American voter kind of
rebelled 7 million stayed home and
didn't even vote They didn't give him a
mandate They just kind of threw up their
hands on the political process and
sought out democracy Donald Trump is
using it to his advantage and we need to
fight back There's no more We have no
more No more do we have the luxury to be
the silent majority We've got to speak
up and speak out We got to talk truth to
each other We start it here on legal af
So take a moment hit the subscribe
button here I'm going to post all of
these items under filings AF on legal AF
the Substack And then of course we've
got Legal AF the podcast on Wednesdays
and Saturday nights at 800 PM Eastern
time only on the Midas Touch Network So
until my next reporting I'm Michael
Popac I'm Michael Popac And I got some
big news for our audience Most of you
know me as the co-founder of Midas
Touches Legal AF and the Legal AF
YouTube channel or as a 35-year national
trial lawyer Now building a what we
started together on Legal AF I've
launched a new law firm the Popo Firm
dedicated to obtaining justice through
compassionate and zealous legal
representation At the Pope firm we are
focused on obtaining justice for those
who have been injured or damaged by a
lifealtering event by securing the
highest dollar recoveries I've been
tirelessly fighting for justice for the
last 35 years So my own law firm
organically building on my legal AF work
just feels right and I've handpicked a
team of top tier trial fighters and
settlement experts throughout all 50
states known as big auto injury
attorneys who have the knowhow to beat
heartless insurance companies
corporations government entities and
their attorneys Big Autos attorneys
working with my firm are rock stars in
their respective states and collectively
responsible for billions of dollars in
recoveries So if you or a loved one have
been on the wrong side of a catastrophic
auto motor vehicle ride share or truck
accident suffered a personal injury or
been the victim of medical malpractice
employment harassment or discrimination
or suffered a violation of your civil
and constitutional rights then contact
the Pope Firm today at 1877 pop af or by
visiting my website at
www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free
case evaluation form And if we determine
that you have a case and you sign with
us we don't get paid unless you do The
Pope firm fighting for your justice
every step of the
by Michael Popok
Legal AF
May 29, 2025 The Intersection with Michael Popok
Popok explains what a new Federal Appeals Court ruling really means that blocks last night's Court of International Trade order that Trump tear down his Tariff scheme as unconstitutional.
Transcript
Don't panic I'm here to manage
expectations We said it was a
fast-moving story about Donald Trump's
tariff policies That we had a really
amazing favorable ruling from the US
Court of International Trade just last
night That we had another ruling just a
few hours ago from Judge Contraras in
the DC court And that you put the two
things together and you have two
different major courts who have come out
and said Donald Trump doesn't have the
constitutional authority to impose
tariffs Never had it never will never
did Then we said there's going to be an
appeal And then we said there's going to
be an an attempt to get a stay from some
court So Donald Trump as we reported
yesterday filed his notice of appeal Uh
I think I Yes filed his notice of appeal
with a specialty court that sits in DC
called the Federal Circuit Federal
Circuit handles patent cases
intellectual property cases technology
cases and commerce and tariff cases
exclusively So you got to go there
There's about 11 judges there And we
just got a new ruling as I went on the
air right now from that court in which
they've granted an administrative stay
And they've blocked for now the decision
by the Court of International Trade to
tear down those tariffs But I said at
the beginning let me manage expectations
for you I think that's why you come here
to Legal AF You're here already Hit the
subscribe button Take a receipt as we
continue to build this channel Let's
focus What does it mean to have an
administrative stay All it means is that
an a court usually an appellet court
like Supreme Court or just below it
wants to get to the substance and the
merits of the appeal and doesn't want to
worry about disturbing the status quo
while they're doing it They don't want
to be rushed Appellet courts don't like
to be rushed They're very deliberative
They're usually tortoislike not hairlike
bodies Despite what you've watched with
the Supreme Court with its emergency
docket they like to go small uh slow
lots of briefing oral arguments
deliberation They get around to writing
an opinion on their timetable not yours
So in order to give him that time
without looking at the merits they don't
even look under the hood to see what the
merits of the case is They just say "We
don't want to be rushed We're going to
hold the ring We're going to put a pin
in it We're going to trap it in amber
for the for the next short amount of
time How long Who knows It's sort of
like when you used to watch uh soccer
games You know what the rest of the
world calls calls football You never
could figure out when the game was over
I mean then now they tell you 16 extra
minutes But before it was just like why
are they still playing after the
90minute mark Well how many more minutes
are they going to play You never knew
Same thing with federal courts and
appeal You never know how long
administrative states are going to last
they last until those those judges say
they're done And but it it is not an
indication that they've ruled on the
merits and that they're going to
overturn the decision by the court of
international trade Not at all But 11
judges that sit in this circuit got
together except for one that recused
yourself and 10 out of 11 said "Yeah
we're going to put a pin in it and we're
going to and we're going to consolidate
the case We want one set of briefs Get
your briefs in Here's your timetable
We'll probably have oral argument We'll
decide on the appeal I don't know
sometime over the summer In the meantime
we're going to do a little Heisman move
on the Court of International Trade
That's what this means So I don't want I
know the headlines are like court blocks
you know Trump favored It's not It's
pretty It's pretty agnostic Uh it does
not You cannot read from this And I
can't I've been doing this 35 years You
can't read from this which way if I I
would never bet on this I would not bet
my house my mortgage the life of my
child or my wife on which way this is
going to go because you don't know You
don't know When they read the briefs
when they hear from the advocates when
they have time to deliberate and
circulate an opinion they'll make a
decision Uh in the meantime the tariff
uh scheme took another hit for Donald
Trump Just like you know every other day
I talk about the Trump administration
being blocked enjoined stayed
attacked contempt proceedings started
against it because it's lawless cuz it's
rogue because he doesn't respect the
Constitution He's making it a doormat
And federal judges are using every power
in their toolbox every tool in their
toolbox along with the Supreme Court
along with the Constitution to to try to
constrain and put guard rails around an
outofc control lawless rogue president
one who's ferocious in his attack on our
institutions and our traditions And so
the law which was created remember we we
we work with precedent these these the
case law that we're dealing with is
already on the books It's like today's
newspaper It already happened So they
weren't anticipating Donald Trump I mean
there is some Trump related case law now
because of his bad behavior in the past
But the law is having difficulty
catching up to Donald Trump because it
wasn't anticipating Donald Trump The
rules of civil procedure and criminal
procedure and appellet procedure which
are the bibles for practitioners they
were written 5 months ago 8 months ago 8
years ago 10 years ago 20 years ago
They're not built for this either
Federal courts have never seen anything
like it except during Donald Trump's run
as a criminal defendant So that's what
we're that's what we're observing But I
don't want you to I don't want you to be
disheartened by my reporting about an
administrative stay They happen all the
time They I've reported on a half a
dozen of them with the United States
Supreme Court Half of those went Trump's
favor The other half didn't So all it
means is that appellet judges don't want
to be stampeded into making a decision
And they won't be And they have a a
major stop button pause button at their
disposal It's like you and me with the
remote control They can hit
pause and it stays paused until they're
ready to come back and watch television
That's just the way it is
Um Trump will make Oh thank God for the
Federal Circuit did the right thing By
the way the judges on the appellet court
that rule in his favor including the
Supreme Court they're unelected They're
unelected judges just like the ones he
attacks cuz that's our judiciary under
the federal rules and under the federal
process We don't elect our judges State
courts do You know for those that are
sort of doing the compare and contrast
the uh the com the comparative law class
here state courts a lot of state courts
up to the Supreme Court elect their
judges You run for office you run for
retention We don't do that in the feds
We think that's a right thing But Donald
Trump attacks it as a weakness Oh the
unelected judges compared to me I was
elected Okay you weren't elected in any
kind of landslide We just had a
controversial uh former president who
was replaced by a controversial uh
person without any uh in Kla Harris
without any primaries and uh and the the
American voter kind of
rebelled 7 million stayed home and
didn't even vote They didn't give him a
mandate They just kind of threw up their
hands on the political process and
sought out democracy Donald Trump is
using it to his advantage and we need to
fight back There's no more We have no
more No more do we have the luxury to be
the silent majority We've got to speak
up and speak out We got to talk truth to
each other We start it here on legal af
So take a moment hit the subscribe
button here I'm going to post all of
these items under filings AF on legal AF
the Substack And then of course we've
got Legal AF the podcast on Wednesdays
and Saturday nights at 800 PM Eastern
time only on the Midas Touch Network So
until my next reporting I'm Michael
Popac I'm Michael Popac And I got some
big news for our audience Most of you
know me as the co-founder of Midas
Touches Legal AF and the Legal AF
YouTube channel or as a 35-year national
trial lawyer Now building a what we
started together on Legal AF I've
launched a new law firm the Popo Firm
dedicated to obtaining justice through
compassionate and zealous legal
representation At the Pope firm we are
focused on obtaining justice for those
who have been injured or damaged by a
lifealtering event by securing the
highest dollar recoveries I've been
tirelessly fighting for justice for the
last 35 years So my own law firm
organically building on my legal AF work
just feels right and I've handpicked a
team of top tier trial fighters and
settlement experts throughout all 50
states known as big auto injury
attorneys who have the knowhow to beat
heartless insurance companies
corporations government entities and
their attorneys Big Autos attorneys
working with my firm are rock stars in
their respective states and collectively
responsible for billions of dollars in
recoveries So if you or a loved one have
been on the wrong side of a catastrophic
auto motor vehicle ride share or truck
accident suffered a personal injury or
been the victim of medical malpractice
employment harassment or discrimination
or suffered a violation of your civil
and constitutional rights then contact
the Pope Firm today at 1877 pop af or by
visiting my website at
www.thepopfirm.com and fill out a free
case evaluation form And if we determine
that you have a case and you sign with
us we don't get paid unless you do The
Pope firm fighting for your justice
every step of the
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri May 30, 2025 6:25 pm
Headlines
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/headlines
Israel Uses Continued Displacement, Bombing and Starvation in Gaza as Genocide Passes 600 Days
May 30, 2025
Israel issued new forced displacement orders for residents of northern Gaza and parts of Gaza City as its genocidal assault on the Palestinian territory entered its 601st day. The order set off a panicked evacuation of staff and patients at the Al-Awda Hospital, which was the last functioning hospital in the region. Health officials say Israeli attacks on hospitals have killed more than 1,400 medical workers since October 2023.
On Thursday, Israeli attacks across Gaza killed at least 70 Palestinians; airstrikes since dawn today have killed a further 18 people, according to Gaza hospital officials. Al Jazeera reports Israeli troops shot and wounded 20 Palestinians trying to reach an aid distribution point set up by the controversial U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It’s the third aid center set up by the group so far. The United Nations has said the foundation’s decision to open a handful of aid hubs exclusively in the south of the Gaza Strip puts civilian lives in danger and encourages mass displacement by using aid as “bait.”
Topics:GazaFamineHealthcare
Families Fight to Find Food as Israel’s Blockade Starves Children and Babies in Gaza
May 30, 2025
Gaza’s food crisis continues to worsen, as the trickle of aid now entering the territory is far too little for its population of over 2 million people. This is Khawla Abu Zeitar, mother of an 11-month-old child suffering from malnutrition, who said she did not manage to get a meal after waiting in line at a soup kitchen in Gaza City Wednesday.
Khawla Abu Zeitar: “This boy is suffering from extreme malnutrition. … The average weight for his age is 12 kilograms. Now he only weighs 3.9 kilograms. He has been granted a medical evacuation 20 days ago, but I’m still waiting.”
On Thursday, the White House said Israel had agreed to a U.S.-crafted Gaza ceasefire proposal and that Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had submitted it to Hamas. Drop Site News reports the deal includes a 60-day initial truce, a “redeployment” of some Israeli occupation forces, and an exchange of captives, including 10 living Israelis held in Gaza. It would also require the “immediate” delivery of humanitarian aid, including by the United Nations and the Red Crescent. Hamas officials said they were studying the deal, but a member of the group’s political bureau told Reuters the proposal in its current form would result in “the continuation of killing and famine” in Gaza.
Topics:GazaFamine
Ongoing Israeli Strikes, Gunfire on Lebanon Kill Two as Israel Repeatedly Violates Ceasefire
May 30, 2025
Israel’s military has intensified its airstrikes on southern Lebanon, in further violations of a ceasefire deal agreed to in November. On Thursday, an Israeli drone strike killed a municipal worker operating a water well near Lebanon’s border with Israel. Separately, one person was killed by Israeli gunfire in the Lebanese border town of Kfar Kila.
Topics:LebanonIsrael
U.S. Flagged Raised Over Embassy in Syria as Countries Move to Reestablish Ties
May 30, 2025
President Trump’s newly named envoy to Syria raised the U.S. flag over the ambassador’s residence in Damascus Thursday for the first time since its closure in 2012. Thomas Barrack’s visit to the Syrian capital comes just weeks after Trump lifted sanctions on Syria, prompting the European Union to follow suit.
Topics:SyriaSanctions
Saudi Prince to Iran’s Leaders: Negotiate New Nuclear Deal with U.S. or Face Israeli Strikes
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: via Reuters
Saudi Arabia’s defense minister warned leaders of Iran last month that they should accept President Trump’s offer to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with the U.S. — or face military action by Israel. That’s according to Reuters, which reports Saudi Prince Khalid bin Salman personally delivered the message that Trump’s team would want to reach a deal quickly, that the window for diplomacy would close fast, and that an Israeli attack was possible if the talks broke down. Khalid bin Salman’s visit to Iran in April was the first by a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal family in more than two decades.
Topics:IranIsraelSaudi Arabia
Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Trump’s Power to Impose Sweeping Tariffs
May 30, 2025
A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, staying a decision by a trade court that had blocked those tariffs one day earlier after finding Trump overstepped presidential authority by invoking emergency powers. Prior to Thursday’s stay, another federal court, this time in Washington, D.C., had also blocked Trump’s tariffs. The case is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court. Trump’s trade war has roiled global markets and already cost companies $34 billion, according to Reuters. A number of smaller businesses have been forced to shutter. We’ll have more on this story with the Brennan Center’s Elizabeth Goitein later in the broadcast.
Topics:trade
Mexico to Hold First-Ever Judicial Elections on Sunday
May 30, 2025
Mexican voters are gearing up for the first-ever judicial elections Sunday after a contested reform last year ordered the elections, despite vocal objections from the legal sector. Critics warn it will make judges more vulnerable to corruption and organized crime. Ahead of the weekend vote, election observers warned of major concerns with the polling process.
Luis Fernández: “The dilemma is serious because the ballots were poorly designed. It is creating inequality in the polls, and it’s creating problems of real competition for the vast majority of candidacies.”
Topics:Mexico
Haitian Government Enlists Blackwater Founder Erik Prince to Battle Gangs
May 30, 2025
The founder of the private mercenary firm Blackwater is working with Haiti’s interim government on a plan to conduct lethal operations against the gangs that now control much of Haiti’s territory. The New York Times reports Erik Prince recently shipped a large supply of weapons to Haiti and is planning to send up to 150 mercenaries there this summer. Prince is reportedly part of a secret task force that has spent the past several weeks operating drones meant to kill gang members. A Haitian human rights group blames the drones for the deaths of over 200 people.
Topics:HaitiErik Prince
Two Canadian Provinces Declare States of Emergency as Wildfires Grow Rapidly
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Chief David Monias of Pimicikamak Cree Nation
In Canada, authorities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have declared states of emergency and ordered residents to evacuate as dozens of wildfires burn. The current forecast for dry conditions and high winds could further stoke the infernos, with smoke expected to drift into midwestern U.S. states.
Topics:CanadaWildfires
Family of Woman Who Died in Seattle Heat Wave Sues Oil and Gas Companies for Wrongful Death
May 30, 2025
The daughter of a woman who died during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave is suing seven oil and gas companies for her mother’s wrongful death. Juliana Leon died of hyperthermia, or overheating, as a “heat dome” choked the region and sent temperatures in Seattle skyrocketing to 108 degrees. Nearly 200 people died during the heat wave. The lawsuit is the first of its kind and accuses the fossil fuel companies of concealing their role in creating the climate crisis and failing to warn people of the dangers of their emissions.
This comes as a new report today found half the world population endured 30 additional days of extreme heat over the past year due to human-created climate change.
Topics:Climate CrisisOil & Gas
Supreme Court Sharply Limits Scope of Landmark Environmental Law
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Giniw Collective (L)
The Supreme Court has sharply limited the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, a ruling that will accelerate the development of major infrastructure projects including highways, pipelines and liquefied natural gas export terminals. The court’s 8-0 ruling on Thursday will allow federal agencies conducting environmental reviews to take a more limited view of the impacts of major transportation and energy projects. Earthjustice said in a statement, “The Trump administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations.”
Topics:Air PollutionClimate CrisisOil & Gas
EPA Plan Would Eliminate All Limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Plants
May 30, 2025
President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a plan to completely eliminate limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. That’s according to internal agency documents seen by The New York Times, which reports the EPA has determined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases “do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution.”
Topics:Climate CrisisEnvironmentCoal
German Court Ruling Opens Path to Hold Polluters Accountable for Climate Crisis
May 30, 2025
A court in Germany ruled against a Peruvian farmer who was seeking redress from the energy company RWE for its role in the melting of Andean glaciers, which has put the farmer and his community in Huaraz at risk of flooding. But climate activists are celebrating the ruling as a major victory, as the German court also found major polluters can be held responsible for the consequences of climate change, setting up a possible precedent as similar cases play out in other countries. This is German lawyer Roda Verheyen, who represented Saúl Luciano Lliuya in the landmark case.
Roda Verheyen: “But what is important is the legal obligation of companies like RWE has been established here today. The legal obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions and to bear responsibility for them is something that has never before been established anywhere in the world in this form.”
As Bird Flu Spreads, HHS Cancels $600 Million Contract to Develop Influenza Vaccines
May 30, 2025
A major report on chronic health conditions by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was found to contain citations to nonexistent studies. According to the outlet NOTUS, the 73-page “Make America Healthy Again” document contains references to at least seven fabricated studies, while other studies are misinterpreted.
This comes as the Health Department has just canceled a $600 million contract with Moderna to develop mRNA vaccines protecting against flu subtypes which could develop into pandemics, including bird flu. RFK Jr. has expressed skepticism over mRNA technology, which was used in COVID vaccines that are widely credited with saving millions of lives and preventing millions of cases of severe disease.
ACLU Sues to Block New Texas Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Fortune via Reuters Connect
The ACLU and other groups are suing to block a new Texas law that will require public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Governor Greg Abbott has vowed to sign the bill, which the Texas Senate approved on a vote of 28 to 3 on Wednesday. The ACLU called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Judge Shields Columbia Student Yunseo Chung from Deportation Ahead of June 5 Hearing
May 30, 2025
Here in New York, a judge extended a temporary restraining order protecting Columbia University student Yunseo Chung from deportation until a hearing on June 5. Chung, a South Korean national, is a green card holder who has lived in the U.S. since she was 7. She’s been targeted by immigration authorities for participating in Palestinian rights protests at Columbia. Community members rallied in support of Chung as her lawyers appeared in court Thursday. This is Yunmi from the group Nodutdol.
Yunmi: “She’s being attacked because she has views that go against the Trump administration and their desires in Israel and also against the general ruling class. So, by persecuting her on also baseless grounds — there’s no evidence against her — who can say what the Trump administration and the federal government are willing to do next to anyone, regardless of their immigration status?”
Muckraking New York Journalist Tom Robbins Dies at 76
May 30, 2025
Longtime New York journalist and activist Tom Robbins died on Tuesday at the age of 76. For over four decades, Robbins’s work exposed the dark side of New York institutions, including corrupt politicians and landlords, and abuse inside prisons. He wrote for The Village Voice, City Limits, The New York Times and The City. Click here to see our interviews with him.
