Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Gates

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 12:28 am

https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/ ... 031025.pdf

Image

-- Mahmoud Khalil v. William P. Joyce (1:25-cv-01935), District Court, S.D. New York. Assigned To: Jesse Matthew Furman

29. Mar 12, 2025. ORDER As stated on the record during the conference held earlier today: With the consent of both parties, the Court orders that the limitations on remote access to electronic files otherwise applicable in this case, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2(c), are lifted. Accordingly, the Clerk of Court is directed to lift all viewing restrictions on the docket - i.e., to make all prior filings electronically available to the public - and to update the docket to conform with the caption of this Order. All future filings shall be publicly available unless the Court grants leave to file something under seal or in redacted form. Any application to file a document in such a manner shall be made in accordance with the Court's Individual Rules and Practices for Civil Cases, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. The Government shall file its Motion to Transfer or Dismiss for Improper Venue by 11:59 p.m. tonight. Briefing on that motion and Petitioner's Motion to Compel Respondents to Return Petitioner to this District, see ECF No. 11, shall then proceed as follows: The parties shall file their oppositions by March 14, 2025, at 11:59 p.m.; and the parties shall file their replies by March 17, 2025, at 5:00 p.m. Petitioner shall file an Amended Petition no later than March 13, 2025, at 9:00 p.m. After the Amended Petition is filed, the parties shall confer and then file a joint letter, no later than March 14, 2025, at 12:00 p.m., proposing next steps, including an expedited schedule for any additional motion practice. With the consent of the Government, Petitioner shall be granted at least one privileged attorney-client call (of at least one hour) today and at least one such call (also of at least one hour) tomorrow. The Government raised no objection to the temporary relief that the Court granted in its Notice of Conference entered on March 10, 2025. See ECF No. 9, at 1 ("To preserve the Courts jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise." (citing cases)). Accordingly, that order remains in effect. SO ORDERED. (Amended Pleadings due by 3/13/2025., Motions due by 3/12/2025., Replies due by 3/17/2025., Responses due by 3/14/2025) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/12/2025) (jca) (Entered: 03/12/2025)


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

M.K. [Mahmoud Khalil],

Petitioner,

-v-

WILLIAM P. JOYCE et al.,

Respondents.

CASE NO.: 25-CV-1935 (JMF)

NOTICE OF CONFERENCE

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:

It is hereby ORDERED that counsel for all parties appear for a conference with the Court on March 12, 2025 at 11:30 a.m. in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. Counsel must confer in advance of the conference and submit a joint letter, no later than March 11, 2025, at 5:00 p.m., indicating whether the conference is necessary and addressing how the Court should handle the present Petition. If counsel do not believe a conference is required, and that briefing is appropriate, counsel should propose a briefing schedule (expedited or otherwise) in the joint letter.

To preserve the Court’s jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition, Petitioner shall not be removed from the United States unless and until the Court orders otherwise. See, e.g., Local 1814, Intern. Longshoremen’s Ass’n, AFL-CIO v. New York Shipping Ass’n, Inc., 965 F.2d 1224, 1237 (2d Cir. 1992) (“Once the district court acquires jurisdiction over the subject matter of, and the parties to, the litigation, the All Writs Act [28 U.S.C. § 1651] authorizes a federal court to protect that jurisdiction” (cleaned up)); Garcia-Izquierdo v. Gartner, No. 04-CV-7377 (RCC), 2004 WL 2093515, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 17, 2004) (observing that, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1651, a district court “may order that a petitioner’s deportation be stayed . . . when a stay is necessary to preserve the Court’s jurisdiction of the case”); cf. Michael v. I.N.S., 48 F.3d 657, 661-62 (2d Cir. 1995) (holding that the All Writs Act provides a federal court of appeals reviewing a final removal order with a basis to stay removal).

All counsel are required to register promptly as filing users on ECF. All counsel must familiarize themselves with the Court’s Individual Rules, which are available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/judge/Furman. Absent leave of Court obtained by letter-motion filed before the conference, all pretrial conferences must be attended by the attorney who will serve as principal trial counsel.