Texas Observer Founder Ronnie Dugger Dies at 95
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Courtesy Niccolò Caranti
In Texas, Ronnie Dugger, the founder and longtime publisher of the Austin-based Texas Observer, died this week at the age of 95. The Texas Observer, which started in 1954, exposed political corruption and racism in Texas and championed antiwar and civil rights struggles. Dugger and his reporting has been credited with helping catalyze a progressive movement in Texas.
Renowned Kenyan Author and Academic Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o Dies at 87
May 30, 2025
The renowned Kenyan author, playwright and professor Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o has died at the age of 87. Over six decades, he chronicled Kenya’s transition from a British colony to independence. Thiong’o’s work landed him in jail and in exile as he wrote searing criticisms of colonial rule, as well as the emerging independent state, which he accused of benefiting elites at the expense of Kenyan society. In 2010, Democracy Now! interviewed him in our studio after he’d just released his memoir, “Dreams in a Time of War.”
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o: “In all the settler colonies, like Kenya, Nigeria — not Nigeria — Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe — Mozambique is another example, Algeria is another example — independence was won through armed struggle. In all of those, there was armed liberation movements, and the land question was at the basis of the whole struggle. So, with Kenya, we had one of the earliest anti-colonial guerrilla movements. Ours was by the name of Mau Mau.”
Click here to see our interview with him in full.
****************************************
Trump's Abuse of Pardons Undermines Entire Justice System: Reagan Official Bruce Fein
Trump’s Abuse of Pardons Undermines Entire Justice System: Reagan Official Bruce Fein
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
President Donald Trump has signed a wave of pardons for people convicted of fraud, including a Virginia sheriff who took tens of thousands of dollars in bribes and a reality TV couple who evaded millions in taxes after defrauding banks. Last month, Trump pardoned a Florida healthcare executive convicted of tax evasion for stealing nearly $11 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. Many of Trump’s pardons have gone to supporters of his or those who made political donations to the president.
“These pardons are not indiscriminate,” says constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein. “They’re targeted to help people who are politically his supporters, raise money for him or otherwise.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.
We end today’s show with a slew of pardons President Trump has issued, many this past week. In one case, Trump pardoned Scott Jenkins, a former Virginia sheriff and longtime Trump supporter, convicted on corruption charges after undercover video showed he accepted over $75,000 in bribes.
In another case, Trump pardoned the former reality show couple Todd and Julie Chrisley after they were sentenced to long prison terms for evading taxes and defrauding banks of more than $30 million. The couple’s daughter helped campaign for Trump. She requested the appeal on Fox News.
This comes as Trump loyalist Ed Martin has a new role as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, after he failed to win Senate approval to become District of Columbia’s top prosecutor.
For more, we go to Washington, D.C. We’re joined by Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer, former associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan, author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy.
Bruce, thanks so much for joining us. Why don’t you go through these pardons with us? Talk about the Virginia sheriff, talk about the reality TV couple, what they were imprisoned for, and what it means that they’ve been freed, not to mention fines worth millions of dollars being forgiven.
BRUCE FEIN: Well, in the two cases you mentioned, the sheriff was convicted of basically using his office to raise money through bribes, $75,000, to give favors to friends. The other case concerned tax evasion and fraud, the kinds of crimes that Mr. Trump himself has been under attack for.
I think that if you look in the broader sense, Mr. Trump is trying to create an aura of incredulity about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, at least with regard to the pardons of these slew of white-collar offenses, and sometimes they’re political allies, as well. We just learned today in the newspapers a former congressman, former governor of Connecticut also pardoned. And I think that Mr. Trump recognizes that he’s losing overwhelmingly in the courts now, and that’s why he’s even turning on the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, because he believes when he loses in the United States Supreme Court, he’s going to need a political reason for why he’s losing, and he’s trying to cast aspersion, I believe, on the legitimacy of the entire justice system. That’s why these pardons are not indiscriminate, because they’re targeted to help people who are politically his supporters, raise money for him or otherwise, which is very dangerous.
I want to add this: The framers understood the possibility that the pardon power would be abused. There was an exchange in the Virginia ratification debate between James Madison and George Mason. And Mr. Madison, when Mr. Mason said, “Well, what if the president uses his pardon power to help his political friends? That could be very, very dangerous. Why are we endowing the president with such pardon power?” — and Mr. Madison said, “Well, if the president uses pardons to help his political friends or personal friends, certainly the House will impeach, and he will be removed from Congress,” because it’s very difficult for an individual citizen, you or me, to have standing to challenge a pardon.
Unfortunately, Congress has turned into an ink blot. It has no spine. And so, that remedy is gone, which I think underscores the importance, if we’re going to have any kind of pushback, of public opinion saying we need the law to be enforced even-handedly.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about Paul Walczak. In April, President Trump pardoned him, the Florida healthcare executive convicted of tax evasion for stealing nearly $11 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. The jury found him guilty after prosecutors showed he used the money to finance a lavish lifestyle. Walczak is the son of Betsy Fago, a healthcare entrepreneur and Republican Party donor. Trump pardoned Walczak three weeks after Fago attended a million-dollar-a-plate fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. And he also pardoned or forgave the fine of something like $4 million that he’d have to pay in addition to serving time in jail. The significance of this, Bruce?
BRUCE FEIN: Well, at least it has the appearance of bribery. You’re raising money, and then, shortly after you raise money, then comes the pardon. And we know at least one of the offenses that justifies impeachment is bribery, even if it’s indirect. I think this is very dangerous.
But I want to underscore, Mr. Trump is not the first one who’s abused the pardon power. He’s had to take it a different scale, I think. We have Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We have, remember, Marc Rich and William Jefferson Clinton and Roger Clinton. And even George H.W. Bush, he pardoned the Iran-Contra defendants, including Cap Weinberger. So it’s been abused before, but it’s taken to a scale now where it threatens to undermine the entire legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
And you mentioned earlier Ed Martin, which is really quite alarming, since Mr. Martin said, “I am going to use my position not to just go after people I think committed crimes, but to stigmatize them. Even if we can’t convict them, we want to harass them, make them lose their reputation.” It’s a danger that Justice Robert Jackson, a former attorney general, warned against in 1940, because the laws are very vague. And here we have a member of the Justice Department saying, “We’re coming after you, even if we can’t prove that you’re guilty of a crime, just to harass you and give you a bad name.” That clearly is an abuse of the obligation to faithfully execute the laws. Typically, you have an obligation in the Justice Department not even to begin an indictment unless you believe you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And now we have a very, very low threshold for beginning an investigation, that probably will go nowhere other than tarnish reputations.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Bruce Fein, I want to thank you very much for being with us. You mentioned Martin. Politico reports Martin spent his first week on the job reviewing pardon applications of January 6 insurrectionists, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, seeking to have President Trump convert their commuted sentences into full pardons. Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer, former Reagan attorney, was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan.
***************************
As Courts Battle Trump on Tariffs, Will Right-Wing Supreme Court Rescue President’s Trade Agenda?
As Courts Battle Trump on Tariffs, Will Right-Wing Supreme Court Rescue the President’s Trade Agenda?
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
President Donald Trump has vowed to go to the Supreme Court to keep his tariffs in place after a whirlwind 24 hours that saw a court temporarily reinstate the measures, soon after two courts blocked most of the tariffs, saying Trump overstepped his presidential authority. Trump has been infuriated by the legal challenges and lashed out on social media against the Federalist Society and conservative legal activist Leonard Leo. We get an update from Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump has invoked to justify his global tariffs. She says the fate of Trump’s tariffs remain uncertain, given that the powers available under the IEEPA “have to be used to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, and they cannot be used for any other reason.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.
We turn now to Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, after a whirlwind 24 hours that saw a federal appeals court Thursday temporarily reinstate the tariffs just a day after the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked most of the tariffs, arguing Trump overstepped his presidential authority by invoking emergency powers. Prior to Thursday’s appeals court order reinstating for a few minutes these tariffs, a federal court in Washington, D.C., also blocked Trump’s tariffs, though that ruling won’t go into effect for another two weeks. The Trump administration has vowed to bring the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the New York-based Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gave Congress exclusive powers to regulate trade with other nations, and that a 1977 law cited by Trump to invoke the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give him the authority to levy the sweeping import taxes.
President Trump denounced the attempts by the courts to block his tariffs in a lengthy Truth Social rant Thursday night that also targeted Leonard Leo, who, as a top member of the conservative Federalist Society, played a vital role in influencing Trump’s judicial picks during his first term, including the selection of three far-right Supreme Court justices. Trump wrote, quote, “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom 'hustlers' must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! I was new,” Trump went on to say, “to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.” Trump went on to say, “I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!” Trump wrote on social media, on Truth Social.
For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, expert on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law Trump has invoked to justify his global tariffs.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Elizabeth. OK, if you can respond to everything? First, explain what this court is that overturned the tariffs, said, “You can’t use this law,” and then even who Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, who many may be shocked that Trump has turned on, given he helped choose three of the Trump appointees who were confirmed to the Supreme Court.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Sure. So, there are actually two courts that have now rejected Trump’s attempt to use emergency powers to essentially bypass Congress and impose worldwide tariffs. One of those courts is a regular federal district court here in Washington, D.C., and another court is called the Court of International Trade, which is a specialized federal court that hears challenges to laws involving trade or customs. The Court of International Trade heard the case with a three-judge panel, so we now have had four different judges, two of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, including one Trump appointee, and two of whom were appointed by a Democratic president. And all of them — so the Court of International Trade panel was unanimous — held that Trump exceeded the authority provided to him under law by imposing these tariffs.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, go more deeply into this 1977 law and what it means to invoke an emergency.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Sure. The law is called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and it is one of the 150 laws that become available when the president declares a national emergency. IEEPA requires the president not only to declare a national emergency, but also the powers that are available under IEEPA have to be used to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, and they cannot be used for any other reason.
IEEPA has historically been used to impose economic sanctions against hostile foreign actors. It forms the basis for dozens of existing sanctions regimes, including our sanctions against Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. But it has never previously been used to impose tariffs. And that is because, while IEEPA includes a long list of powers that the president can exercise, that list does not include the words “tariffs,” “taxes” or “duties.” So, the government is instead arguing that language in IEEPA that allows the president to regulate economic transactions, including imports and exports, should be read to sort of impliedly authorize tariffs against every country in the world. And that’s —
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask —
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: That is what the courts rejected.
AMY GOODMAN: The three-judge panel of the trade court also blocked a separate set of tariffs against China, Mexico and Canada, which the Trump administration had imposed over what it claimed was a flow of illicit drugs and undocumented immigrants into the United States.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Right. And there was actually a separate reasoning for blocking those tariffs. So, when it came to the worldwide tariffs, essentially, what the court said is that the government was claiming unlimited power to impose whatever tariffs that the president thought would be appropriate, and that that was such a massive sort of takeover of the powers that the Constitution gives to Congress. So, Congress, under Article I, has the authority — in fact, it’s the first power listed under Congress’s powers — to impose tariffs. And if you read IEEPA to allow the president to make up his own mind about what tariffs should be imposed on what countries, that would be unconstitutionally transferring Congress’s power to the president.
The fentanyl tariffs that you mentioned, against China, Mexico and Canada, were more limited, and so there was a different argument that was made in that case. What the plaintiffs argued was that under IEEPA, the powers have to be exercised to deal with an unusual or extraordinary threat and that the tariffs in this case were such a total mismatch to the threat that had been identified, the threats of fentanyl trafficking and human trafficking and illegal immigration, that it just didn’t meet the criteria for IEEPA. Now, in —
AMY GOODMAN: So —
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: — this case —
AMY GOODMAN: I’m going to interrupt — go ahead. Go ahead.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: OK. Well, this is really important, which is why I’m not letting you interrupt me yet. What the government argued in this case was that no court can question the president’s decision that his actions under IEEPA are dealing with an unusual and extraordinary threat. And the Court of International Trade rejected this claim entirely. The court said that these criteria in the statute are clear and that the courts are capable of interpreting and applying them, and that the supremacy of the law requires that courts must be able to intervene when a president acts outside of the law. So, that was a very important part of the ruling that will have salience far beyond this immediate case.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you have Trump officials calling this a “judicial coup.” They’re going to take it to the Supreme Court. What do you see happening?
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Well, I think it might take a little while, because there are several other lawsuits pending across the country on the tariffs, and there will be decisions in the lower courts, and then they will go up to the appellate courts. The appellate courts will have their chance to rule. Yes, this is headed toward the Supreme Court in the next term for the Supreme Court.
And, you know, I don’t think anyone can predict exactly what will happen, but I will point out that one of the arguments that the — or, one of the reasons that the Court of International Trade gave for holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs was because such a reading of IEEPA would violate the major questions doctrine. And that is a doctrine that the Supreme Court has really embraced in these last few years. Under this doctrine, any executive branch action, executive branch actions that have major political or economic significance, must be clearly authorized by Congress. It has to be explicit. It cannot be a vague or ambiguous provision that is being interpreted to grant that power. That is certainly the case with the government’s interpretation of IEEPA. So, there’s a strong argument on a — based on a doctrine that the Supreme Court has very much endorsed.
AMY GOODMAN: And before the Supreme Court, could the tariffs be blocked again? We just have 20 seconds.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Yes, it is possible. It’s also possible — and, I would argue, probably likely — that the courts will continue to stay these decisions and allow the tariffs to go forward pending appeal. But I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on that. It’s very unpredictable.
AMY GOODMAN: Elizabeth Goitein, I want to thank you so much for being with us, co-director of Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
*************************
“Worse Than McCarthyism”: Historian Ellen Schrecker on Trump’s War Against Universities & Students
“Worse Than McCarthyism”: Historian Ellen Schrecker on Trump’s War Against Universities & Students
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
[youtube]-- "Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump"
-- "Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America"
--"The Right To Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom"
-- "A Tumultuous Spring Semester Finally Comes to a Close"[/youtube]
We speak with esteemed historian scholar Ellen Schrecker about the Trump administration’s assault on universities and the crackdown on dissent, a climate of fear and censorship she describes as “worse than McCarthyism.”
“During the McCarthy period, it was attacking only individual professors and only about their sort of extracurricular political activities on the left. … Today, the repression that’s coming out of Washington, D.C., it attacks everything that happens on American campuses,” says Schrecker. “The damage that the Trump administration is doing is absolutely beyond the pale and has never, never been equaled in American life with regard to higher education.”
Schrecker is the author of many books about the McCarthy era, Cold War politics and right-wing attacks on academic freedom. Her recent piece for The Nation is headlined “Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump’s crackdown on academic institutions in the United States was the focus of protests and commencement speeches this week as universities like Harvard held commencement ceremonies.
The Trump administration has now directed federal agencies to review all remaining contracts with Harvard, after it already canceled nearly $3 billion in federal research grants for the university and moved last week to revoke its ability to enroll international students. Harvard has two separate suits pending against Trump, arguing the moves violate due process, as well as free speech protections under the First Amendment because they target the university’s staff, curriculum and enrollment.
In his address at Harvard’s commencement ceremony Thursday, Stanford University professor, doctor and novelist Abraham Verghese praised the school’s defiance of Trump and spoke to students facing threats of deportation or having their visas revoked.
DR. ABRAHAM VERGHESE: When legal immigrants and others who are lawfully in this country, including so many of your international students, worry about being wrongly detained and even deported, perhaps it’s fitting that you hear from an immigrant like me. Perhaps it’s fitting that you hear from someone who was born in Ethiopia when it was ruled by an emperor, someone who then lived under the harsh military leader who overthrew the emperor, someone who had at least — who had at least one his medical school classmates tortured and disappear. … More than a quarter of the physicians in this country are foreign medical graduates. … So, a part of what makes America great, if I may use that phrase, is that it allows an immigrant like me to blossom here, just as generations of other immigrants and their children have flourished and contributed in every walk of life, working to keep America great.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the novelist and medical doctor, Ethiopian Indian American, Dr. Abraham Verghese addressing Harvard’s commencement ceremony on Thursday. His latest book, The Covenant of Water.
Meanwhile, down the road in Cambridge, the Indian American class president at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke about how MIT’s undergraduate body and Graduate Student Union had voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with Israel. Megha Vemuri wore a red-and-white keffiyeh and said MIT students would never support a genocide, and praised them for continuing to protest despite, quote, “threats, intimidation and suppression coming from all directions, especially,” she said, “your own university officials.”
MEGHA VEMURI: Last spring, MIT’s undergraduate body and Graduate Student Union voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with the genocidal Israeli military. You called for a permanent cease fire in Gaza, and you stood in solidarity with the pro-Palestine activists on campus. You faced threats, intimidation and suppression coming from all directions, especially your own university officials. But you prevailed, because the MIT community that I know would never tolerate a genocide.
Right now while we prepare to graduate and move forward with our lives, there are no universities left in Gaza. We are watching Israel try to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it. The Israeli occupation forces are the only foreign military that MIT has research ties with. This means that Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people is not only aided and abetted by our country, but our school. As scientists, engineers, academics and leaders, we have a commitment to support life, support aid efforts and call for an arms embargo and keep demanding now, as alumni, that MIT cuts the ties.
AMY GOODMAN: That was MIT class president Megha Vemuri, now Indian American graduate of MIT.
This comes as Jelani Cobb, the dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism — another school facing attacks by the Trump administration — writes for The New Yorker magazine this week about how, quote, “Academic freedom in the United States has found itself periodically under siege.” In his piece headlined “A Tumultuous Spring Semester Finally Comes to a Close,” he describes how he consulted with Ellen Schrecker, a historian and the author of No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, along with other deans at Columbia. They spoke about government repression on college campuses in the 1950s through to the present. Schrecker told him, quote, “I’ve studied McCarthyism’s impact on higher education for 50 years. What’s happening now is worse,” he quoted her saying.
Well, we begin today with Ellen Schrecker in person, joining us in our New York studio. She’s the author of Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. Schrecker is also the author of The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom. And she just wrote a piece for The Nation headlined “Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump.” Schrecker has been active in the American Association of University Professors, AAUP, since the 1990s. I should note she has three degrees from Radcliffe Harvard and formerly taught there. She’s a graduate of Radcliffe 1960.
Ellen Schrecker, welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. As we look at these universities under attack, you’ve studied higher education for over half a century. Let’s talk about what was happening then and what’s happening today.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: OK. The main thing that happened then to universities was that about a hundred faculty members, most of them with tenure, were fired and blacklisted. That happened in every major institution of civil society within the United States. And although the universities pride themselves on academic freedom — whatever that means — they collaborated with the forces of repression through — that were actively imposing a climate of fear and self-censorship throughout American society.
Today, what’s happening is worse, so much worse that we have to really find a new phrase for it. I don’t know what it’ll be. But during the McCarthy period, it was attacking only individual professors and only about their sort of extracurricular political activities on the left, in the past and in the present, then present. Today, the repression that’s coming out of Washington, D.C., it attacks everything that happens on American campuses.
AMY GOODMAN: I’d like you to start off — we have a very young audience. We also have their parents and their grandparents around the world. And I’d like you to start off by talking about who McCarthy is. What do we mean by the McCarthyism of, for example, the 1950s?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: OK, that’s a very good way to start, because McCarthyism, unfortunately, is misnamed. It is not just the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who came in onto the stage of history in 1950 after the “ism” that he gave his name to had been really dominating American domestic politics since the late 1940s. ’47 is when the Truman administration imposed a loyalty test, an anti-communist loyalty test, on its employees.
So, if we wanted to name this phenomenon of political repression, anti-communist political repression — and I want to specify that it didn’t attack randomly people on the left, but very specifically people who had some kind of connection, usually in the past, with the communist movement, that during the 1930s and ’40s was the most dynamic force on the left, even though it was a very flawed, very flawed political group. It was nonetheless very influential on the left. And if we wanted to give that political repression of the 1940s and ’50s a name, it should have been Hooverism, after the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, the movie Good Night and Good Luck, they showed real black-and-white footage of McCarthy, and test audiences thought he was too harsh, unrealistic, not realizing it was actual footage. And now you have Good Night and Good Luck on Broadway, George Clooney starring in it, and it is the financially most successful Broadway show we’ve seen, is going to be now for free on CNN in a few days. But the significance of that, that that — what people feel today was a cartoon character was, in fact, much harsher and sharper than people ever dreamed?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Yeah, he was beyond the pale, because, like the current president, he had no guardrails, as it were.
AMY GOODMAN: Not to mention Roy Cohn, his sidekick in the hearings, who would later go on to mentor Donald Trump, until, at the very end of his life, Donald Trump rejected him when he was dying of AIDS.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Exactly. So, there are lots of similarities with the fact that there’s this very aberrant character at the heart, or at the sort of public heart, of this repressive movement. But what we should have known in the '40s and ’50s, and should know now, is it's not just a one-man show. It has been this moment of trying to crack down on dissent, constitutional dissent, free speech, the ability to say what Israel is doing in Gaza is a terrible thing. That is something that has been building up for decades. And that was the same thing during McCarthyism. There was a kind of network of right-wing activists, similar to groups today, like the Heritage Society, that brought us the 2025 Project blueprint for Trump’s attack on the institutions of civil liberties and civil society, that has come to fruition since he entered the White House.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I mean, you speak as a Jewish author, active member of the American Association of University Professors. Would you say that the McCarthyism of yesteryear is the charges that President Trump, with his sidekick Elon Musk giving the “Heil Hitler” salute, charging antisemitism for what he’s doing?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Antisemitism is a pretext. We know that. Trump has been all his life a racist, clearly befriending these fascist individuals and groups for years. And what we’re seeing is a kind of a melding of Trump’s own right-wing proclivities, reactionary proclivities, pro-fascist proclivities, with a long-term attempt within some pro-Zionist organizations to eliminate all support for Palestinian freedom and Palestinian liberation from American universities, in particular, but from within American society.
AMY GOODMAN: You have, earlier this month, a federal judge, Geoffrey Crawford, ordering the release of Columbia University graduate, Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi from a prison in Vermont. He was picked up by masked, hooded ICE agents at his naturalization interview in Vermont. He was beyond holding a green card. The judge writing in his ruling, quote, “Our nation has seen times like this before, especially during the Red Scare and Palmer Raids of 1919-1920” and during the McCarthy period of the 1950s. And I wanted to take it beyond that. You note that, you know, that we’re not just talking about individual professors anymore. We’re talking about current attacks being much broader. And you write that — this interesting paradox, quote, “despite higher education’s much larger footprint within American society, today the academy is in a much weaker position to resist political intervention.” Why is it weaker?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: It’s weaker for two reasons. One, because the state is stronger. The state does much more with regard to higher education than it did in the 1950s. You know, it supports most important basic scientific research. It regulates things on campus with regard to, shall we say, diversity, equity and inclusion, with trying to ensure that all Americans have a good shot at higher education. That was a push by the federal government. So, you can see that the government is much more involved. It funds student loans. Most smaller universities without huge endowments rely on students who have to get federal loans in order to pay tuitions. So, what he’s doing by withdrawing federal money from higher education is, essentially, threatening to destroy American higher education today.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to the clip of Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaking in March following the arrest of the Columbia graduate student, now graduated graduate student, albeit he was in jail in Louisiana when he got his diploma at Columbia, Mahmoud Khalil.
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: If you tell us, when you apply, “Hi. I’m trying to get into the United States on a student visa. I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages,” if you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, “And by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities. I intend to shut down your universities,” if you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that, once you’re in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it. And if you end up having a green card — not citizenship, but a green card — as a result of that visa while you’re here and those activities, we’re going to kick you out.
AMY GOODMAN: Of course, the Trump administration not proven any of this. And a number of students have been released from prison, with very angry judges talking about “Where are the grounds for these people to be imprisoned?” Mahmoud Khalil has been now imprisoned for three months as his little baby was born here in New York. If you can talk about what this leads to, these kind of harsh attacks, when it comes to speech and when it comes to universities? You were just addressing the deans at Columbia University. Some compare Harvard not fighting — Harvard fighting back against the Trump administration, and Columbia conceding, and the pressure it’s put on its students.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Yeah, this has been a constant in the history of American higher education to collaborate with political repression. They, universities, do not fight back. They didn’t fight back during the McCarthy period. They’re not — were not fighting back, until this miracle. It really was a miracle, totally unexpected, of the president at Harvard saying, “No, I cannot go along with what you were asking.” And what they were —
AMY GOODMAN: The Jewish president at Harvard, right?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: He’s Jewish, right.
AMY GOODMAN: Alan Garber, who President Trump is accusing of antisemitism.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Well, of course, we’re all antisemites, as long as we feel that maybe you shouldn’t be killing babies in Gaza every day.
But what we’re seeing is the beginning of a pushback against what Trump is doing, what his entire apparatus of hoodlums, I think, is trying to do to the universities. And that wonderful quote you had from Secretary of State Rubio, when he said, you know, paraphrasing these supposed terrorists, that they wanted to shut down the universities, he’s doing more to shut down the universities than probably anybody else in America at this moment.
AMY GOODMAN: Threatening to revoke the visas of all —
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Exactly.
AMY GOODMAN: — international students. What about the role of your organization, the AAUP, the American Association of University Professors?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Right. We are a group that is over a hundred years old. And when we were founded, it was a period very much like today, where outsiders, politicians and especially very wealthy businesspeople on boards of trustees, were interfering with what faculty members were saying and doing with regard to — at that point, there was a lot of labor unrest and attempts to create unions. And university professors were sort of saying, “Well, look at the working conditions under which American workers are being oppressed. Let’s do something about industrial accidents and things like that.” Today, we’re seeing that, in every way, the federal government, state legislators interfering with the academic work of university professors. And that is what my organization is trying to do, is to protect the integrity and the educational value of what goes on on American campuses.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you hold out hope, in this last minute we have together?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Yes, because, unfortunately, we have no model we can follow from McCarthyism, because there was no pushback, but today we’re seeing people marching to commencement at Harvard wearing labels saying, you know, “Enough is enough, President Trump. “We’re seeing huge crowds showing up to welcome Mohsen coming back from Vermont after having been picked up by ICE.
We’re seeing a growing movement within civil society, that has to be maintained, and has to be maintained for years. I mean, the damage that the Trump administration is doing is absolutely beyond the pale and has never, never been equaled in American life with regard to higher education. So, we’ve got to get out there in the trenches and even begin to think some more about: OK, if they’re not paying attention to the judges, if the Supreme Court folds — and let us pray that it does not — what do we have to do?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, Ellen Schrecker, author of Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, also the author of The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom. We’ll link to your piece in The Nation headlined “Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump,” as well as Jelani Cobb’s piece in The New Yorker that extensively quotes you, Ellen Schrecker, at democracynow.org.
When we come back, President Trump vows to go to the Supreme Court to keep his tariffs in place, even though court after court is challenging them. We’ll get an update from the Brennan Center in 30 seconds. Thanks so much for being with us.
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/headlines
Israel Uses Continued Displacement, Bombing and Starvation in Gaza as Genocide Passes 600 Days
May 30, 2025
Israel issued new forced displacement orders for residents of northern Gaza and parts of Gaza City as its genocidal assault on the Palestinian territory entered its 601st day. The order set off a panicked evacuation of staff and patients at the Al-Awda Hospital, which was the last functioning hospital in the region. Health officials say Israeli attacks on hospitals have killed more than 1,400 medical workers since October 2023.
On Thursday, Israeli attacks across Gaza killed at least 70 Palestinians; airstrikes since dawn today have killed a further 18 people, according to Gaza hospital officials. Al Jazeera reports Israeli troops shot and wounded 20 Palestinians trying to reach an aid distribution point set up by the controversial U.S.- and Israel-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation. It’s the third aid center set up by the group so far. The United Nations has said the foundation’s decision to open a handful of aid hubs exclusively in the south of the Gaza Strip puts civilian lives in danger and encourages mass displacement by using aid as “bait.”
Topics:GazaFamineHealthcare
Families Fight to Find Food as Israel’s Blockade Starves Children and Babies in Gaza
May 30, 2025
Gaza’s food crisis continues to worsen, as the trickle of aid now entering the territory is far too little for its population of over 2 million people. This is Khawla Abu Zeitar, mother of an 11-month-old child suffering from malnutrition, who said she did not manage to get a meal after waiting in line at a soup kitchen in Gaza City Wednesday.
Khawla Abu Zeitar: “This boy is suffering from extreme malnutrition. … The average weight for his age is 12 kilograms. Now he only weighs 3.9 kilograms. He has been granted a medical evacuation 20 days ago, but I’m still waiting.”
On Thursday, the White House said Israel had agreed to a U.S.-crafted Gaza ceasefire proposal and that Trump’s Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had submitted it to Hamas. Drop Site News reports the deal includes a 60-day initial truce, a “redeployment” of some Israeli occupation forces, and an exchange of captives, including 10 living Israelis held in Gaza. It would also require the “immediate” delivery of humanitarian aid, including by the United Nations and the Red Crescent. Hamas officials said they were studying the deal, but a member of the group’s political bureau told Reuters the proposal in its current form would result in “the continuation of killing and famine” in Gaza.
Topics:GazaFamine
Ongoing Israeli Strikes, Gunfire on Lebanon Kill Two as Israel Repeatedly Violates Ceasefire
May 30, 2025
Israel’s military has intensified its airstrikes on southern Lebanon, in further violations of a ceasefire deal agreed to in November. On Thursday, an Israeli drone strike killed a municipal worker operating a water well near Lebanon’s border with Israel. Separately, one person was killed by Israeli gunfire in the Lebanese border town of Kfar Kila.
Topics:LebanonIsrael
U.S. Flagged Raised Over Embassy in Syria as Countries Move to Reestablish Ties
May 30, 2025
President Trump’s newly named envoy to Syria raised the U.S. flag over the ambassador’s residence in Damascus Thursday for the first time since its closure in 2012. Thomas Barrack’s visit to the Syrian capital comes just weeks after Trump lifted sanctions on Syria, prompting the European Union to follow suit.
Topics:SyriaSanctions
Saudi Prince to Iran’s Leaders: Negotiate New Nuclear Deal with U.S. or Face Israeli Strikes
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: via Reuters
Saudi Arabia’s defense minister warned leaders of Iran last month that they should accept President Trump’s offer to negotiate a new nuclear agreement with the U.S. — or face military action by Israel. That’s according to Reuters, which reports Saudi Prince Khalid bin Salman personally delivered the message that Trump’s team would want to reach a deal quickly, that the window for diplomacy would close fast, and that an Israeli attack was possible if the talks broke down. Khalid bin Salman’s visit to Iran in April was the first by a high-ranking member of the Saudi royal family in more than two decades.
Topics:IranIsraelSaudi Arabia
Federal Appeals Court Reinstates Trump’s Power to Impose Sweeping Tariffs
May 30, 2025
A federal appeals court on Thursday temporarily reinstated Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, staying a decision by a trade court that had blocked those tariffs one day earlier after finding Trump overstepped presidential authority by invoking emergency powers. Prior to Thursday’s stay, another federal court, this time in Washington, D.C., had also blocked Trump’s tariffs. The case is expected to make its way to the Supreme Court. Trump’s trade war has roiled global markets and already cost companies $34 billion, according to Reuters. A number of smaller businesses have been forced to shutter. We’ll have more on this story with the Brennan Center’s Elizabeth Goitein later in the broadcast.
Topics:trade
Mexico to Hold First-Ever Judicial Elections on Sunday
May 30, 2025
Mexican voters are gearing up for the first-ever judicial elections Sunday after a contested reform last year ordered the elections, despite vocal objections from the legal sector. Critics warn it will make judges more vulnerable to corruption and organized crime. Ahead of the weekend vote, election observers warned of major concerns with the polling process.
Luis Fernández: “The dilemma is serious because the ballots were poorly designed. It is creating inequality in the polls, and it’s creating problems of real competition for the vast majority of candidacies.”
Topics:Mexico
Haitian Government Enlists Blackwater Founder Erik Prince to Battle Gangs
May 30, 2025
The founder of the private mercenary firm Blackwater is working with Haiti’s interim government on a plan to conduct lethal operations against the gangs that now control much of Haiti’s territory. The New York Times reports Erik Prince recently shipped a large supply of weapons to Haiti and is planning to send up to 150 mercenaries there this summer. Prince is reportedly part of a secret task force that has spent the past several weeks operating drones meant to kill gang members. A Haitian human rights group blames the drones for the deaths of over 200 people.
Topics:HaitiErik Prince
Two Canadian Provinces Declare States of Emergency as Wildfires Grow Rapidly
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Chief David Monias of Pimicikamak Cree Nation
In Canada, authorities in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have declared states of emergency and ordered residents to evacuate as dozens of wildfires burn. The current forecast for dry conditions and high winds could further stoke the infernos, with smoke expected to drift into midwestern U.S. states.
Topics:CanadaWildfires
Family of Woman Who Died in Seattle Heat Wave Sues Oil and Gas Companies for Wrongful Death
May 30, 2025
The daughter of a woman who died during the 2021 Pacific Northwest heat wave is suing seven oil and gas companies for her mother’s wrongful death. Juliana Leon died of hyperthermia, or overheating, as a “heat dome” choked the region and sent temperatures in Seattle skyrocketing to 108 degrees. Nearly 200 people died during the heat wave. The lawsuit is the first of its kind and accuses the fossil fuel companies of concealing their role in creating the climate crisis and failing to warn people of the dangers of their emissions.
This comes as a new report today found half the world population endured 30 additional days of extreme heat over the past year due to human-created climate change.
Topics:Climate CrisisOil & Gas
Supreme Court Sharply Limits Scope of Landmark Environmental Law
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Giniw Collective (L)
The Supreme Court has sharply limited the scope of the National Environmental Policy Act, a ruling that will accelerate the development of major infrastructure projects including highways, pipelines and liquefied natural gas export terminals. The court’s 8-0 ruling on Thursday will allow federal agencies conducting environmental reviews to take a more limited view of the impacts of major transportation and energy projects. Earthjustice said in a statement, “The Trump administration will treat this decision as an invitation to ignore environmental concerns as it tries to promote fossil fuels, kill off renewable energy, and destroy sensible pollution regulations.”
Topics:Air PollutionClimate CrisisOil & Gas
EPA Plan Would Eliminate All Limits on Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Power Plants
May 30, 2025
President Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency has drafted a plan to completely eliminate limits on greenhouse gas emissions from coal- and gas-fired power plants. That’s according to internal agency documents seen by The New York Times, which reports the EPA has determined emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and other greenhouse gases “do not contribute significantly to dangerous pollution.”
Topics:Climate CrisisEnvironmentCoal
German Court Ruling Opens Path to Hold Polluters Accountable for Climate Crisis
May 30, 2025
A court in Germany ruled against a Peruvian farmer who was seeking redress from the energy company RWE for its role in the melting of Andean glaciers, which has put the farmer and his community in Huaraz at risk of flooding. But climate activists are celebrating the ruling as a major victory, as the German court also found major polluters can be held responsible for the consequences of climate change, setting up a possible precedent as similar cases play out in other countries. This is German lawyer Roda Verheyen, who represented Saúl Luciano Lliuya in the landmark case.
Roda Verheyen: “But what is important is the legal obligation of companies like RWE has been established here today. The legal obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions and to bear responsibility for them is something that has never before been established anywhere in the world in this form.”
As Bird Flu Spreads, HHS Cancels $600 Million Contract to Develop Influenza Vaccines
May 30, 2025
A major report on chronic health conditions by Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was found to contain citations to nonexistent studies. According to the outlet NOTUS, the 73-page “Make America Healthy Again” document contains references to at least seven fabricated studies, while other studies are misinterpreted.
This comes as the Health Department has just canceled a $600 million contract with Moderna to develop mRNA vaccines protecting against flu subtypes which could develop into pandemics, including bird flu. RFK Jr. has expressed skepticism over mRNA technology, which was used in COVID vaccines that are widely credited with saving millions of lives and preventing millions of cases of severe disease.
ACLU Sues to Block New Texas Law Requiring Public Schools to Display Ten Commandments
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Fortune via Reuters Connect
The ACLU and other groups are suing to block a new Texas law that will require public schools to display a copy of the Ten Commandments in every classroom. Governor Greg Abbott has vowed to sign the bill, which the Texas Senate approved on a vote of 28 to 3 on Wednesday. The ACLU called the measure “blatantly unconstitutional.”
Judge Shields Columbia Student Yunseo Chung from Deportation Ahead of June 5 Hearing
May 30, 2025
Here in New York, a judge extended a temporary restraining order protecting Columbia University student Yunseo Chung from deportation until a hearing on June 5. Chung, a South Korean national, is a green card holder who has lived in the U.S. since she was 7. She’s been targeted by immigration authorities for participating in Palestinian rights protests at Columbia. Community members rallied in support of Chung as her lawyers appeared in court Thursday. This is Yunmi from the group Nodutdol.
Yunmi: “She’s being attacked because she has views that go against the Trump administration and their desires in Israel and also against the general ruling class. So, by persecuting her on also baseless grounds — there’s no evidence against her — who can say what the Trump administration and the federal government are willing to do next to anyone, regardless of their immigration status?”
Muckraking New York Journalist Tom Robbins Dies at 76
May 30, 2025
Longtime New York journalist and activist Tom Robbins died on Tuesday at the age of 76. For over four decades, Robbins’s work exposed the dark side of New York institutions, including corrupt politicians and landlords, and abuse inside prisons. He wrote for The Village Voice, City Limits, The New York Times and The City. Click here to see our interviews with him.
Texas Observer Founder Ronnie Dugger Dies at 95
May 30, 2025
Image Credit: Courtesy Niccolò Caranti
In Texas, Ronnie Dugger, the founder and longtime publisher of the Austin-based Texas Observer, died this week at the age of 95. The Texas Observer, which started in 1954, exposed political corruption and racism in Texas and championed antiwar and civil rights struggles. Dugger and his reporting has been credited with helping catalyze a progressive movement in Texas.
Renowned Kenyan Author and Academic Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o Dies at 87
May 30, 2025
The renowned Kenyan author, playwright and professor Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o has died at the age of 87. Over six decades, he chronicled Kenya’s transition from a British colony to independence. Thiong’o’s work landed him in jail and in exile as he wrote searing criticisms of colonial rule, as well as the emerging independent state, which he accused of benefiting elites at the expense of Kenyan society. In 2010, Democracy Now! interviewed him in our studio after he’d just released his memoir, “Dreams in a Time of War.”
Ngũgĩ wa Thiong’o: “In all the settler colonies, like Kenya, Nigeria — not Nigeria — Kenya, South Africa and Zimbabwe — Mozambique is another example, Algeria is another example — independence was won through armed struggle. In all of those, there was armed liberation movements, and the land question was at the basis of the whole struggle. So, with Kenya, we had one of the earliest anti-colonial guerrilla movements. Ours was by the name of Mau Mau.”
Click here to see our interview with him in full.
****************************************
Trump's Abuse of Pardons Undermines Entire Justice System: Reagan Official Bruce Fein
Trump’s Abuse of Pardons Undermines Entire Justice System: Reagan Official Bruce Fein
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
President Donald Trump has signed a wave of pardons for people convicted of fraud, including a Virginia sheriff who took tens of thousands of dollars in bribes and a reality TV couple who evaded millions in taxes after defrauding banks. Last month, Trump pardoned a Florida healthcare executive convicted of tax evasion for stealing nearly $11 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. Many of Trump’s pardons have gone to supporters of his or those who made political donations to the president.
“These pardons are not indiscriminate,” says constitutional lawyer Bruce Fein. “They’re targeted to help people who are politically his supporters, raise money for him or otherwise.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.