If this case has been settled or otherwise terminated, counsel are not required to appear, provided that a stipulation of discontinuance, voluntary dismissal, or other proof of termination is filed on the docket prior to the date of the conference, using the appropriate ECF Filing Event. See SDNY ECF Rules & Instructions §§ 13.17-13.19 & App’x A, available at http://nysd.uscourts.gov/ecf_filing.php.

In accordance with the Court’s Individual Rules and Practices, requests for an extension or adjournment may be made only by letter-motion filed on ECF and must be received at least 48 hours before the deadline or conference. The written submission must state (1) the original date(s); (2) the number of previous requests for adjournment or extension; (3) whether these previous requests were granted or denied; (4) whether the adversary consents and, if not, the reasons given by the adversary for refusing to consent; and (5) the date of the parties’ next scheduled appearance before the Court. Unless counsel are notified that the conference has been adjourned, it will be held as scheduled.

No later than today, March 10, 2025, Petitioner’s counsel is directed (1) to serve Respondents with a copy of the petition and accompanying papers, along with a copy of this Order, by e-mail to the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and by overnight mail, and (2) to promptly file proof of such service on the docket. Counsel for Respondents shall promptly enter notices of appearance.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 10, 2025
New York, New York

JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

**********************

“This Is All Retaliatory”: Judge Blocks Mahmoud Khalil’s Deportation as Trump Vows More Arrests
by Amy Goodman
DemocracyNow!
March 11, 2025
https://www.democracynow.org/2025/3/11/ ... _palestine



A federal judge has blocked the deportation of recent Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, a permanent legal resident of the U.S. who was arrested by immigration authorities for helping organize campus solidarity protests with Gaza. He had been receiving daily threats stemming from an online smear campaign launched by pro-Israel activists before his arrest and repeatedly appealed to university administrators for protection. Khalil, who is a Palestinian green card holder, is married to a U.S. citizen. Upon his arrest, he was separated from his pregnant wife and transported to a detention facility in Louisiana, where legal experts say he is more likely to appear before Trump-friendly judges if his case moves forward. “Her husband was abducted before her very eyes [and] disappeared,” says Ramzi Kassem.

Kassem is the founder of the legal clinic CLEAR, which is contesting Khalil’s “baseless” detention and Louisiana transfer in New York court.
Khalil’s unprecedented arrest makes good on President Trump’s promise to punish antiwar student activists, bringing together his administration’s attacks on free speech, education and immigrant rights. It is “part and parcel” of “Trump’s racist and fascist agenda,” says immigrant rights activist Murad Awawdeh, who adds that the Columbia University administration’s lack of response to Khalil’s high-profile case has been “incredibly shameful.”

Transcript

This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.

AMY GOODMAN: A federal judge has blocked the deportation of Mahmoud Khalil, the recent Columbia University graduate who was arrested over the weekend by immigration agents for helping organize campus solidarity protests with Gaza last year. Khalil is a permanent legal resident; he has a green card. His wife is a U.S. citizen who’s eight months pregnant. Khalil was arrested Saturday at his university-owned apartment. He’s now being held in a federal jail for immigrants in Louisiana.

President Trump boasted of Khalil’s arrest, posting on social media, quote, “This is the first arrest of many to come,” unquote.


On Monday, faculty at Columbia University and Barnard College held an emergency press conference, where they were joined by rabbis and immigrant rights advocates. This is Nadia Abu El-Haj, co-director of the Center for Palestine Studies at Columbia.

NADIA ABU EL-HAJ: Mahmoud Khalil has been a public face of the student movement at Columbia-Barnard since last spring. During the encampment, he served as the lead negotiator with the Columbia administration. A mature and gentle human being and a politically sophisticated thinker, Mahmoud tried his best to bring a peaceful end to that encampment. In the same spirit, Mahmoud tried to negotiate a resolution between students and the Barnard administration last week during a sit-in at Milstein Hall.

AMY GOODMAN: Yinon Cohen is a professor of Israel and Jewish studies at Columbia University.

YINON COHEN: Rescinding visas, canceling green card and intimidating students and staff have become the tool of choice for stifling free speech and undermining the First Amendment. Columbia University includes Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs and atheists, and none of us will be safe unless we’re all safe.


AMY GOODMAN: Over a thousand protesters also gathered at Federal Plaza in New York Monday to demand Mahmoud Khalil’s release. These are some of the voices from the protest.

PROTESTERS: Hands off Mahmoud Khalil! Hands off Mahmoud Khalil! ICE off our campus now! ICE off our campus now!

LAYAN FULEIHAN: My name is Layan Fuleihan. I’m with the People’s Forum. The larger context from even before this weekend, I think, is important. The DOJ has been threatening to deport students who have stood up for the Palestinian people over the past 18 months. They have been calling them pro-Hamas. They have been saying they are antisemitic. They have been trying to demonize the students in the face of the American public. They said to Israeli media that they intend on putting these students in jail, not for 24 hours, but for years.

The Columbia administration has been cracking down on the students without even provocation from the federal government. I mean, they only lasted one day before they brought the NYPD onto campus to suppress the encampment. Columbia has absolutely been part and parcel of this crackdown on the students.

PROTESTERS: No fascist U.S.A.! No ICE!

MURAD AWAWDEH: My name is Murad Awawdeh. I am the president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition. It is incredibly shameful that our communities have to continue to endure under this fascist regime simply to deliver on a publicity stunt of a campaign called mass deportation. The message that they are trying to send, which is a deplorable one, is that no one is protected under free speech in this country anymore.

PROTESTERS: Hands off our students now! Hands off our students now!

ANNOUNCER: I’m going to call up now an experienced leader in the immigrant rights movement, Ravi from the New Sanctuary Coalition.

RAVI RAGBIR: They want to terrorize us. They want to intimidate us. This is my home. I was born in Trinidad, but this is my home. This is Khalil’s home. This is Mahmoud’s home. Right? We have been here. We are making this our community. You all are part of our community. We are going to stand up. We are going to fight. We are not going to allow this agency, this administration to instill fear. So we are not fearful. We are strong. We are unafraid. And we are going to stand up and fight. Free Mahmoud!

PROTESTERS: Release Mahmoud Khalil now! Release Mahmoud Khalil now!

ALEXA AVILÉS: My name is Alexa Avilés. I am a councilmember representing District 38 in South Brooklyn. We are standing here in support of a free Palestine. We are standing demanding the freedom of Khalil. If they cannot hear us, we must be louder. We must organize. They are coming for all of us, and it is us who will protect each other. ICE — ICE and the Trump band of bigots have no place here in New York City.

AMY GOODMAN: On Monday, the news outlet Zeteo reported Mahmoud Khalil had emailed Columbia’s interim President Katrina Armstrong one day before ICE detained him, to ask her to protect him after he was targeted in a doxxing and smear campaign. Khalil wrote, quote, “I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm,” he said.

Emails Show Mahmoud Khalil Asked Columbia for Protection a Day Before He Was Detained: "I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm."
by Prem Thakker
zeteo
Mar 10, 2025
https://zeteo.com/p/scoop-emails-show-m ... ection-ice

Image
Mahmoud Khalil speaks to members of the media about the Revolt for Rafah encampment at Columbia University on June 1, 2024. Photo by Jeenah Moon/Reuters

Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian who helped lead negotiations between Columbia University and student protesters, had appealed to the school for protection from harassment and possibly Immigrations and Customs Enforcement agents one day before the Trump administration detained him on Saturday, emails obtained by Zeteo show.

The most recent among the leaked messages was an email Khalil, a green card holder, sent to Columbia interim president Katrina Armstrong on March 7. “Since yesterday, I have been subjected to a vicious, coordinated, and dehumanizing doxxing campaign led by Columbia affiliates Shai Davidai and David Lederer who, among others, have labeled me a security threat and called for my deportation,” he began.

“Their attacks have incited a wave of hate, including calls for my deportation and death threats. I have outlined the wider context below, yet Columbia has not provided any meaningful support or resources in response to this escalating threat,” he added.

“I haven’t been able to sleep, fearing that ICE or a dangerous individual might come to my home. I urgently need legal support, and I urge you to intervene and provide the necessary protections to prevent further harm.”