We end today’s show with a slew of pardons President Trump has issued, many this past week. In one case, Trump pardoned Scott Jenkins, a former Virginia sheriff and longtime Trump supporter, convicted on corruption charges after undercover video showed he accepted over $75,000 in bribes.
In another case, Trump pardoned the former reality show couple Todd and Julie Chrisley after they were sentenced to long prison terms for evading taxes and defrauding banks of more than $30 million. The couple’s daughter helped campaign for Trump. She requested the appeal on Fox News.
This comes as Trump loyalist Ed Martin has a new role as the Justice Department’s pardon attorney, after he failed to win Senate approval to become District of Columbia’s top prosecutor.
For more, we go to Washington, D.C. We’re joined by Bruce Fein, constitutional lawyer, former associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan, author of Constitutional Peril: The Life and Death Struggle for Our Constitution and Democracy.
Bruce, thanks so much for joining us. Why don’t you go through these pardons with us? Talk about the Virginia sheriff, talk about the reality TV couple, what they were imprisoned for, and what it means that they’ve been freed, not to mention fines worth millions of dollars being forgiven.
BRUCE FEIN: Well, in the two cases you mentioned, the sheriff was convicted of basically using his office to raise money through bribes, $75,000, to give favors to friends. The other case concerned tax evasion and fraud, the kinds of crimes that Mr. Trump himself has been under attack for.
I think that if you look in the broader sense, Mr. Trump is trying to create an aura of incredulity about the legitimacy of the criminal justice system, at least with regard to the pardons of these slew of white-collar offenses, and sometimes they’re political allies, as well. We just learned today in the newspapers a former congressman, former governor of Connecticut also pardoned. And I think that Mr. Trump recognizes that he’s losing overwhelmingly in the courts now, and that’s why he’s even turning on the Federalist Society and Leonard Leo, because he believes when he loses in the United States Supreme Court, he’s going to need a political reason for why he’s losing, and he’s trying to cast aspersion, I believe, on the legitimacy of the entire justice system. That’s why these pardons are not indiscriminate, because they’re targeted to help people who are politically his supporters, raise money for him or otherwise, which is very dangerous.
I want to add this: The framers understood the possibility that the pardon power would be abused. There was an exchange in the Virginia ratification debate between James Madison and George Mason. And Mr. Madison, when Mr. Mason said, “Well, what if the president uses his pardon power to help his political friends? That could be very, very dangerous. Why are we endowing the president with such pardon power?” — and Mr. Madison said, “Well, if the president uses pardons to help his political friends or personal friends, certainly the House will impeach, and he will be removed from Congress,” because it’s very difficult for an individual citizen, you or me, to have standing to challenge a pardon.
Unfortunately, Congress has turned into an ink blot. It has no spine. And so, that remedy is gone, which I think underscores the importance, if we’re going to have any kind of pushback, of public opinion saying we need the law to be enforced even-handedly.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to ask you about Paul Walczak. In April, President Trump pardoned him, the Florida healthcare executive convicted of tax evasion for stealing nearly $11 million in payroll taxes from the paychecks of doctors and nurses. The jury found him guilty after prosecutors showed he used the money to finance a lavish lifestyle. Walczak is the son of Betsy Fago, a healthcare entrepreneur and Republican Party donor. Trump pardoned Walczak three weeks after Fago attended a million-dollar-a-plate fundraiser at Mar-a-Lago. And he also pardoned or forgave the fine of something like $4 million that he’d have to pay in addition to serving time in jail. The significance of this, Bruce?
BRUCE FEIN: Well, at least it has the appearance of bribery. You’re raising money, and then, shortly after you raise money, then comes the pardon. And we know at least one of the offenses that justifies impeachment is bribery, even if it’s indirect. I think this is very dangerous.
But I want to underscore, Mr. Trump is not the first one who’s abused the pardon power. He’s had to take it a different scale, I think. We have Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. We have, remember, Marc Rich and William Jefferson Clinton and Roger Clinton. And even George H.W. Bush, he pardoned the Iran-Contra defendants, including Cap Weinberger. So it’s been abused before, but it’s taken to a scale now where it threatens to undermine the entire legitimacy of the criminal justice system.
And you mentioned earlier Ed Martin, which is really quite alarming, since Mr. Martin said, “I am going to use my position not to just go after people I think committed crimes, but to stigmatize them. Even if we can’t convict them, we want to harass them, make them lose their reputation.” It’s a danger that Justice Robert Jackson, a former attorney general, warned against in 1940, because the laws are very vague. And here we have a member of the Justice Department saying, “We’re coming after you, even if we can’t prove that you’re guilty of a crime, just to harass you and give you a bad name.” That clearly is an abuse of the obligation to faithfully execute the laws. Typically, you have an obligation in the Justice Department not even to begin an indictment unless you believe you can prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. And now we have a very, very low threshold for beginning an investigation, that probably will go nowhere other than tarnish reputations.
AMY GOODMAN: Well, Bruce Fein, I want to thank you very much for being with us. You mentioned Martin. Politico reports Martin spent his first week on the job reviewing pardon applications of January 6 insurrectionists, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, seeking to have President Trump convert their commuted sentences into full pardons. Bruce Fein is a constitutional lawyer, former Reagan attorney, was associate deputy attorney general and general counsel of the Federal Communications Commission under President Ronald Reagan.
***************************
As Courts Battle Trump on Tariffs, Will Right-Wing Supreme Court Rescue President’s Trade Agenda?
As Courts Battle Trump on Tariffs, Will Right-Wing Supreme Court Rescue the President’s Trade Agenda?
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
President Donald Trump has vowed to go to the Supreme Court to keep his tariffs in place after a whirlwind 24 hours that saw a court temporarily reinstate the measures, soon after two courts blocked most of the tariffs, saying Trump overstepped his presidential authority. Trump has been infuriated by the legal challenges and lashed out on social media against the Federalist Society and conservative legal activist Leonard Leo. We get an update from Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice and an expert on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act that Trump has invoked to justify his global tariffs. She says the fate of Trump’s tariffs remain uncertain, given that the powers available under the IEEPA “have to be used to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, and they cannot be used for any other reason.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: This is Democracy Now!, democracynow.org. I’m Amy Goodman.
We turn now to Trump’s sweeping global tariffs, after a whirlwind 24 hours that saw a federal appeals court Thursday temporarily reinstate the tariffs just a day after the U.S. Court of International Trade blocked most of the tariffs, arguing Trump overstepped his presidential authority by invoking emergency powers. Prior to Thursday’s appeals court order reinstating for a few minutes these tariffs, a federal court in Washington, D.C., also blocked Trump’s tariffs, though that ruling won’t go into effect for another two weeks. The Trump administration has vowed to bring the legal fight to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In its ruling, the New York-based Court of International Trade said the U.S. Constitution gave Congress exclusive powers to regulate trade with other nations, and that a 1977 law cited by Trump to invoke the tariffs, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, did not give him the authority to levy the sweeping import taxes.
President Trump denounced the attempts by the courts to block his tariffs in a lengthy Truth Social rant Thursday night that also targeted Leonard Leo, who, as a top member of the conservative Federalist Society, played a vital role in influencing Trump’s judicial picks during his first term, including the selection of three far-right Supreme Court justices. Trump wrote, quote, “Hopefully, the Supreme Court will reverse this horrible, Country threatening decision, QUICKLY and DECISIVELY. Backroom 'hustlers' must not be allowed to destroy our Nation! I was new,” Trump went on to say, “to Washington, and it was suggested that I use The Federalist Society as a recommending source on Judges. I did so, openly and freely, but then realized that they were under the thumb of a real 'sleazebag' named Leonard Leo, a bad person who, in his own way, probably hates America, and obviously has his own separate ambitions.” Trump went on to say, “I am so disappointed in The Federalist Society because of the bad advice they gave me on numerous Judicial Nominations. This is something that cannot be forgotten!” Trump wrote on social media, on Truth Social.
For more, we go to Washington, D.C., where we’re joined by Elizabeth Goitein, co-director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, expert on the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, the law Trump has invoked to justify his global tariffs.
Welcome back to Democracy Now!, Elizabeth. OK, if you can respond to everything? First, explain what this court is that overturned the tariffs, said, “You can’t use this law,” and then even who Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society, who many may be shocked that Trump has turned on, given he helped choose three of the Trump appointees who were confirmed to the Supreme Court.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Sure. So, there are actually two courts that have now rejected Trump’s attempt to use emergency powers to essentially bypass Congress and impose worldwide tariffs. One of those courts is a regular federal district court here in Washington, D.C., and another court is called the Court of International Trade, which is a specialized federal court that hears challenges to laws involving trade or customs. The Court of International Trade heard the case with a three-judge panel, so we now have had four different judges, two of whom were appointed by Republican presidents, including one Trump appointee, and two of whom were appointed by a Democratic president. And all of them — so the Court of International Trade panel was unanimous — held that Trump exceeded the authority provided to him under law by imposing these tariffs.
AMY GOODMAN: And so, go more deeply into this 1977 law and what it means to invoke an emergency.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Sure. The law is called the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, and it is one of the 150 laws that become available when the president declares a national emergency. IEEPA requires the president not only to declare a national emergency, but also the powers that are available under IEEPA have to be used to deal with an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security, foreign policy or economy of the United States, and they cannot be used for any other reason.
IEEPA has historically been used to impose economic sanctions against hostile foreign actors. It forms the basis for dozens of existing sanctions regimes, including our sanctions against Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. But it has never previously been used to impose tariffs. And that is because, while IEEPA includes a long list of powers that the president can exercise, that list does not include the words “tariffs,” “taxes” or “duties.” So, the government is instead arguing that language in IEEPA that allows the president to regulate economic transactions, including imports and exports, should be read to sort of impliedly authorize tariffs against every country in the world. And that’s —
AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask —
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: That is what the courts rejected.
AMY GOODMAN: The three-judge panel of the trade court also blocked a separate set of tariffs against China, Mexico and Canada, which the Trump administration had imposed over what it claimed was a flow of illicit drugs and undocumented immigrants into the United States.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Right. And there was actually a separate reasoning for blocking those tariffs. So, when it came to the worldwide tariffs, essentially, what the court said is that the government was claiming unlimited power to impose whatever tariffs that the president thought would be appropriate, and that that was such a massive sort of takeover of the powers that the Constitution gives to Congress. So, Congress, under Article I, has the authority — in fact, it’s the first power listed under Congress’s powers — to impose tariffs. And if you read IEEPA to allow the president to make up his own mind about what tariffs should be imposed on what countries, that would be unconstitutionally transferring Congress’s power to the president.
The fentanyl tariffs that you mentioned, against China, Mexico and Canada, were more limited, and so there was a different argument that was made in that case. What the plaintiffs argued was that under IEEPA, the powers have to be exercised to deal with an unusual or extraordinary threat and that the tariffs in this case were such a total mismatch to the threat that had been identified, the threats of fentanyl trafficking and human trafficking and illegal immigration, that it just didn’t meet the criteria for IEEPA. Now, in —
AMY GOODMAN: So —
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: — this case —
AMY GOODMAN: I’m going to interrupt — go ahead. Go ahead.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: OK. Well, this is really important, which is why I’m not letting you interrupt me yet. What the government argued in this case was that no court can question the president’s decision that his actions under IEEPA are dealing with an unusual and extraordinary threat. And the Court of International Trade rejected this claim entirely. The court said that these criteria in the statute are clear and that the courts are capable of interpreting and applying them, and that the supremacy of the law requires that courts must be able to intervene when a president acts outside of the law. So, that was a very important part of the ruling that will have salience far beyond this immediate case.
AMY GOODMAN: So, you have Trump officials calling this a “judicial coup.” They’re going to take it to the Supreme Court. What do you see happening?
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Well, I think it might take a little while, because there are several other lawsuits pending across the country on the tariffs, and there will be decisions in the lower courts, and then they will go up to the appellate courts. The appellate courts will have their chance to rule. Yes, this is headed toward the Supreme Court in the next term for the Supreme Court.
And, you know, I don’t think anyone can predict exactly what will happen, but I will point out that one of the arguments that the — or, one of the reasons that the Court of International Trade gave for holding that IEEPA does not authorize tariffs was because such a reading of IEEPA would violate the major questions doctrine. And that is a doctrine that the Supreme Court has really embraced in these last few years. Under this doctrine, any executive branch action, executive branch actions that have major political or economic significance, must be clearly authorized by Congress. It has to be explicit. It cannot be a vague or ambiguous provision that is being interpreted to grant that power. That is certainly the case with the government’s interpretation of IEEPA. So, there’s a strong argument on a — based on a doctrine that the Supreme Court has very much endorsed.
AMY GOODMAN: And before the Supreme Court, could the tariffs be blocked again? We just have 20 seconds.
ELIZABETH GOITEIN: Yes, it is possible. It’s also possible — and, I would argue, probably likely — that the courts will continue to stay these decisions and allow the tariffs to go forward pending appeal. But I wouldn’t bet a lot of money on that. It’s very unpredictable.
AMY GOODMAN: Elizabeth Goitein, I want to thank you so much for being with us, co-director of Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice.
*************************
“Worse Than McCarthyism”: Historian Ellen Schrecker on Trump’s War Against Universities & Students
“Worse Than McCarthyism”: Historian Ellen Schrecker on Trump’s War Against Universities & Students
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
May 30, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/5/30/ ... transcript
[youtube]-- "Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump"
-- "Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America"
--"The Right To Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom"
-- "A Tumultuous Spring Semester Finally Comes to a Close"[/youtube]
We speak with esteemed historian scholar Ellen Schrecker about the Trump administration’s assault on universities and the crackdown on dissent, a climate of fear and censorship she describes as “worse than McCarthyism.”
“During the McCarthy period, it was attacking only individual professors and only about their sort of extracurricular political activities on the left. … Today, the repression that’s coming out of Washington, D.C., it attacks everything that happens on American campuses,” says Schrecker. “The damage that the Trump administration is doing is absolutely beyond the pale and has never, never been equaled in American life with regard to higher education.”
Schrecker is the author of many books about the McCarthy era, Cold War politics and right-wing attacks on academic freedom. Her recent piece for The Nation is headlined “Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump.”
Transcript
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
AMY GOODMAN: President Trump’s crackdown on academic institutions in the United States was the focus of protests and commencement speeches this week as universities like Harvard held commencement ceremonies.
The Trump administration has now directed federal agencies to review all remaining contracts with Harvard, after it already canceled nearly $3 billion in federal research grants for the university and moved last week to revoke its ability to enroll international students. Harvard has two separate suits pending against Trump, arguing the moves violate due process, as well as free speech protections under the First Amendment because they target the university’s staff, curriculum and enrollment.
In his address at Harvard’s commencement ceremony Thursday, Stanford University professor, doctor and novelist Abraham Verghese praised the school’s defiance of Trump and spoke to students facing threats of deportation or having their visas revoked.
DR. ABRAHAM VERGHESE: When legal immigrants and others who are lawfully in this country, including so many of your international students, worry about being wrongly detained and even deported, perhaps it’s fitting that you hear from an immigrant like me. Perhaps it’s fitting that you hear from someone who was born in Ethiopia when it was ruled by an emperor, someone who then lived under the harsh military leader who overthrew the emperor, someone who had at least — who had at least one his medical school classmates tortured and disappear. … More than a quarter of the physicians in this country are foreign medical graduates. … So, a part of what makes America great, if I may use that phrase, is that it allows an immigrant like me to blossom here, just as generations of other immigrants and their children have flourished and contributed in every walk of life, working to keep America great.
AMY GOODMAN: That’s the novelist and medical doctor, Ethiopian Indian American, Dr. Abraham Verghese addressing Harvard’s commencement ceremony on Thursday. His latest book, The Covenant of Water.
Meanwhile, down the road in Cambridge, the Indian American class president at MIT, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, spoke about how MIT’s undergraduate body and Graduate Student Union had voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with Israel. Megha Vemuri wore a red-and-white keffiyeh and said MIT students would never support a genocide, and praised them for continuing to protest despite, quote, “threats, intimidation and suppression coming from all directions, especially,” she said, “your own university officials.”
MEGHA VEMURI: Last spring, MIT’s undergraduate body and Graduate Student Union voted overwhelmingly to cut ties with the genocidal Israeli military. You called for a permanent cease fire in Gaza, and you stood in solidarity with the pro-Palestine activists on campus. You faced threats, intimidation and suppression coming from all directions, especially your own university officials. But you prevailed, because the MIT community that I know would never tolerate a genocide.
Right now while we prepare to graduate and move forward with our lives, there are no universities left in Gaza. We are watching Israel try to wipe Palestine off the face of the Earth, and it is a shame that MIT is a part of it. The Israeli occupation forces are the only foreign military that MIT has research ties with. This means that Israel’s assault on the Palestinian people is not only aided and abetted by our country, but our school. As scientists, engineers, academics and leaders, we have a commitment to support life, support aid efforts and call for an arms embargo and keep demanding now, as alumni, that MIT cuts the ties.
AMY GOODMAN: That was MIT class president Megha Vemuri, now Indian American graduate of MIT.
This comes as Jelani Cobb, the dean of Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism — another school facing attacks by the Trump administration — writes for The New Yorker magazine this week about how, quote, “Academic freedom in the United States has found itself periodically under siege.” In his piece headlined “A Tumultuous Spring Semester Finally Comes to a Close,” he describes how he consulted with Ellen Schrecker, a historian and the author of No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, along with other deans at Columbia. They spoke about government repression on college campuses in the 1950s through to the present. Schrecker told him, quote, “I’ve studied McCarthyism’s impact on higher education for 50 years. What’s happening now is worse,” he quoted her saying.
Well, we begin today with Ellen Schrecker in person, joining us in our New York studio. She’s the author of Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities. Schrecker is also the author of The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom. And she just wrote a piece for The Nation headlined “Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump.” Schrecker has been active in the American Association of University Professors, AAUP, since the 1990s. I should note she has three degrees from Radcliffe Harvard and formerly taught there. She’s a graduate of Radcliffe 1960.
Ellen Schrecker, welcome to Democracy Now! It’s great to have you with us. As we look at these universities under attack, you’ve studied higher education for over half a century. Let’s talk about what was happening then and what’s happening today.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: OK. The main thing that happened then to universities was that about a hundred faculty members, most of them with tenure, were fired and blacklisted. That happened in every major institution of civil society within the United States. And although the universities pride themselves on academic freedom — whatever that means — they collaborated with the forces of repression through — that were actively imposing a climate of fear and self-censorship throughout American society.
Today, what’s happening is worse, so much worse that we have to really find a new phrase for it. I don’t know what it’ll be. But during the McCarthy period, it was attacking only individual professors and only about their sort of extracurricular political activities on the left, in the past and in the present, then present. Today, the repression that’s coming out of Washington, D.C., it attacks everything that happens on American campuses.
AMY GOODMAN: I’d like you to start off — we have a very young audience. We also have their parents and their grandparents around the world. And I’d like you to start off by talking about who McCarthy is. What do we mean by the McCarthyism of, for example, the 1950s?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: OK, that’s a very good way to start, because McCarthyism, unfortunately, is misnamed. It is not just the career of Senator Joseph McCarthy, who came in onto the stage of history in 1950 after the “ism” that he gave his name to had been really dominating American domestic politics since the late 1940s. ’47 is when the Truman administration imposed a loyalty test, an anti-communist loyalty test, on its employees.
So, if we wanted to name this phenomenon of political repression, anti-communist political repression — and I want to specify that it didn’t attack randomly people on the left, but very specifically people who had some kind of connection, usually in the past, with the communist movement, that during the 1930s and ’40s was the most dynamic force on the left, even though it was a very flawed, very flawed political group. It was nonetheless very influential on the left. And if we wanted to give that political repression of the 1940s and ’50s a name, it should have been Hooverism, after the FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover.