The message was especially notable given several reports of ICE being spotted on campus throughout the week and Columbia’s own guidance published this weekend about “potential visits to campus” by ICE. In the memo, the school said faculty and staff “should not interfere” in “exigent circumstances” where ICE agents seek access to university buildings or people without a warrant.

Columbia University and Lederer did not immediately respond to Zeteo’s requests for comment.

Davidai [Shai Davidai, a Columbia professor banned from campus for harassing pro-Palestinian students], who had been suspended from campus last year over allegations he had harassed university staff, denied collaborating with the Trump administration to get Khalil deported. “Let me be absolutely clear: I have never had a direct line to the administration. Even if I did, I would never use such influence to target an individual. This is not who I am or what I stand for,” Davidai told Zeteo. “Like many, I’ve called out Khalil’s repeated legal violations and demanded accountability. But as I always remind my students, just because one event follows another doesn’t mean it caused it.

In online posts, Davidai had called Khalil a “terrorist supporter” and suggested he should be deported, tagging Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

They're negotiating with them AGAIN.
What did you think will happen when you negotiated with them last time?
By the way - the terrorist supporter holding the megaphone is Mahmoud Khalil - a @Columbia (not @BarnardCollege) student.
Time for arrests and expulsions.


Israel War Room
@IsraelWarRoom
Mar 5, 2025
Why is @BarnardCollege’s administration negotiating with the pro-Hamas mob AGAIN?!


Dear @SecRubio,
Thank you for your strong statements.
Now we want to see strong action.
Illegally taking over a college in which you are not even enrolled and distributing terrorist propaganda should be a deportable offense, no?
Because that’s what Mahmoud Khalil from @ColumbiaSJP did
yesterday at @BarnardCollege


[x]
David lederer @Davidlederer6
Mar 6, 2025
Meet Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia student known to have been on a foreign visa last year. He recently helped illegally take over a library building and distribute Hamas propaganda.
https://x.com/canarymission/status/1897 ... 62/video/1
4:39 PM · Mar 6, 2025


Khalil’s March 7 email came after an earlier Jan. 31 email he sent, in which he urged the school “to take immediate action to protect international students at Columbia facing severe and pervasive doxing, discriminatory harassment, and very possibly deportation in retaliation for the lawful exercising of their rights to freedom of speech, expression, and association…”

Khalil cited a threatening post by the pro-Israel organization Betar in January. In the post, the group wrote that he said, “Zionists don’t deserve to live” – a statement Khalil “unequivocally” denied making in his email to university officials. Betar also wrote that ICE⁩ “is aware of his home address and whereabouts” and that they “have provided all his information to multiple contacts.”


[x]
Mohammad khalil says Zionists don’t deserve to live while he’s on a visa ⁦@Columbia⁩. It’s 10 pm and ⁦@ICEgov⁩ is aware of his home address and whereabouts. We have provided all his information to multiple contacts. He’s on our deport list!
7:52 PM · Jan 29, 2025


“He’s on our deport list!“ Betar added.

Citing the Betar post, Khalil asked Armstrong in his email: “With the stakes being so high, I ask you, as representatives of Columbia University’s administration – how will you protect international students from doxing and from deportation? How will you protect these students’ rights to free speech, expression, and association – rights provided for in the U.S. Constitution and Columbia’s Code of Conduct – and stop the suppression and now potential criminalization of that speech and expression? Students’ futures, their livelihoods, and now, without exaggerating, their lives are at risk.”

Targeted Removal Before Arrest

On Thursday, March 6, Khalil emailed Gerald Lewis, the vice president of Columbia Public Safety, and cc’d Armstrong regarding the deactivation of his university ID. Khalil wrote that during a campus protest, he was approached by public safety staff who informed him his ID had been deactivated due to not being registered for classes this semester.

“I am a recent alumnus, having graduated in December 2024, with my degree set to be conferred in May. By now, I believe you’ve confirmed that I entered the campus like any other Columbia affiliate, swiping my ID and showing it to security,” Khalil wrote.

“I questioned why I was being singled out, as I am aware of other Columbia affiliates who were in similar situations and were not approached, despite being in close proximity to me at the time,” noting that the staff who approached were “well aware that I am a Palestinian national, as we have previously communicated and worked together to ensure safe campus protests.”

“However, when I asked for clarification on how I was identified and why I was the only individual approached, they refused to provide any explanation,” Khalil wrote
, questioning why he was the only individual targeted and who issued the instructions for the staff to approach and remove him from campus. Khalil wrote that the lack of a clear justification raised concerns for targeted discrimination.

“For over a year, I have been collaborative with your office and other university offices to ensure all students are safe and that the university operates smoothly so I was really shocked to be treated this way. If I’m unwelcome on Columbia campus, please let me know through the right channels.”

Trump: More Arrests to Come

For more than 24 hours after his detainment, Khalil’s whereabouts were unclear. Per the ICE detainee tracker, he is now held in an ICE detention facility in Louisiana (just months ago, rights groups published a report on facilities in Louisiana entitled "Inside the Black Hole: Systemic Human Rights Abuses Against Immigrants Detained & Disappeared in Louisiana”).

On Monday, a federal judge temporarily blocked the deportation of Khalil until at least Wednesday while he reviewed a petition that challenges the legality of Khalil's detention.

The Trump administration has scrambled to justify Khalil’s detention – but has yet to say explicitly what, if anything, Khalil has been charged with. First, the Department of Homeland Security referred Zeteo to the White House, which did not respond to a request for comment. Later, DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin confirmed in a statement that ICE detained Khalil “in support of President Trump’s executive orders prohibiting anti-Semitism.” Without providing evidence, McLaughlin claimed Khalil “led activities aligned to Hamas.”[/i]

A State Department spokesperson initially told Zeteo they cannot comment on individual visa cases, but "in general, the department has broad authority to revoke visas … under the Immigration and Nationality Act,” and that the department “exercise[s] that authority when information comes to light at any time indicating that a visa holder may be inadmissible to the United States or otherwise ineligible for a visa.”

But then, Rubio issued a curt statement that appeared to be trying to reconcile the confusion of how the State Department could even go after someone’s green card – especially after the arresting agents didn’t even know Khalil had one. “We will be revoking the visas and/or green cards of Hamas supporters in America so they can be deported,” Rubio wrote.

Finally, on Monday, President Donald Trump celebrated the arrest of Mahmoud Khalil, calling him, without providing evidence, "a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student.”

"This is the first arrest of many to come,” Trump added.


Prem Thakker is Zeteo’s political reporter. Send tips via email or Signal (premthakker.35).


Meanwhile, Drop Site News reports the ICE agent who detained Khalil was Elvin Hernandez, who was honored by Trump during his State of the Union address in 2019, when Trump was first president.

We’re joined now by two guests. Murad Awawdeh is president of the New York Immigration Coalition, longtime Palestinian American activist. We just saw him in that clip speaking to the crowd yesterday. And Ramzi Kassem is a professor of law at CUNY, the City University of New York, where he founded the legal clinic CLEAR — the acronym stands for Creating Law Enforcement Accountability and Responsibility. Its mandate is to support Muslims and all other communities “targeted by local, state, or federal government agencies under the guise of national security and counterterrorism,” unquote. On Monday, CLEAR and the Center for Constitutional Rights filed a federal habeas petition in the Southern District of New York challenging Mahmoud Khalil’s detention.

Ramzi Kassem, let’s begin with you. If you can explain what has taken place in the last days, from Mahmoud Khalil’s arrest in Columbia housing after directly appealing to Columbia’s president to protect him, right through to the judge yesterday enjoining his deportation and your emergency submission?

RAMZI KASSEM: Thank you, Amy.

I can start with what happened to Mahmoud and his wife. On Saturday night, they were walking home. As you mentioned earlier, Mahmoud is a U.S. permanent resident. His wife is a U.S. citizen who is eight months pregnant. This is a family. They were expecting their first child next month. They had every reason to look forward to that momentous event.

And they’re coming home on Saturday night around 8 p.m. As they’re about to enter their building is when they’re approached by men in plainclothes who subsequently identify themselves as DHS agents. And what they say is that they’re going to take Mahmoud away because his student visa has been revoked. His wife protested and said that he doesn’t have a student visa. He’s a permanent resident. He has a green card. She goes upstairs to their apartment, gets the green card, shows it to the agent. The agent seems confused, calls his superiors, who apparently ordered him to take Mahmoud anyway.