AMY GOODMAN: You know, the movie Good Night and Good Luck, they showed real black-and-white footage of McCarthy, and test audiences thought he was too harsh, unrealistic, not realizing it was actual footage. And now you have Good Night and Good Luck on Broadway, George Clooney starring in it, and it is the financially most successful Broadway show we’ve seen, is going to be now for free on CNN in a few days. But the significance of that, that that — what people feel today was a cartoon character was, in fact, much harsher and sharper than people ever dreamed?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Yeah, he was beyond the pale, because, like the current president, he had no guardrails, as it were.
AMY GOODMAN: Not to mention Roy Cohn, his sidekick in the hearings, who would later go on to mentor Donald Trump, until, at the very end of his life, Donald Trump rejected him when he was dying of AIDS.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Exactly. So, there are lots of similarities with the fact that there’s this very aberrant character at the heart, or at the sort of public heart, of this repressive movement. But what we should have known in the '40s and ’50s, and should know now, is it's not just a one-man show. It has been this moment of trying to crack down on dissent, constitutional dissent, free speech, the ability to say what Israel is doing in Gaza is a terrible thing. That is something that has been building up for decades. And that was the same thing during McCarthyism. There was a kind of network of right-wing activists, similar to groups today, like the Heritage Society, that brought us the 2025 Project blueprint for Trump’s attack on the institutions of civil liberties and civil society, that has come to fruition since he entered the White House.
AMY GOODMAN: So, I mean, you speak as a Jewish author, active member of the American Association of University Professors. Would you say that the McCarthyism of yesteryear is the charges that President Trump, with his sidekick Elon Musk giving the “Heil Hitler” salute, charging antisemitism for what he’s doing?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Antisemitism is a pretext. We know that. Trump has been all his life a racist, clearly befriending these fascist individuals and groups for years. And what we’re seeing is a kind of a melding of Trump’s own right-wing proclivities, reactionary proclivities, pro-fascist proclivities, with a long-term attempt within some pro-Zionist organizations to eliminate all support for Palestinian freedom and Palestinian liberation from American universities, in particular, but from within American society.
AMY GOODMAN: You have, earlier this month, a federal judge, Geoffrey Crawford, ordering the release of Columbia University graduate, Palestinian activist Mohsen Mahdawi from a prison in Vermont. He was picked up by masked, hooded ICE agents at his naturalization interview in Vermont. He was beyond holding a green card. The judge writing in his ruling, quote, “Our nation has seen times like this before, especially during the Red Scare and Palmer Raids of 1919-1920” and during the McCarthy period of the 1950s. And I wanted to take it beyond that. You note that, you know, that we’re not just talking about individual professors anymore. We’re talking about current attacks being much broader. And you write that — this interesting paradox, quote, “despite higher education’s much larger footprint within American society, today the academy is in a much weaker position to resist political intervention.” Why is it weaker?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: It’s weaker for two reasons. One, because the state is stronger. The state does much more with regard to higher education than it did in the 1950s. You know, it supports most important basic scientific research. It regulates things on campus with regard to, shall we say, diversity, equity and inclusion, with trying to ensure that all Americans have a good shot at higher education. That was a push by the federal government. So, you can see that the government is much more involved. It funds student loans. Most smaller universities without huge endowments rely on students who have to get federal loans in order to pay tuitions. So, what he’s doing by withdrawing federal money from higher education is, essentially, threatening to destroy American higher education today.
AMY GOODMAN: I wanted to turn to the clip of Secretary of State Marco Rubio speaking in March following the arrest of the Columbia graduate student, now graduated graduate student, albeit he was in jail in Louisiana when he got his diploma at Columbia, Mahmoud Khalil.
SECRETARY OF STATE MARCO RUBIO: If you tell us, when you apply, “Hi. I’m trying to get into the United States on a student visa. I am a big supporter of Hamas, a murderous, barbaric group that kidnaps children, that rapes teenage girls, that takes hostages, that allows them to die in captivity, that returns more bodies than live hostages,” if you tell us that you are in favor of a group like this, and if you tell us when you apply for your visa, “And by the way, I intend to come to your country as a student and rile up all kinds of anti-Jewish student, antisemitic activities. I intend to shut down your universities,” if you told us all these things when you applied for a visa, we would deny your visa. I hope we would. If you actually end up doing that, once you’re in this country on such a visa, we will revoke it. And if you end up having a green card — not citizenship, but a green card — as a result of that visa while you’re here and those activities, we’re going to kick you out.
AMY GOODMAN: Of course, the Trump administration not proven any of this. And a number of students have been released from prison, with very angry judges talking about “Where are the grounds for these people to be imprisoned?” Mahmoud Khalil has been now imprisoned for three months as his little baby was born here in New York. If you can talk about what this leads to, these kind of harsh attacks, when it comes to speech and when it comes to universities? You were just addressing the deans at Columbia University. Some compare Harvard not fighting — Harvard fighting back against the Trump administration, and Columbia conceding, and the pressure it’s put on its students.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Yeah, this has been a constant in the history of American higher education to collaborate with political repression. They, universities, do not fight back. They didn’t fight back during the McCarthy period. They’re not — were not fighting back, until this miracle. It really was a miracle, totally unexpected, of the president at Harvard saying, “No, I cannot go along with what you were asking.” And what they were —
AMY GOODMAN: The Jewish president at Harvard, right?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: He’s Jewish, right.
AMY GOODMAN: Alan Garber, who President Trump is accusing of antisemitism.
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Well, of course, we’re all antisemites, as long as we feel that maybe you shouldn’t be killing babies in Gaza every day.
But what we’re seeing is the beginning of a pushback against what Trump is doing, what his entire apparatus of hoodlums, I think, is trying to do to the universities. And that wonderful quote you had from Secretary of State Rubio, when he said, you know, paraphrasing these supposed terrorists, that they wanted to shut down the universities, he’s doing more to shut down the universities than probably anybody else in America at this moment.
AMY GOODMAN: Threatening to revoke the visas of all —
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Exactly.
AMY GOODMAN: — international students. What about the role of your organization, the AAUP, the American Association of University Professors?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Right. We are a group that is over a hundred years old. And when we were founded, it was a period very much like today, where outsiders, politicians and especially very wealthy businesspeople on boards of trustees, were interfering with what faculty members were saying and doing with regard to — at that point, there was a lot of labor unrest and attempts to create unions. And university professors were sort of saying, “Well, look at the working conditions under which American workers are being oppressed. Let’s do something about industrial accidents and things like that.” Today, we’re seeing that, in every way, the federal government, state legislators interfering with the academic work of university professors. And that is what my organization is trying to do, is to protect the integrity and the educational value of what goes on on American campuses.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you hold out hope, in this last minute we have together?
ELLEN SCHRECKER: Yes, because, unfortunately, we have no model we can follow from McCarthyism, because there was no pushback, but today we’re seeing people marching to commencement at Harvard wearing labels saying, you know, “Enough is enough, President Trump. “We’re seeing huge crowds showing up to welcome Mohsen coming back from Vermont after having been picked up by ICE.
We’re seeing a growing movement within civil society, that has to be maintained, and has to be maintained for years. I mean, the damage that the Trump administration is doing is absolutely beyond the pale and has never, never been equaled in American life with regard to higher education. So, we’ve got to get out there in the trenches and even begin to think some more about: OK, if they’re not paying attention to the judges, if the Supreme Court folds — and let us pray that it does not — what do we have to do?
AMY GOODMAN: We’re going to have to leave it there, Ellen Schrecker, author of Many Are the Crimes: McCarthyism in America, No Ivory Tower: McCarthyism and the Universities, also the author of The Right to Learn: Resisting the Right-Wing Attack on Academic Freedom. We’ll link to your piece in The Nation headlined “Worse Than McCarthyism: Universities in the Age of Trump,” as well as Jelani Cobb’s piece in The New Yorker that extensively quotes you, Ellen Schrecker, at democracynow.org.
When we come back, President Trump vows to go to the Supreme Court to keep his tariffs in place, even though court after court is challenging them. We’ll get an update from the Brennan Center in 30 seconds. Thanks so much for being with us.
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Fri May 30, 2025 7:39 pm
Warren, Sanders, Wyden Open Investigation Into Whether Paramount Is Engaging in Bribery With Trump for Approval of $8 Billion Megamerger. Yesterday, President of CBS News, Subsidiary of Paramount, Departed Amid Tensions with Trump and Paramount Global Chair Shari Redstone
Elizabeth Warren PRESS RELEASE
May 20, 2025
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... megamerger
Text of Letter (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to Shari Redstone, Chair of Paramount Global (Paramount), with concerns regarding whether Paramount may be engaging in potentially illegal conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media (Skydance).
In October 2024, President Trump, in his capacity as a private citizen, sued Paramount subsidiary CBS over alleged “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.” In March 2025, CBS filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the suit “an affront to the First Amendment and … without basis in law or fact.” Now, Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights. Paramount is reportedly in talks to settle the lawsuit, with President Trump potentially profiting from the settlement.
The senators are pushing Paramount to answer why the company has suddenly changed its tune with respect to the lawsuit, concerned that it may be because Paramount and Skydance’s agreement to merge for $8 billion hinges on the Trump Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has an opportunity to block it.
“Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the Administration in order to secure merger approval,” wrote the senators.
In addition to reportedly attempting to settle the suit, Paramount also appears to have begun meddling with CBS’s content, “presumably in order to screen it for content that could anger the Trump Administration.”
A 60 Minutes correspondent told viewers, “Our parent company Paramount is trying to complete a merger. The Trump Administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.” This has prompted CBS resignations, including by the CBS News President, Wendy McMahon, who resigned just yesterday.
“If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law,” wrote the senators.
Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. To determine whether Paramount is acting in accordance with anti-bribery laws, the senators are requesting answers from the company.
********************************
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
May 19, 2025
Shari Redstone
Chair
Paramount Global
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Dear Ms. Redstone:
We write to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Global (Paramount) may be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media (Skydance). Paramount appears to be trying to settle1 a lawsuit that it has assessed as “completely without merit,” and moderating the content of its programs in order to obtain approval of this merger.2 Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act.3 If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law. We request information regarding whether Paramount is making concessions to President Trump in exchange for favorable action by his Administration.
In October 2024, President Trump, in his capacity as a private citizen, sued Paramount subsidiary CBS over alleged “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.”4 According to Trump, CBS purposefully edited its 60 Minutes interview with presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris in a manner that unfairly boosted Harris’s presidential campaign. CBS responded that Trump’s claims were “false,” and that the lawsuit was “completely without merit and [the network would] vigorously defend against it.”5 In March 2025, CBS filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the suit “an affront to the First Amendment and … without basis in law or fact.”6 Legal experts have affirmed this position, calling Trump’s lawsuit a “misapplication” of the law and an “outrageous violation of First Amendment principles.”7
Now, Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights. Months before Trump sued CBS, Paramount and Skydance announced an agreement to merge for $8 billion.8 Because the merger will involve the transfer of ownership of CBS broadcast licenses, the Trump Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review the deal and has an opportunity to block it.9 Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the Administration in order to secure merger approval. FCC Chair Brendan Carr stated President Trump’s CBS lawsuit was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction,” and Paramount is reportedly in talks to settle the lawsuit.10 President Trump may personally profit from the settlement, as the suit seeks damages for Trump himself, rather than his campaign.11 Then-candidate Trump originally sought $10 billion in damages, and then increased the number to $20 billion after he took office in 2025.12 Paramount’s lawyers appear to be in negotiations to lower the amount.13
In addition, Paramount appears to have begun overseeing CBS’s content, presumably in order to screen it for content that could anger the Trump Administration. A 60 Minutes correspondent told viewers, “our parent company Paramount is trying to complete a merger. The Trump Administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.”14 In addition, reports have surfaced that Paramount “decided to delay and significantly alter” a Daily Show project to encourage civic participation across the country, “noting internally that the associations with partisan groups carried too much risk at a moment when Trump and his [FCC] have been criticizing coverage at … CBS News.”15 CBS’s content moderation has prompted network executives to resign from their positions. Last month, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned from the program, telling staff, “over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”16 At the time, President of CBS News and Stations Wendy McMahon praised Owens’ decision, and just this week, she, too abruptly announced she was stepping down from her role at CBS, saying, “it’s
become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.”17 Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct.
Paramount’s apparent capitulation to President Trump is a sharp contrast from its earlier position that it would “vigorously defend against” the lawsuit. To help determine whether Paramount is acting in accordance with our nation’s anti-bribery laws and maintaining journalistic integrity, we ask that you answer the following questions by June 2, 2025:
1. Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?
2. Have you, any other executives, and/or Board Members discussed settling the lawsuit? If so, please provide information regarding the timing, nature of, and participants in these discussions, including whether the pending merger with Skydance was discussed.
3. Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?
4. Please describe any changes to Paramount’s mediation of 60 Minutes content made to facilitate approval of Paramount’s pending merger with Skydance.
5. Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?
6. Will Paramount request 60 Minutes to change its content in any way to facilitate approval of the merger? Please describe in what ways.
7. What other actions is Paramount taking to facilitate approval of its pending merger with Skydance?
8. Specifically, have Paramount officials discussed settling the lawsuit or making other concessions with President Trump or Trump Administration officials in the context of the merger approval?
9. Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.
Sincerely,
__________________
Elizabeth Warren
United States Senator
__________________
Bernard Sanders
United States Senator
__________________
Ron Wyden
United States Senator
***********************
Trump THROWS Himself UNDER BUS in BS Lawsuit
Katie Phang
May 30, 2025
Trump whines about his “mental anguish” in pressure campaign on CBS News. Katie Phang on the latest in that lawsuit and why Paramount’s settlement might be federal bribery.
Transcript
Oh oh I'm sorry. i just fell out of my
chair when I read the latest news about
Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS News
and 60 Minutes because of the interview
that 60 Minutes did during the campaign
with Kamala Harris why did I fall out of my
chair cuz I was laughing so hard that I
literally fell out of my chair why well
in response to the motion to dismiss
that was filed by CBS in federal court
in Texas Donald Trump's lawyers filed
the following their response and
opposition to the motion to dismiss
alleged that Donald Trump as a quote
content creator okay just you know
because being president of the United
States we all know that's a fallacy so
Donald Trump's status as a quote content
creator was damaged by attention given
to the interview that was done by 60
Minutes with Kamala Harris and this is the
part that really made me laugh my ass
off donald Trump suffered quote mental
anguish mental anguish due to CBS News's
editing of the 60 Minutes interview that
was done now remember if we've always
talked on the Katie Fang News Channel
about the lawyers for Trump and how they
sell their soul to the devil when they
represent such a pos [piece of shit] Well Trump's
lawyer um letting it all hang out there
put his borrower license and his uh and
his name on uh a filing that alleges
this quote
this led to widespread confusion and
mental anguish of consumers including
plaintiffs that being Donald Trump
regarding a household name of the legacy
media apparently deceptively distorting
its broadcast and then resisting
attempts to clear the public record so
in other words Donald Trump and the
other plaintiffs sustained mental
anguish as well as consumers public
consumers people watching that interview
because 60 Minutes as Legacy Media was
deceptively distorting its
broadcasts because they were misled
voters withheld attention from Trump and
his truth social platform
trump as a media icon quote unquote that
was the definition or the description
given by his lawyers by the way it's not
like anybody agrees with that trump was
quote forced to redirect significant
time money and effort to correcting the
public
record last I checked Trump allegedly
won the 2024 presidential election bro
needs to move the on because the
way that he hangs on
what he perceives as being slight or
things that happened during the campaign
and the way that Kamala Harris lives
rent-free in this man's
brain it's a I think it's a case study
for narcissistic personalities as well
as some type of
psychosis but why is this important well
obviously because there's this lawsuit
that's pending against CBS News and
we've been reading media reports about
Paramount the parent company so
Paramount's up here is the parent
company and below it is a company that
is CBS News and Paramount as the parent
company is in negotiations with Donald
Trump to be able to settle his lawsuit
that was brought in federal court in
Texas and it's a 20 billion lawsuit
that's been brought by Donald Trump $20
billion and you've heard the allegations
all of which are
but here's the thing according to media
reports and this is the Wall Street
Journal Paramount Global in recent days
has offered $15 million to settle
however Trump's team wants more than $25
million and is also seeking an apology
from CBS News so let's just stop for a
second let me give you some inside
baseball as a lawyer so Trump sues for
20 billion trump could have sued for a
hundred billion he could have sued for a
dollar but when it comes to settlement
each side can settle to the extent that
they want but they have to reach an
agreement right that's the settlement
it's a difference between a judge ruling
on the merits of the case or a jury
reaching a verdict on the merits of the
case in my opinion 25 million is way off
of 20 billion but that's neither here
nor there but the fact that Paramount
Global has offered to settle with a
penny is wild and in in just a few
minutes I'll get into a little bit of
some strategy as to why you settle even
if you have a good case but here's the
other thing apparently Trump's team has
also threatened another lawsuit against
CBS related to its quote alleged bias of
its news
coverage and apparently they went to a
quote tentative mediation session that
was yesterday but because of all of this
drama there have been some really
highlevel exits and very noteworthy that
you have probably noticed have happened
one CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon said
"Peace out because I'm not going to have
CBS News apologize for they did nothing
wrong." So why is that going to be a
bone of contention to settle and two we
also know that um the longtime executive
producer of 60 Minutes that he said "I'm
not staying here either because there's
just way too much involvement and
editorial control and pressure from the
higherups over how we're going to run C
uh 60 Minutes." But I wanted to bring
this also to your attention because
we're all paying attention to this
because of the fact that Disney settled
a defamation lawsuit in December of 2024
to the tune of $15 million made payable
to Trump's presidential foundation or
his
museum and they agreed to pay 1 million
in legal fees to Trump's lawyers and
remember that was because Trump
sued ABC News George Stephanopoulos and
again Disney's the parent company and
below is a subsidiary company ABC News
and we were all disgusted when Disney
decided to settle that in December of
2024 in January of this year Meta Mark
Zuckerberg's platform agreed to pay 25
million to settle a 2021 lawsuit from
Trump after Meta suspended Trump's
accounts following the January 6
insurrection in February X I still call
it Twitter agreed to pay about $10
million to settle a similar lawsuit and
now we hear that there are settlement
talks between Paramount and Trump now
the other thing I wanted to to kind of
go over with you guys is the
following cbs
News in its response to the lawsuit that
was filed by Donald Trump has made it
clear that it did nothing wrong cbs News
has said that not only does this violate
the First Amendment and thus it's an
unconstitutional attempt to infringe on
the free right to speech but that this
broadcast was commercial speech it was
it was excuse me it was not commercial
speech it was news programming it was
not it it was news pro programming it
was newsworthy and so it's afforded
protections by the First Amendment and
the network has also said CBS has also
said that the 60 Minutes the edits they
were not deceptive in fact the entirety
of the Kla Harris response to the
question that was posed to
her half of it the first part was shown
on Face the Nation in the preview and
the second was actually aired during the
show's broadcast so if logic is if CBS
or 60 Minutes was trying to hide
something wouldn't they actually edit
out versus playing the entirety the
fact that it was played in part here and
in part there doesn't mean that it was
edited deceptively um because I don't
know when you put the two together you
get the whole but
anyway the reason why that's important
is right
now portions of CBS's fighting back is
actually being used against Paramount
and again we'll get into that in just a
second but let's talk about forum let's
talk about where this lawsuit is pending
because that's also relevant to not only
whether this case settles but why it
might be at a position to settle
although the biggest reason is because
of a pending merger with Paramount and
uh another company but let's talk about
where it is the case is currently in
federal district court in Texas and who
is one of my favorite federal judges
that I love to talk about that is such
a anyway his name is Matt Casmar he's a
federal judge and all he does is rule in
Trump's favor really and it's crazy
because the forum shopping that happens
is so egregious everybody who is a
Trumpup supporting proTrump litigation
they want to be in front of this judge
he's in this random small area um and
he's like the only federal judge and
people want to bring their lawsuits
there so what did CBS do well
CBS basically said this case should not
be in Texas this case should actually be
in another jurisdiction it should be in
New York and so you know what Donald
Trump did he amended his lawsuit and he
added Representative Ronnie Jackson
remember the White House
physician you know Ronnie Jackson well
he was named as a plaintiff in the
lawsuit and the reason why is he wanted
to be able to see if the court would
agree that jurisdiction would be in
Texas versus somewhere else so the
gamesmanship is very big but really the
fact that it's in front of Cas Merrick
look CBS may be thinking even though
it's fighting this lawsuit and Paramount
I guess is really thinking maybe we need
to settle this lawsuit and the reason
why is because Casmar is going to play
favorites with Trump put his thumb on
the scale and so we're going to get
adverse rulings and so maybe it makes
sense that before we get totally nailed
that we get out oh but wait there's more
right folks and this is what it
is the Freedom of the Press Foundation
is a shareholder of Paramount so
Paramount as a company it's a public
company right it has shareholders and
the Freedom of the Press Foundation has
informed Paramount Global executives
that if Paramount settles with Trump
over this lawsuit against CBS
that it's going to file a lawsuit and
it's going to be a derivative lawsuit
and so I want you guys to check out the
Freedom of the Press Foundation letter
that was sent but it makes it really
clear shareholders of a company can sue
it's a derivative lawsuit meaning the
shareholders they sue the company of
which they are a shareholder when its
executives or its directors do something
wrong or they do something improper in
this instance if the executives and the
directors and the officers of Paramount
Global decide to settle a
lawsuit the derivative lawsuit that's
going to be brought by the shareholders
including the Freedom of the Press
Foundation is going to be big and it's
going to be big because they are worried
not only about the precedent that it's
setting especially as a Freedom of the
Press Foundation but they're also saying
"Look this is a lawsuit you
shouldn't be settling this and we c
certainly shouldn't be paying Donald
Trump money for a lawsuit." And
then here's where it complicates things
even more for Paramount Global on May
19th of this year Elizabeth Warren
Senator Warren Senator Bernie Sanders
and Senator Ron Weiden sent this
fantastic letter to Sherry Redstone who
is the chair of Paramount Global and
she's the one who's been pushing the
settlement in this case and they say "We
write to express serious concern
regarding the possibility that Paramount
Global may be engaging in quote improper
conduct involving the Trump
administration in exchange for approval
of its mega merger with Sky Dance
Media." Paramount appears to be trying
to settle a lawsuit that it has assessed
as quote completely without merit end
quote and moderating the content of its
programs in order to obtain approval of
this merger under the federal bribery
statute it is illegal to corruptly give
anything of value to public officials to
influence an official act if Paramount
officials make these concessions in a
quidd proquo arrangement to influence
President Trump or other administration
officials they may be breaking the law
and then the letter goes on to basically
say I want you to answer these questions
Paramount Global there's nine of them
and they're on page three of this
four-page letter and you have to answer
these questions by June 2nd and one of
the questions is has Paramount evaluated
the risk of shareholder derivative
litigation from settling the lawsuit
remember we talked about a derivative
lawsuit that's being brought by the
shareholders if they settle in another
question I thought was relevant for you
guys specifically have Paramount
officials discussed settling the lawsuit
or making other concessions with
President Trump or Trump administration
officials in the context of the merger
approval i
mean Senator War Senator Widen and
Senator Bernie Sanders they are not
mincing words here it is a quid proquo
that Paramount is seeking hey Donald if
we settle our lawsuit with you even if
you've brought a lawsuit your
administration will greenlight approve
stamp whatever you want to call it our
mega merger with Sky Dance and it's a
big merger guys it's a lot of effing
money look it's gross how transactional
this is starting to
stink transactional quid proquo is a
Donald Trump onbrand specialty we've
seen quid pro running the quid proquo
running the gamut from I don't know
Zillinsky remember the perfect call with
Zalinsky i mean it is the pardon
pipeline we've talked about on the Katy
Fang News Channel i mean this is some
serious stuff here because this is a
destruction the wholesale destruction of
the fourth estate the independence of
the media when you have the capitulation
and the bending the knee of major news
sources out of fear of extortion threats
bribery
um you know this is not the way that
we're supposed to have our media be
which is why independent media is so
important we have no corporate overlords
in independent media i don't have
somebody telling me that I cannot say
these things to you the way that I am
telling you and it's not just my
delivery it's the truth i am reading to
you and I am giving you the information
so that you have the knowledge because
knowledge is power as I always say we're
going to watch this lawsuit
carefully again I fell out of my chair
laughing my ass off this idea that
Donald Trump has sustained some version
of emotional uh distress or because of
this of the editing um that was not
deceptive by 60 minutes i mean please
you know don't insult the intelligence
of the American people we know you live
in a state of emotional torture Donald
Trump because one number one you're a
convicted felon number two you are the
taco toddler and number three I guess I
could just keep on going right you're
just a big effing
baby be mad be
outraged outraged demand accountability
i'll see you on the other side katie
Fang here the truth matters now more
than ever so hit that subscribe button
so you don't miss a thing
Elizabeth Warren PRESS RELEASE
May 20, 2025
https://www.warren.senate.gov/newsroom/ ... megamerger
“If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law.”