And so, from her perspective, understandably, her husband was abducted before her very eyes, disappeared to a location in downtown Manhattan. And later that evening, our colleagues and co-counsel Amy Greer and Kyle Barron filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court in Manhattan on his behalf, asking for him to be released
. And what the government did, within hours of that, is to move him a thousand miles away from that courthouse down to Louisiana to complicate, interfere with his access to the court, with his access to his legal team, with his access to his wife and to his family and to his support network.

So, what we ended up having to do yesterday, unfortunately, is filing a motion with that same court, asking, basically, for the court to order the government to return Mahmoud to New York so that he can have access to his legal team, so that he can have access to the court, and so that the court can vindicate his constitutional rights. The court has already issued an order yesterday scheduling a hearing for Wednesday and also barring the government from deporting Mahmoud until the court orders otherwise.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: But, Ramzi, if he is a permanent resident, and he’s not — hasn’t been accused of any lawful violation, what basis do they have, if any, to actually try to revoke his green card?

RAMZI KASSEM: That is the key question, Juan. Our contention is that this is all retaliatory. The reason he was arrested and detained and targeted for arrest and detention was his constitutionally protected, First Amendment-protected speech and activism in support of Palestinian lives and rights in Gaza and beyond, and the fact that he played, as your segment highlighted, a key mediation role between the university administration and student protesters — which, if anything, is laudable. It’s commendable. It’s what you would want any student to do.

So, none of that is criminal. The government hasn’t even contended, really, seriously, that there is any kind of criminal activity. There’s never been an arrest or a conviction that they could point to. As far as we could tell, the government is invoking — and this is a somewhat novel approach — they’re invoking the foreign policy grounds, where the secretary of state is basically saying that this person, who is a noncitizen, who is a permanent resident, by his mere presence or activities in the United States, poses a threat to U.S. foreign policy interests. Now, none of that has been detailed or specified. And frankly, we don’t believe it will fly in court, because that provision of law may exist, but it does not exist to punish constitutionally protected speech. In other words, it doesn’t trump Mr. Khalil’s First Amendment rights.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And when you hear, for instance, that President Trump on Truth Social said, quote, “We know there are more students at Columbia and other Universities across the Country who have engaged in pro-terrorist, anti-Semitic, anti-American activity, and the Trump Administration will not tolerate it,” what does this tell you about where we’re heading?

RAMZI KASSEM: Well, look, I mean, we’ve all, sadly, become accustomed to the sort of inflammatory and, frankly, racist rhetoric that emanates from the Trump administration. This is no different. When it comes to Mahmoud, it’s all entirely baseless. And both Mahmoud and we on his legal team and all of his supporters, including the thousand-plus people who showed up yesterday, intend to fight to bring him back to New York and to vindicate not just his right to free speech, but everyone’s rights to free speech. You know, it can’t be the case that saying something that the government disagrees with becomes cause for a night arrest. No one should accept that. And so, you know, we’ll fight that tooth and nail.

And we don’t believe that this case will set the precedent that the government believes it’s going to set. It’s already backfired. You know, if the intent was to silent speech and to dissuade people from coming out in support of Palestinian human rights, well, we all saw what happened yesterday in Manhattan. Over a thousand people came out, not just in solidarity with Mahmoud, but also in solidarity with Palestinians in Gaza and beyond. And we don’t believe that people are going to be deterred, nor is the movement that is critical of the ongoing genocide in Gaza and U.S. foreign policy and its support for Israel. Nor is that movement carried mainly by noncitizens. I mean, that’s also a falsehood. Americans are the ones who are driving the movement. And, of course, there are many noncitizen activists among them, but it’s primarily Americans. And so, they’re not going to be able to deport their way out of this movement.

AMY GOODMAN: Can you explain what’s going to happen in court tomorrow, Ramzi Kassem? And also, sending him to Louisiana, was that just outright punitive?

RAMZI KASSEM: Absolutely, Amy. I mean, our view is that his detention itself was punitive and retaliatory for his First Amendment-protected speech in