Text of Letter (PDF)
Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) wrote to Shari Redstone, Chair of Paramount Global (Paramount), with concerns regarding whether Paramount may be engaging in potentially illegal conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media (Skydance).
In October 2024, President Trump, in his capacity as a private citizen, sued Paramount subsidiary CBS over alleged “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.” In March 2025, CBS filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the suit “an affront to the First Amendment and … without basis in law or fact.” Now, Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights. Paramount is reportedly in talks to settle the lawsuit, with President Trump potentially profiting from the settlement.
The senators are pushing Paramount to answer why the company has suddenly changed its tune with respect to the lawsuit, concerned that it may be because Paramount and Skydance’s agreement to merge for $8 billion hinges on the Trump Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC), which has an opportunity to block it.
“Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the Administration in order to secure merger approval,” wrote the senators.
In addition to reportedly attempting to settle the suit, Paramount also appears to have begun meddling with CBS’s content, “presumably in order to screen it for content that could anger the Trump Administration.”
A 60 Minutes correspondent told viewers, “Our parent company Paramount is trying to complete a merger. The Trump Administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.” This has prompted CBS resignations, including by the CBS News President, Wendy McMahon, who resigned just yesterday.
“If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law,” wrote the senators.
Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act. To determine whether Paramount is acting in accordance with anti-bribery laws, the senators are requesting answers from the company.
********************************
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
May 19, 2025
Shari Redstone
Chair
Paramount Global
1515 Broadway
New York, NY 10036
Dear Ms. Redstone:
We write to express serious concern regarding the possibility that media company Paramount Global (Paramount) may be engaging in improper conduct involving the Trump Administration in exchange for approval of its megamerger with Skydance Media (Skydance). Paramount appears to be trying to settle1 a lawsuit that it has assessed as “completely without merit,” and moderating the content of its programs in order to obtain approval of this merger.2 Under the federal bribery statute, it is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act.3 If Paramount officials make these concessions in a quid pro quo arrangement to influence President Trump or other Administration officials, they may be breaking the law. We request information regarding whether Paramount is making concessions to President Trump in exchange for favorable action by his Administration.
In October 2024, President Trump, in his capacity as a private citizen, sued Paramount subsidiary CBS over alleged “partisan and unlawful acts of election and voter interference.”4 According to Trump, CBS purposefully edited its 60 Minutes interview with presidential candidate Vice President Kamala Harris in a manner that unfairly boosted Harris’s presidential campaign. CBS responded that Trump’s claims were “false,” and that the lawsuit was “completely without merit and [the network would] vigorously defend against it.”5 In March 2025, CBS filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, calling the suit “an affront to the First Amendment and … without basis in law or fact.”6 Legal experts have affirmed this position, calling Trump’s lawsuit a “misapplication” of the law and an “outrageous violation of First Amendment principles.”7
1 The Guardian, “Host of CBS’s 60 Minutes rebukes corporate owners Paramount on-air,” Jessica Glenza, April 28, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/media/2025/ ... ott-pelley.
2 CBS News, “A statement from 60 Minutes,” October 31, 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-statemen ... -minutes/; Politico, “‘60 Minutes’ calls out ownership on air,” David Cohen, April 27, 2025, https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/27/60- minutes-calls-out-paramount-on-air-00312122.
3 18 U.S.C. 201.
4 Trump v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., p. 1, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... sting-inc/.
5 CBS News, “A statement from 60 Minutes,” October 31, 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/a-statemen ... 0-minutes/.
6 The Guardian, “Paramount files to dismiss Trump’s ‘baseless’ $20bn 60 Minutes suit,” Marina Dunbar, March 7, 2025, https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... mp-lawsuit.
7 CBS News, “Trump sues CBS News over 60 Minutes interview with Harris; network says suit is ‘completely without merit’,” October 31, 2024, https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-sues ... interview/.
Now, Paramount appears to be walking back its commitments to defend CBS’s First Amendment rights. Months before Trump sued CBS, Paramount and Skydance announced an agreement to merge for $8 billion.8 Because the merger will involve the transfer of ownership of CBS broadcast licenses, the Trump Administration’s Federal Communications Commission (FCC) must review the deal and has an opportunity to block it.9 Paramount appears to be attempting to appease the Administration in order to secure merger approval. FCC Chair Brendan Carr stated President Trump’s CBS lawsuit was “likely to arise in the context of the FCC review of [the Paramount-Skydance] transaction,” and Paramount is reportedly in talks to settle the lawsuit.10 President Trump may personally profit from the settlement, as the suit seeks damages for Trump himself, rather than his campaign.11 Then-candidate Trump originally sought $10 billion in damages, and then increased the number to $20 billion after he took office in 2025.12 Paramount’s lawyers appear to be in negotiations to lower the amount.13
In addition, Paramount appears to have begun overseeing CBS’s content, presumably in order to screen it for content that could anger the Trump Administration. A 60 Minutes correspondent told viewers, “our parent company Paramount is trying to complete a merger. The Trump Administration must approve it. Paramount began to supervise our content in new ways.”14 In addition, reports have surfaced that Paramount “decided to delay and significantly alter” a Daily Show project to encourage civic participation across the country, “noting internally that the associations with partisan groups carried too much risk at a moment when Trump and his [FCC] have been criticizing coverage at … CBS News.”15 CBS’s content moderation has prompted network executives to resign from their positions. Last month, 60 Minutes executive producer Bill Owens resigned from the program, telling staff, “over the past months, it has become clear that I would not be allowed to run the show as I have always run it, to make independent decisions based on what was right for ‘60 Minutes,’ right for the audience.”16 At the time, President of CBS News and Stations Wendy McMahon praised Owens’ decision, and just this week, she, too abruptly announced she was stepping down from her role at CBS, saying, “it’s
become clear that the company and I do not agree on the path forward.”17 Paramount’s scheme to curry favor with the Trump Administration has compromised journalistic independence and raises serious concerns of corruption and improper conduct.
8 Paramount, “Skydance Media and Paramount Global Sign Definitive Agreement to Advance Paramount as a World-Class Media and Technology Enterprise,” press release, July 7, 2024, https://ir.paramount.com/news-releases/ ... -agreement.
9 Federal Communications Commission, “Skydance Media and Paramount Global, MB Docket No. 24-275,” https://www.fcc.gov/transaction/skydance-paramount.
10 New York Post, “Trump’s FCC pick Brendan Carr says ‘60 Minutes’ editing scandal could affect Paramount-Skydance merger review,” Taylor Herzlich, November 20, 2024, https://nypost.com/2024/11/20/business/ ... ngscandal- could-affect-paramount-skydance-merger/.
11 Trump v. CBS Broadcasting Inc., Amended Complaint, February 7, 2025, p. 57, https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69 ... sting-inc/.
12 Axios, “CBS moves to dismiss $20 billion Trump lawsuit,” Sara Fischer, May 6, 2025, https://www.axios.com/2025/03/06/cbs-fi ... mp-lawsuit.
13 Los Angeles Times, “Trump amends CBS ‘60 Minutes’ lawsuit and demands $20 billion,” Meg James, February 8, 2025, https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-a ... emands-20- billion; Variety, “Shari Redstone’s Impossible Choice: She Can’t Save Both ‘60 Minutes’ and Paramount Global,” Brian Steinberg, May 2, 2025, https://variety.com/2025/tv/news/shari- ... 236384851/.
14 Deadline, “‘60 Minutes’ Does Segment Explaining Departure Of Executive Producer Bill Owens: ‘Paramount Began To Supervise Our Content In New Ways’,” Ted Johnson, April 27, 2025, https://deadline.com/2025/04/60-minutes ... -cbstrump- 1236378451/.
15 Semafor, “Paramount cuts ties with political groups working on ‘Daily Show’ project,” Max Tani, May 4, 2025, https://www.semafor.com/article/05/04/2 ... ow-project.
16 The New York Times, “‘60 Minutes’ Chief Resigns in Emotional Meeting: ‘The Company Is Done With Me’,” Michael M. Grynbaum and Benjamin Mullin, April 22, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/busi ... trumpbill- owens.html.
17 The New York Times, “Head of CBS News to Depart Amid Tensions With Trump,” Michael M. Grynbaum, Benjamin Mullin and Lauren Hirsch, May 19, 2025, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/19/busi ... ndymcmahon. html.
Paramount’s apparent capitulation to President Trump is a sharp contrast from its earlier position that it would “vigorously defend against” the lawsuit. To help determine whether Paramount is acting in accordance with our nation’s anti-bribery laws and maintaining journalistic integrity, we ask that you answer the following questions by June 2, 2025:
1. Does Paramount believe the lawsuit filed by then-candidate Trump against CBS has merit?
2. Have you, any other executives, and/or Board Members discussed settling the lawsuit? If so, please provide information regarding the timing, nature of, and participants in these discussions, including whether the pending merger with Skydance was discussed.
3. Has Paramount evaluated the risk of shareholder derivative litigation from settling the lawsuit?
4. Please describe any changes to Paramount’s mediation of 60 Minutes content made to facilitate approval of Paramount’s pending merger with Skydance.
5. Has 60 Minutes made changes to its content at the request of anyone at Paramount to facilitate approval of the merger?
6. Will Paramount request 60 Minutes to change its content in any way to facilitate approval of the merger? Please describe in what ways.
7. What other actions is Paramount taking to facilitate approval of its pending merger with Skydance?
8. Specifically, have Paramount officials discussed settling the lawsuit or making other concessions with President Trump or Trump Administration officials in the context of the merger approval?
9. Does Paramount have any policies and procedures related to compliance with 18 U.S.C. 201 and any other laws governing public corruption? If so, please provide a copy of those policies and procedures.
Sincerely,
__________________
Elizabeth Warren
United States Senator
__________________
Bernard Sanders
United States Senator
__________________
Ron Wyden
United States Senator
***********************
Trump THROWS Himself UNDER BUS in BS Lawsuit
Katie Phang
May 30, 2025
Trump whines about his “mental anguish” in pressure campaign on CBS News. Katie Phang on the latest in that lawsuit and why Paramount’s settlement might be federal bribery.
Transcript
Oh oh I'm sorry. i just fell out of my
chair when I read the latest news about
Donald Trump's lawsuit against CBS News
and 60 Minutes because of the interview
that 60 Minutes did during the campaign
with Kamala Harris why did I fall out of my
chair cuz I was laughing so hard that I
literally fell out of my chair why well
in response to the motion to dismiss
that was filed by CBS in federal court
in Texas Donald Trump's lawyers filed
the following their response and
opposition to the motion to dismiss
alleged that Donald Trump as a quote
content creator okay just you know
because being president of the United
States we all know that's a fallacy so
Donald Trump's status as a quote content
creator was damaged by attention given
to the interview that was done by 60
Minutes with Kamala Harris and this is the
part that really made me laugh my ass
off donald Trump suffered quote mental
anguish mental anguish due to CBS News's
editing of the 60 Minutes interview that
was done now remember if we've always
talked on the Katie Fang News Channel
about the lawyers for Trump and how they
sell their soul to the devil when they
represent such a pos [piece of shit] Well Trump's
lawyer um letting it all hang out there
put his borrower license and his uh and
his name on uh a filing that alleges
this quote
this led to widespread confusion and
mental anguish of consumers including
plaintiffs that being Donald Trump
regarding a household name of the legacy
media apparently deceptively distorting
its broadcast and then resisting
attempts to clear the public record so
in other words Donald Trump and the
other plaintiffs sustained mental
anguish as well as consumers public
consumers people watching that interview
because 60 Minutes as Legacy Media was
deceptively distorting its
broadcasts because they were misled
voters withheld attention from Trump and
his truth social platform
trump as a media icon quote unquote that
was the definition or the description
given by his lawyers by the way it's not
like anybody agrees with that trump was
quote forced to redirect significant
time money and effort to correcting the
public
record last I checked Trump allegedly
won the 2024 presidential election bro
needs to move the on because the
way that he hangs on
what he perceives as being slight or
things that happened during the campaign
and the way that Kamala Harris lives
rent-free in this man's
brain it's a I think it's a case study
for narcissistic personalities as well
as some type of
psychosis but why is this important well
obviously because there's this lawsuit
that's pending against CBS News and
we've been reading media reports about
Paramount the parent company so
Paramount's up here is the parent
company and below it is a company that
is CBS News and Paramount as the parent
company is in negotiations with Donald
Trump to be able to settle his lawsuit
that was brought in federal court in
Texas and it's a 20 billion lawsuit
that's been brought by Donald Trump $20
billion and you've heard the allegations
all of which are
but here's the thing according to media
reports and this is the Wall Street
Journal Paramount Global in recent days
has offered $15 million to settle
however Trump's team wants more than $25
million and is also seeking an apology
from CBS News so let's just stop for a
second let me give you some inside
baseball as a lawyer so Trump sues for
20 billion trump could have sued for a
hundred billion he could have sued for a
dollar but when it comes to settlement
each side can settle to the extent that
they want but they have to reach an
agreement right that's the settlement
it's a difference between a judge ruling
on the merits of the case or a jury
reaching a verdict on the merits of the
case in my opinion 25 million is way off
of 20 billion but that's neither here
nor there but the fact that Paramount
Global has offered to settle with a
penny is wild and in in just a few
minutes I'll get into a little bit of
some strategy as to why you settle even
if you have a good case but here's the
other thing apparently Trump's team has
also threatened another lawsuit against
CBS related to its quote alleged bias of
its news
coverage and apparently they went to a
quote tentative mediation session that
was yesterday but because of all of this
drama there have been some really
highlevel exits and very noteworthy that
you have probably noticed have happened
one CBS News CEO Wendy McMahon said
"Peace out because I'm not going to have
CBS News apologize for they did nothing
wrong." So why is that going to be a
bone of contention to settle and two we
also know that um the longtime executive
producer of 60 Minutes that he said "I'm
not staying here either because there's
just way too much involvement and
editorial control and pressure from the
higherups over how we're going to run C
uh 60 Minutes." But I wanted to bring
this also to your attention because
we're all paying attention to this
because of the fact that Disney settled
a defamation lawsuit in December of 2024
to the tune of $15 million made payable
to Trump's presidential foundation or
his
museum and they agreed to pay 1 million
in legal fees to Trump's lawyers and
remember that was because Trump
sued ABC News George Stephanopoulos and
again Disney's the parent company and
below is a subsidiary company ABC News
and we were all disgusted when Disney
decided to settle that in December of
2024 in January of this year Meta Mark
Zuckerberg's platform agreed to pay 25
million to settle a 2021 lawsuit from
Trump after Meta suspended Trump's
accounts following the January 6
insurrection in February X I still call
it Twitter agreed to pay about $10
million to settle a similar lawsuit and
now we hear that there are settlement
talks between Paramount and Trump now
the other thing I wanted to to kind of
go over with you guys is the
following cbs
News in its response to the lawsuit that
was filed by Donald Trump has made it
clear that it did nothing wrong cbs News
has said that not only does this violate
the First Amendment and thus it's an
unconstitutional attempt to infringe on
the free right to speech but that this
broadcast was commercial speech it was
it was excuse me it was not commercial
speech it was news programming it was
not it it was news pro programming it
was newsworthy and so it's afforded
protections by the First Amendment and
the network has also said CBS has also
said that the 60 Minutes the edits they
were not deceptive in fact the entirety
of the Kla Harris response to the
question that was posed to
her half of it the first part was shown
on Face the Nation in the preview and
the second was actually aired during the
show's broadcast so if logic is if CBS
or 60 Minutes was trying to hide
something wouldn't they actually edit
out versus playing the entirety the
fact that it was played in part here and
in part there doesn't mean that it was
edited deceptively um because I don't
know when you put the two together you
get the whole but
anyway the reason why that's important
is right
now portions of CBS's fighting back is
actually being used against Paramount
and again we'll get into that in just a
second but let's talk about forum let's
talk about where this lawsuit is pending
because that's also relevant to not only
whether this case settles but why it
might be at a position to settle
although the biggest reason is because
of a pending merger with Paramount and
uh another company but let's talk about
where it is the case is currently in
federal district court in Texas and who
is one of my favorite federal judges
that I love to talk about that is such
a anyway his name is Matt Casmar he's a
federal judge and all he does is rule in
Trump's favor really and it's crazy
because the forum shopping that happens
is so egregious everybody who is a
Trumpup supporting proTrump litigation
they want to be in front of this judge
he's in this random small area um and
he's like the only federal judge and
people want to bring their lawsuits
there so what did CBS do well
CBS basically said this case should not
be in Texas this case should actually be
in another jurisdiction it should be in
New York and so you know what Donald
Trump did he amended his lawsuit and he
added Representative Ronnie Jackson
remember the White House
physician you know Ronnie Jackson well
he was named as a plaintiff in the
lawsuit and the reason why is he wanted
to be able to see if the court would
agree that jurisdiction would be in
Texas versus somewhere else so the
gamesmanship is very big but really the
fact that it's in front of Cas Merrick
look CBS may be thinking even though
it's fighting this lawsuit and Paramount
I guess is really thinking maybe we need
to settle this lawsuit and the reason
why is because Casmar is going to play
favorites with Trump put his thumb on
the scale and so we're going to get
adverse rulings and so maybe it makes
sense that before we get totally nailed
that we get out oh but wait there's more
right folks and this is what it
is the Freedom of the Press Foundation
is a shareholder of Paramount so
Paramount as a company it's a public
company right it has shareholders and
the Freedom of the Press Foundation has
informed Paramount Global executives
that if Paramount settles with Trump
over this lawsuit against CBS
that it's going to file a lawsuit and
it's going to be a derivative lawsuit
and so I want you guys to check out the
Freedom of the Press Foundation letter
that was sent but it makes it really
clear shareholders of a company can sue
it's a derivative lawsuit meaning the
shareholders they sue the company of
which they are a shareholder when its
executives or its directors do something
wrong or they do something improper in
this instance if the executives and the
directors and the officers of Paramount
Global decide to settle a
lawsuit the derivative lawsuit that's
going to be brought by the shareholders
including the Freedom of the Press
Foundation is going to be big and it's
going to be big because they are worried
not only about the precedent that it's
setting especially as a Freedom of the
Press Foundation but they're also saying
"Look this is a lawsuit you
shouldn't be settling this and we c
certainly shouldn't be paying Donald
Trump money for a lawsuit." And
then here's where it complicates things
even more for Paramount Global on May
19th of this year Elizabeth Warren
Senator Warren Senator Bernie Sanders
and Senator Ron Weiden sent this
fantastic letter to Sherry Redstone who
is the chair of Paramount Global and
she's the one who's been pushing the
settlement in this case and they say "We
write to express serious concern
regarding the possibility that Paramount
Global may be engaging in quote improper
conduct involving the Trump
administration in exchange for approval
of its mega merger with Sky Dance
Media." Paramount appears to be trying
to settle a lawsuit that it has assessed
as quote completely without merit end
quote and moderating the content of its
programs in order to obtain approval of
this merger under the federal bribery
statute it is illegal to corruptly give
anything of value to public officials to
influence an official act if Paramount
officials make these concessions in a
quidd proquo arrangement to influence
President Trump or other administration
officials they may be breaking the law
and then the letter goes on to basically
say I want you to answer these questions
Paramount Global there's nine of them
and they're on page three of this
four-page letter and you have to answer
these questions by June 2nd and one of
the questions is has Paramount evaluated
the risk of shareholder derivative
litigation from settling the lawsuit
remember we talked about a derivative
lawsuit that's being brought by the
shareholders if they settle in another
question I thought was relevant for you
guys specifically have Paramount
officials discussed settling the lawsuit
or making other concessions with
President Trump or Trump administration
officials in the context of the merger
approval i
mean Senator War Senator Widen and
Senator Bernie Sanders they are not
mincing words here it is a quid proquo
that Paramount is seeking hey Donald if
we settle our lawsuit with you even if
you've brought a lawsuit your
administration will greenlight approve
stamp whatever you want to call it our
mega merger with Sky Dance and it's a
big merger guys it's a lot of effing
money look it's gross how transactional
this is starting to
stink transactional quid proquo is a
Donald Trump onbrand specialty we've
seen quid pro running the quid proquo
running the gamut from I don't know
Zillinsky remember the perfect call with
Zalinsky i mean it is the pardon
pipeline we've talked about on the Katy
Fang News Channel i mean this is some
serious stuff here because this is a
destruction the wholesale destruction of
the fourth estate the independence of
the media when you have the capitulation
and the bending the knee of major news
sources out of fear of extortion threats
bribery
um you know this is not the way that
we're supposed to have our media be
which is why independent media is so
important we have no corporate overlords
in independent media i don't have
somebody telling me that I cannot say
these things to you the way that I am
telling you and it's not just my
delivery it's the truth i am reading to
you and I am giving you the information
so that you have the knowledge because
knowledge is power as I always say we're
going to watch this lawsuit
carefully again I fell out of my chair
laughing my ass off this idea that
Donald Trump has sustained some version
of emotional uh distress or because of
this of the editing um that was not
deceptive by 60 minutes i mean please
you know don't insult the intelligence
of the American people we know you live
in a state of emotional torture Donald
Trump because one number one you're a
convicted felon number two you are the
taco toddler and number three I guess I
could just keep on going right you're
just a big effing
baby be mad be
outraged outraged demand accountability
i'll see you on the other side katie
Fang here the truth matters now more
than ever so hit that subscribe button
so you don't miss a thing
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga
by admin » Sat May 31, 2025 12:15 am
Trump's Pardon Of Social Security Thief Puts The Lie To His Claim That He "Protects Social Security"
Glenn Kirschner
May 30, 2025
Donald Trump's crime, corruption, abuse of power, and abuse office hits us daily like a firehose. It can be hard to grab hold of and focus on any one corrupt act, which is precisely why he floods the zone with corruption.
This video takes on a particularly offensive corrupt pardon to a guy who stole social security, medicare and medicaid money. Paul Walczak pleaded guilty to his crimes, was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $4.4 million in restitution. But after Paul's mother, Elizabeth Betsy Fago attended a one million dollar a plate Mara-a-Lago fundraiser, Trump pardoned her son, shortly before he was to report to prison to begin serving his term. Adding insult to injury, the pardon negated the court's order that Walczak pay restitution for the money he stole from Social Security - the money he stole from the American people.
Transcript
So friends you want to see how one
Donald Trump pardon puts the lie to
three Donald Trump
promises most notably his promise to
protect Social
Security well wait until you hear about
Donald Trump's pardon of Social Security
thief Paul Walszac
let's talk about that because justice
[Music]
matters hey all Glen Kersner here so
friends there is so much crime and
corruption and abuse of power and abuse
of office by Donald Trump day after day
after day it can be really hard to grab
hold of and focus on any one act of
corruption but that's what I want to try
to do today but first if you'll indulge
me just 30 seconds of housekeeping as
you may know here at Justice Matters
we're an allv volunteer operation we're
up and running seven days a week posting
a legal analysis video every day with
the exception of the last seven days
when I have been battling this dang flu
but I'm happy to report I have finally
put it behind me even though my voice
might suggest that I'm not fully out of
the woods I feel about
95% better and I'm ready to get fully
back in the saddle each and every day
but we couldn't do these daily videos
without your support so if you're
inclined to more formally support our
all volunteer efforts our mission our
content please feel free to come on over
to
patreon.com you can sign up to become a
patron and if you do I will send you
some team justice and justice matters
stickers and a personal handwritten note
of thanks
now let's turn to the Paul Walzac pardon
because it's an effing
doozy let's start with the new reporting
this from the Palm Beach Post headline:
Trump pardoned tax cheat Paul Walszac
after $1 million donation from mother
Betsy
Fargo and that article begins "A former
nursing home executive who stole
millions in employee payroll taxes used
the funds to bankroll a luxury lifestyle
and was sentenced to federal prison
walked free last month thanks to a
presidential pardon widely viewed as a
reward for political loyalty."
Paul Walszac 55 evaded more than 10.9
million in federal payroll taxes while
running a South Florida healthc care
empire with his mother longtime GOP
fundraiser Elizabeth Betsy Fogo
prosecutors said he siphoned money from
the paychecks of nurses doctors and
administrative staff between 2016 and
2019 to fund private jets high-end
shopping and a $2 million yacht on April
23rd 2 weeks after a federal judge
sentenced Wallac to 18 months in prison
President Donald Trump granted him a
full and unconditional pardon the
president's decision spared Walszac from
nearly $4.4 million in
restitution and overrode the judge's
warning that wealth and power should not
exempt anyone from prison according to
the New York Times the pardon of Paul
Walzac followed
Fogo's that would be Paul Walszac's
mommy
my editorial
edition the pardon followed Fogo's
attendance at a $1 million per person
dinner fundraiser at Trump's Mara Lago
estate in Palm
Beach okay friends so let's
recap paul Walsac stole upwards of $10
million in social security money
Medicare money and Medicaid money money
that he had withheld from the earnings
of his employees and he stole it by
keeping it rather than giving it to the
federal government as the law requires
then he used that money to treat himself
to private jets he bought a $2 million
yacht he took himself out on expensive
shopping
excursions
but he got
caught and the investigators the agents
the detectives the officers also known
as the blue the police the folk who
investigated the crimes of Paul Walzac
they put together such a strong case
that Paul Walszac pleaded guilty in
federal court you know what that looks
like before a federal judge will accept
a guilty plea from a defendant the judge
places the defendant under oath subject
to the penalties of perjury and that
defendant has to swear under oath that
he or she in fact committed the crimes
to which they're pleading guilty not
that they were being railroaded not that
the DOJ had been weaponized against them
no that they are actually guilty of the
crimes paul Walszac did that he pleaded
guilty and the judge sentenced him to 18
months in prison for his crimes and
ordered him to pay restitution to the
federal government of $4.4 4 million of
that social security money he stole from
the federal government from we the
American people from the
taxpayers and he was about to report to
prison to start his prison term
but Paul's mommy Betsy Fargo paid a
million dollar to attend a Donald Trump
fundraiser and the next thing you know
little Paul receives a full
pardon no prison time
and the pardon killed the court order
directing Paul to pay
$4.4 million for the Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid money he stole
from us donald Trump's pardon of Paul
Walszac puts the lie to so much of what
Donald Trump is forever prattling on
about one I will protect Social
Security the pardon just rewarded the
guy who stole our social security money
and the pardon means he doesn't even
have to repay what he admitted he stole
two I back the
blue the blue put this case together
investigated it well exhaustively
honorably indeed they built such a
strong case against Paul Wallzac that he
had to go into court and plead guilty to
the crimes he committed and then Donald
Trump pardoned him so no Donald you
don't back the blue you disrespect the
blue you demean the blue your
pardons mock the blue mock the good men
and women of law
enforcement how about number three uh
I'm appointing Elon Musk to find the
fraud well wait wait wait wait sport we
found the fraud paul did it and he was
ordered to repay what he stole from us
the American taxpayers $4.4 million we
found the fraud it's
Paul and friends i know it is
exhausting the fire hose of Donald Trump
crime corruption abuse of power that
we're being hit with every day but
friends please don't turn
away don't disengage if you
disengage that helps Donald Trump and
none of us none of us will ever help
Donald Trump destroy
America so
engage speak out stand up stand strong
resist oppose rally march we're all in
this together and that's the way we're
going to win it that's the only way
we're going to win
it
together because
justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
*****************************
BREAKING: Trump makes SHOCKING announcement in Oval Office
Brian Tyler Cohen
May 30, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner
Legal Breakdown episode 531 - @GlennKirschner2 discusses Trump's openness to pardoning Diddy.
Transcript
[Q.] You mentioned once in 2012
that Diddy was a good friend of yours
back then He has since found himself in
some very serious legal trouble
[Donald Trump] Yeah
that's true
[Q.]Would you ever consider
pardoning him?
[Donald Trump] Well nobody's asked You had to be the
one to ask Peter but nobody's asked But
I know people are thinking about it I
know they're thinking about it I think
people have been very close to asking
First of all I' I'd look at what's
happening and I haven't been watching it
too closely although it's certainly
getting a lot of coverage Uh I haven't
seen him I haven't spoken to him in
years Um he used to really like me a lot
but I think when I ran for politics he
sort of that relationship busted up from
what I read I don't know he didn't tell
me that but I'd read some little bit
nasty statements in the paper all of a
sudden You know it's different And you
become a much different person when you
run for politics and you do what's right
I could do other things and I'm sure
he'd like me and I'm sure other people
would like me but it wouldn't be as good
for our country As we said our country
is doing really well because of what
we're doing So I can't it's not a
popularity contest So I don't know I
would certainly look at the facts If I
think somebody was mistreated uh whether
they like me or don't like me it
wouldn't have any impact on me You're
watching the legal breakdown Glenn that
was Donald Trump actually considering
pardoning Diddy Um can I have your
reaction first and foremost to this
breaking news You know Brian there are
crimes and there are crimes Not every
crime is a crime of violence Many crimes
are financial crimes fraud tax evasion
Those are bad enough but I have to
wonder if Donald Trump has paid any damn
attention to the evidence that's being
introduced at Diddy's criminal trial
What he did to some of the victims You
know these are some horrifically violent
crimes And I'll tell you it does such
disrespect and harm to victims of
violent crime to have the president of
the United States while the trial is
ongoing talk about you know what maybe
I'll pardon my friend Diddy This career
prosecutor wants to say are you effing
kidding me It's wrong in so many ways
And Brian one of the ways it's wrong is
that he is saying this while the trial
is underway Do you think there's any
chance that this will creep back into
the jury deliberation room Now let me
tell you judges instruct jurors you may
not watch the news read the paper surf
social media because I wouldn't want you
to even inadvertently come into any
information that was not properly before
you during the course of this trial like
the president of the United States
ruminating about pardoning um Diddy in
the event of a conviction It disrespects
the victims It disrespects the jurors It
disrespects the entire criminal justice
system and the process in place to hold
violent criminals accountable And I'll
tell you um if this comes to pass it
will be if you can imagine this a new
low in the pardons that are being doled
out by Donald Trump And I just have to
hope perhaps against hope that this
doesn't happen Knowing full well that
the prospect of pardoning Diddy is on
the table as far as Trump is concerned
why wouldn't the prosecutors who are
prosecuting this case just defer to
state prosecutors And why wouldn't state
prosecutors pick this up knowing that
all of these efforts to hold this this
this scumbag to account are probably
going to be for not once Donald Trump
gets his fingers in this Well listen
federal prosecutors should not defer
prosecuting cases that have a proper
what's called federal jurisdictional
hook If you are for example involved in
sex trafficking of people across state
lines that's a federal crime And the
federal authorities are generally in a
far better position particularly
resource-wise not skill-wise because the
state district attorneys are are
extremely accomplished experienced and
adept at prosecuting violent crimes and
all crimes But I like to see the federal
government actually flexing its
jurisdictional muscle and taking
responsibility and handling challenging
prosecutions that have that kind of
direct federal hook federal jurisdiction
But and certainly they're not going to
abandon it at this point because they're
mid-trial and Donald Trump is ruminating
about pardoning Diddy However remember
that anytime you commit a federal crime
you almost always also commit a state
crime And even if the federal crime ends
up in a guilty verdict a not-uilty
verdict or a pardon after a guilty
verdict the state authorities can still
consider bringing charges It's not
double jeopardy if two different
sovereigns two different jurisdictions
The federal government and a state
government bring criminal charges for
identical conduct So listen even if
there is a presidential pardon of Diddy
in the event he's convicted he will be
far from out of the woods With that said
this of course isn't the only pardon
that Donald Trump has publicly mused
about affectuating He's also brought
up the prospect of pardoning those who
were convicted regarding the kidnapping
plot against the governor of Michigan
Gretchen Whitmer So first and foremost
would the same idea apply Is this
something that the the prosecutors in
Michigan state prosecutors could take up
knowing full well that they may not see
their full uh sentences carried out
because Donald Trump uh all of a sudden
has decided that anybody who's convicted
of political violence uh uh or or who
has an R next to his or her name is
somehow innocent Yeah Brian these folks
who were convicted of this kidnapping
plot against Governor Whitmer I mean
literally they were outside her
residence at one point isting was no
joke There was evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that they committed
federal crimes and the jury convicted
them of those crimes Um if Donald Trump
were to dane to pardon them I have to
believe they violated any number of
Michigan state laws And I can't imagine
that the state authorities the state
prosecutors wouldn't go after them and
tried to hold them accountable after the
intense injustice that a presidential
pardon would represent So I also don't
think these guys would you know be in
the clear if Donald Trump pardoned them
But even more fundamentally a president
of the United States who now goes down
the road of pardoning anybody who
victimized one of his enemies one of his
perceived opponents on the political
landscape You're going to you're going
to basically announce it's open season
to commit federal crimes against any and
all Democrats I mean this is kind of
like us slouching toward the end of
American democracy as we know it And I
also think it's a sign Brian of Donald
Trump's desperation And he is becoming
weaker not stronger by the day He is
losing allies He's attacking people like
Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society
He is losing the people who have been
there supporting him And I think that
could end up ending very badly for
Donald Trump Well just rounding out this
trio of prospective pardons can you
speak about Paul Walssack and what that
would represent if he goes through with
it Yeah this is a a sort of lessernotic
pardon but it really brings into full
focus Donald Trump's lies And in fact
this one pardon proves Donald Trump to
be a liar several times over So people
need to pay attention to these kind of
nefarious pardons Let me unpack it a
little bit This guy Paul Walszac was a
health care owner and provider where
South Florida of course And what he was
doing was he was collecting social
security Medicare Medicaid money from
the earnings of his employees nurses
health care workers And you know what
you're supposed to do with that kind of
money that you collect from your
employees You're supposed to give it to
the federal government But Paul Wallzac
didn't What he did is he put it in his
own dang bank account either literally
or figuratively and treated himself to
private jets He bought a $2 million
yacht He went on expensive shopping
excursions you know all all over the
place to the tune of about $10 million
And investigators went about digging
into these crimes And they poured I'm
sure tens of thousands of investigator
hours into these crimes They built a
very strong case against Paul Walszac
for fraud for tax evasion and other
crimes So strong that Paul Walszac
pleaded guilty He admitted under oath in
federal court at the time of his plea
because people may not know when you go
in and plead guilty you're placed under
oath by the judge and you have to swear
under the penalties of perjury that
you're guilty and that you actually
committed these crimes not that you were
being railroaded or not that DOJ had
been weaponized and is forcing you to
plead guilty He pleaded guilty and then
the judge sentenced him to prison and to
pay restitution to the federal
government in in the amount of
$4.4 million Um and he was supposed to
report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons
in the coming days to begin serving his
prison sentence But Paul Walszac's mommy
went to a fundraiser at Donald Trump's
golf club gave Donald Trump a million
dollars and lo and behold Paul Walszac
is pardoned thereafter No corruption
here folks But here is what that proves
Oh and by the way the pardon not only
did away with his jail term He didn't
have to report to spend even one day
behind bars But the pardon killed the
judge's order to pay that $4.4 million
in restitution to the government to the
federal government for the Social
Security and Medicare and Medicaid money
he stole So when you see Donald Trump
who is forever saying "I protect Social
Security," it's the exact damn opposite
You just took a million dollars from
Paul's mommy You pardoned Paul and you
said "By the way you don't have to pay
that 4.4 million in Social Security
Medicaid and Medicare money that you
stole that you wrongfully kept from the
federal government Is that protecting
Social Security?" Let me ask another
question Is that backing the blue When
you have tens of thousands of law
enforcement man and woman hours officers
detectives agents and investigators
building a case and it takes years to
build the kind of case that is so strong
that an offender like Paul Walzac will
go into court and swear under oath he's
guilty And you have Donald Trump with a
sign of a pardon just all over
that police work He backs the blue No he
demeanes the blue He destroys all of the
hard honest ethical work the blue the
investigators law enforcement agents do
to try to hold these kind of folk
accountable Don't believe a damn word
out of Donald Trump's mouth about
protecting Social Security or backing
the blue Well it's not only that It's
also the fact that their whole budget
bill seeking to strip Medicaid away from
13.7 million Americans and food
assistance away to the tune of $300
billion That's all predicated on this
idea that there is this this massive
amount of fraud that's being perpetuated
and that's supposedly the thing that
we're rooting out So all of their cuts
are predicated on this idea that there's
fraud and yet at the same time you are
literally giving a get out of jail free
card to the one guy who openly admitted
to pleaded guilty to committing fraud as
it relates to to to earn benefits and
and social security Medicare and
Medicaid Like this is exactly the thing
that Republicans are pretending that
this whole budget bill is going to take
care of That's that's their whole excuse
that they're looking to use to be able
to cut all of this funding as an offset
to give themselves you know billions of
dollars in tax cuts And then we have
somebody who is an admitted criminal to
that exact tune This is exactly what he
did And yet that's the guy who gets a
get out of jail free card What message
does that send That crime pays When you
pardon crime like this you you don't
just excuse it you encourage it right
You encourage people to go ahead and
engage in this very kind of fraud
because you know if you get jammed up
you're going to have a presidential
pardon to get you out of it Yeah
perfectly put Well look there is
certainly more on this front uh as it
relates to pardons as it relates to
Donald Trump uh cozying up to any any
criminal any con man uh who's going to
you know dump money into his pocket So
we will of course stay on top of things
Uh for those who are watching if you'd
like to follow along please make sure to
subscribe The links to both of our
channels are right here on the screen
It's the best way to support our work
and to support independent media more
broadly I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and I'm
Glenn Kirschner You're watching the Legal
Breakdown
Glenn Kirschner
May 30, 2025
Donald Trump's crime, corruption, abuse of power, and abuse office hits us daily like a firehose. It can be hard to grab hold of and focus on any one corrupt act, which is precisely why he floods the zone with corruption.
This video takes on a particularly offensive corrupt pardon to a guy who stole social security, medicare and medicaid money. Paul Walczak pleaded guilty to his crimes, was sentenced to prison and ordered to pay $4.4 million in restitution. But after Paul's mother, Elizabeth Betsy Fago attended a one million dollar a plate Mara-a-Lago fundraiser, Trump pardoned her son, shortly before he was to report to prison to begin serving his term. Adding insult to injury, the pardon negated the court's order that Walczak pay restitution for the money he stole from Social Security - the money he stole from the American people.
Transcript
So friends you want to see how one
Donald Trump pardon puts the lie to
three Donald Trump
promises most notably his promise to
protect Social
Security well wait until you hear about
Donald Trump's pardon of Social Security
thief Paul Walszac
let's talk about that because justice
[Music]
matters hey all Glen Kersner here so
friends there is so much crime and
corruption and abuse of power and abuse
of office by Donald Trump day after day
after day it can be really hard to grab
hold of and focus on any one act of
corruption but that's what I want to try
to do today but first if you'll indulge
me just 30 seconds of housekeeping as
you may know here at Justice Matters
we're an allv volunteer operation we're
up and running seven days a week posting
a legal analysis video every day with
the exception of the last seven days
when I have been battling this dang flu
but I'm happy to report I have finally
put it behind me even though my voice
might suggest that I'm not fully out of
the woods I feel about
95% better and I'm ready to get fully
back in the saddle each and every day
but we couldn't do these daily videos
without your support so if you're
inclined to more formally support our
all volunteer efforts our mission our
content please feel free to come on over
to
patreon.com you can sign up to become a
patron and if you do I will send you
some team justice and justice matters
stickers and a personal handwritten note
of thanks
now let's turn to the Paul Walzac pardon
because it's an effing
doozy let's start with the new reporting
this from the Palm Beach Post headline:
Trump pardoned tax cheat Paul Walszac
after $1 million donation from mother
Betsy
Fargo and that article begins "A former
nursing home executive who stole
millions in employee payroll taxes used
the funds to bankroll a luxury lifestyle
and was sentenced to federal prison
walked free last month thanks to a
presidential pardon widely viewed as a
reward for political loyalty."
Paul Walszac 55 evaded more than 10.9
million in federal payroll taxes while
running a South Florida healthc care
empire with his mother longtime GOP
fundraiser Elizabeth Betsy Fogo
prosecutors said he siphoned money from
the paychecks of nurses doctors and
administrative staff between 2016 and
2019 to fund private jets high-end
shopping and a $2 million yacht on April
23rd 2 weeks after a federal judge
sentenced Wallac to 18 months in prison
President Donald Trump granted him a
full and unconditional pardon the
president's decision spared Walszac from
nearly $4.4 million in
restitution and overrode the judge's
warning that wealth and power should not
exempt anyone from prison according to
the New York Times the pardon of Paul
Walzac followed
Fogo's that would be Paul Walszac's
mommy
my editorial
edition the pardon followed Fogo's
attendance at a $1 million per person
dinner fundraiser at Trump's Mara Lago
estate in Palm
Beach okay friends so let's
recap paul Walsac stole upwards of $10
million in social security money
Medicare money and Medicaid money money
that he had withheld from the earnings
of his employees and he stole it by
keeping it rather than giving it to the
federal government as the law requires
then he used that money to treat himself
to private jets he bought a $2 million
yacht he took himself out on expensive
shopping
excursions
but he got
caught and the investigators the agents
the detectives the officers also known
as the blue the police the folk who
investigated the crimes of Paul Walzac
they put together such a strong case
that Paul Walszac pleaded guilty in
federal court you know what that looks
like before a federal judge will accept
a guilty plea from a defendant the judge
places the defendant under oath subject
to the penalties of perjury and that
defendant has to swear under oath that
he or she in fact committed the crimes
to which they're pleading guilty not
that they were being railroaded not that
the DOJ had been weaponized against them
no that they are actually guilty of the
crimes paul Walszac did that he pleaded
guilty and the judge sentenced him to 18
months in prison for his crimes and
ordered him to pay restitution to the
federal government of $4.4 4 million of
that social security money he stole from
the federal government from we the
American people from the
taxpayers and he was about to report to
prison to start his prison term
but Paul's mommy Betsy Fargo paid a
million dollar to attend a Donald Trump
fundraiser and the next thing you know
little Paul receives a full
pardon no prison time
and the pardon killed the court order
directing Paul to pay
$4.4 million for the Social Security
Medicare and Medicaid money he stole
from us donald Trump's pardon of Paul
Walszac puts the lie to so much of what
Donald Trump is forever prattling on
about one I will protect Social
Security the pardon just rewarded the
guy who stole our social security money
and the pardon means he doesn't even
have to repay what he admitted he stole
two I back the
blue the blue put this case together
investigated it well exhaustively
honorably indeed they built such a
strong case against Paul Wallzac that he
had to go into court and plead guilty to
the crimes he committed and then Donald
Trump pardoned him so no Donald you
don't back the blue you disrespect the
blue you demean the blue your
pardons mock the blue mock the good men
and women of law
enforcement how about number three uh
I'm appointing Elon Musk to find the
fraud well wait wait wait wait sport we
found the fraud paul did it and he was
ordered to repay what he stole from us
the American taxpayers $4.4 million we
found the fraud it's
Paul and friends i know it is
exhausting the fire hose of Donald Trump
crime corruption abuse of power that
we're being hit with every day but
friends please don't turn
away don't disengage if you
disengage that helps Donald Trump and
none of us none of us will ever help
Donald Trump destroy
America so
engage speak out stand up stand strong
resist oppose rally march we're all in
this together and that's the way we're
going to win it that's the only way
we're going to win
it
together because
justice
matters friends as always please stay
safe please stay tuned and I look
forward to talking with you all again
tomorrow
*****************************
BREAKING: Trump makes SHOCKING announcement in Oval Office
Brian Tyler Cohen
May 30, 2025 The Legal Breakdown with Glenn Kirschner
Legal Breakdown episode 531 - @GlennKirschner2 discusses Trump's openness to pardoning Diddy.
Transcript
[Q.] You mentioned once in 2012
that Diddy was a good friend of yours
back then He has since found himself in
some very serious legal trouble
[Donald Trump] Yeah
that's true
[Q.]Would you ever consider
pardoning him?
[Donald Trump] Well nobody's asked You had to be the
one to ask Peter but nobody's asked But
I know people are thinking about it I
know they're thinking about it I think
people have been very close to asking
First of all I' I'd look at what's
happening and I haven't been watching it
too closely although it's certainly
getting a lot of coverage Uh I haven't
seen him I haven't spoken to him in
years Um he used to really like me a lot
but I think when I ran for politics he
sort of that relationship busted up from
what I read I don't know he didn't tell
me that but I'd read some little bit
nasty statements in the paper all of a
sudden You know it's different And you
become a much different person when you
run for politics and you do what's right
I could do other things and I'm sure
he'd like me and I'm sure other people
would like me but it wouldn't be as good
for our country As we said our country
is doing really well because of what
we're doing So I can't it's not a
popularity contest So I don't know I
would certainly look at the facts If I
think somebody was mistreated uh whether
they like me or don't like me it
wouldn't have any impact on me You're
watching the legal breakdown Glenn that
was Donald Trump actually considering
pardoning Diddy Um can I have your
reaction first and foremost to this
breaking news You know Brian there are
crimes and there are crimes Not every
crime is a crime of violence Many crimes
are financial crimes fraud tax evasion
Those are bad enough but I have to
wonder if Donald Trump has paid any damn
attention to the evidence that's being
introduced at Diddy's criminal trial
What he did to some of the victims You
know these are some horrifically violent
crimes And I'll tell you it does such
disrespect and harm to victims of
violent crime to have the president of
the United States while the trial is
ongoing talk about you know what maybe
I'll pardon my friend Diddy This career
prosecutor wants to say are you effing
kidding me It's wrong in so many ways
And Brian one of the ways it's wrong is
that he is saying this while the trial
is underway Do you think there's any
chance that this will creep back into
the jury deliberation room Now let me
tell you judges instruct jurors you may
not watch the news read the paper surf
social media because I wouldn't want you
to even inadvertently come into any
information that was not properly before
you during the course of this trial like
the president of the United States
ruminating about pardoning um Diddy in
the event of a conviction It disrespects
the victims It disrespects the jurors It
disrespects the entire criminal justice
system and the process in place to hold
violent criminals accountable And I'll
tell you um if this comes to pass it
will be if you can imagine this a new
low in the pardons that are being doled
out by Donald Trump And I just have to
hope perhaps against hope that this
doesn't happen Knowing full well that
the prospect of pardoning Diddy is on
the table as far as Trump is concerned
why wouldn't the prosecutors who are
prosecuting this case just defer to
state prosecutors And why wouldn't state
prosecutors pick this up knowing that
all of these efforts to hold this this
this scumbag to account are probably
going to be for not once Donald Trump
gets his fingers in this Well listen
federal prosecutors should not defer
prosecuting cases that have a proper
what's called federal jurisdictional
hook If you are for example involved in
sex trafficking of people across state
lines that's a federal crime And the
federal authorities are generally in a
far better position particularly
resource-wise not skill-wise because the
state district attorneys are are
extremely accomplished experienced and
adept at prosecuting violent crimes and
all crimes But I like to see the federal
government actually flexing its
jurisdictional muscle and taking
responsibility and handling challenging
prosecutions that have that kind of
direct federal hook federal jurisdiction
But and certainly they're not going to
abandon it at this point because they're
mid-trial and Donald Trump is ruminating
about pardoning Diddy However remember
that anytime you commit a federal crime
you almost always also commit a state
crime And even if the federal crime ends
up in a guilty verdict a not-uilty
verdict or a pardon after a guilty
verdict the state authorities can still
consider bringing charges It's not
double jeopardy if two different
sovereigns two different jurisdictions
The federal government and a state
government bring criminal charges for
identical conduct So listen even if
there is a presidential pardon of Diddy
in the event he's convicted he will be
far from out of the woods With that said
this of course isn't the only pardon
that Donald Trump has publicly mused
about affectuating He's also brought
up the prospect of pardoning those who
were convicted regarding the kidnapping
plot against the governor of Michigan
Gretchen Whitmer So first and foremost
would the same idea apply Is this
something that the the prosecutors in
Michigan state prosecutors could take up
knowing full well that they may not see
their full uh sentences carried out
because Donald Trump uh all of a sudden
has decided that anybody who's convicted
of political violence uh uh or or who
has an R next to his or her name is
somehow innocent Yeah Brian these folks
who were convicted of this kidnapping
plot against Governor Whitmer I mean
literally they were outside her
residence at one point isting was no
joke There was evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that they committed
federal crimes and the jury convicted
them of those crimes Um if Donald Trump
were to dane to pardon them I have to
believe they violated any number of
Michigan state laws And I can't imagine
that the state authorities the state
prosecutors wouldn't go after them and
tried to hold them accountable after the
intense injustice that a presidential
pardon would represent So I also don't
think these guys would you know be in
the clear if Donald Trump pardoned them
But even more fundamentally a president
of the United States who now goes down
the road of pardoning anybody who
victimized one of his enemies one of his
perceived opponents on the political
landscape You're going to you're going
to basically announce it's open season
to commit federal crimes against any and
all Democrats I mean this is kind of
like us slouching toward the end of
American democracy as we know it And I
also think it's a sign Brian of Donald
Trump's desperation And he is becoming
weaker not stronger by the day He is
losing allies He's attacking people like
Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society
He is losing the people who have been
there supporting him And I think that
could end up ending very badly for
Donald Trump Well just rounding out this
trio of prospective pardons can you
speak about Paul Walssack and what that
would represent if he goes through with
it Yeah this is a a sort of lessernotic
pardon but it really brings into full
focus Donald Trump's lies And in fact
this one pardon proves Donald Trump to
be a liar several times over So people
need to pay attention to these kind of
nefarious pardons Let me unpack it a
little bit This guy Paul Walszac was a
health care owner and provider where
South Florida of course And what he was
doing was he was collecting social
security Medicare Medicaid money from
the earnings of his employees nurses
health care workers And you know what
you're supposed to do with that kind of
money that you collect from your
employees You're supposed to give it to
the federal government But Paul Wallzac
didn't What he did is he put it in his
own dang bank account either literally
or figuratively and treated himself to
private jets He bought a $2 million
yacht He went on expensive shopping
excursions you know all all over the
place to the tune of about $10 million
And investigators went about digging
into these crimes And they poured I'm
sure tens of thousands of investigator
hours into these crimes They built a
very strong case against Paul Walszac
for fraud for tax evasion and other
crimes So strong that Paul Walszac
pleaded guilty He admitted under oath in
federal court at the time of his plea
because people may not know when you go
in and plead guilty you're placed under
oath by the judge and you have to swear
under the penalties of perjury that
you're guilty and that you actually
committed these crimes not that you were
being railroaded or not that DOJ had
been weaponized and is forcing you to
plead guilty He pleaded guilty and then
the judge sentenced him to prison and to
pay restitution to the federal
government in in the amount of
$4.4 million Um and he was supposed to
report to the Federal Bureau of Prisons
in the coming days to begin serving his
prison sentence But Paul Walszac's mommy
went to a fundraiser at Donald Trump's
golf club gave Donald Trump a million
dollars and lo and behold Paul Walszac
is pardoned thereafter No corruption
here folks But here is what that proves
Oh and by the way the pardon not only
did away with his jail term He didn't
have to report to spend even one day
behind bars But the pardon killed the
judge's order to pay that $4.4 million
in restitution to the government to the
federal government for the Social
Security and Medicare and Medicaid money
he stole So when you see Donald Trump
who is forever saying "I protect Social
Security," it's the exact damn opposite
You just took a million dollars from
Paul's mommy You pardoned Paul and you
said "By the way you don't have to pay
that 4.4 million in Social Security
Medicaid and Medicare money that you
stole that you wrongfully kept from the
federal government Is that protecting
Social Security?" Let me ask another
question Is that backing the blue When
you have tens of thousands of law
enforcement man and woman hours officers
detectives agents and investigators
building a case and it takes years to
build the kind of case that is so strong
that an offender like Paul Walzac will
go into court and swear under oath he's
guilty And you have Donald Trump with a
sign of a pardon just all over
that police work He backs the blue No he
demeanes the blue He destroys all of the
hard honest ethical work the blue the
investigators law enforcement agents do
to try to hold these kind of folk
accountable Don't believe a damn word
out of Donald Trump's mouth about
protecting Social Security or backing
the blue Well it's not only that It's
also the fact that their whole budget
bill seeking to strip Medicaid away from
13.7 million Americans and food
assistance away to the tune of $300
billion That's all predicated on this
idea that there is this this massive
amount of fraud that's being perpetuated
and that's supposedly the thing that
we're rooting out So all of their cuts
are predicated on this idea that there's
fraud and yet at the same time you are
literally giving a get out of jail free
card to the one guy who openly admitted
to pleaded guilty to committing fraud as
it relates to to to earn benefits and
and social security Medicare and
Medicaid Like this is exactly the thing
that Republicans are pretending that
this whole budget bill is going to take
care of That's that's their whole excuse
that they're looking to use to be able
to cut all of this funding as an offset
to give themselves you know billions of
dollars in tax cuts And then we have
somebody who is an admitted criminal to
that exact tune This is exactly what he
did And yet that's the guy who gets a
get out of jail free card What message
does that send That crime pays When you
pardon crime like this you you don't
just excuse it you encourage it right
You encourage people to go ahead and
engage in this very kind of fraud
because you know if you get jammed up
you're going to have a presidential
pardon to get you out of it Yeah
perfectly put Well look there is
certainly more on this front uh as it
relates to pardons as it relates to
Donald Trump uh cozying up to any any
criminal any con man uh who's going to
you know dump money into his pocket So
we will of course stay on top of things
Uh for those who are watching if you'd
like to follow along please make sure to
subscribe The links to both of our
channels are right here on the screen
It's the best way to support our work
and to support independent media more
broadly I'm Brian Tyler Cohen and I'm
Glenn Kirschner You're watching the Legal
Breakdown
- admin
- Site Admin
- Posts: 37493
- Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am
Return to United States Government Crime
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest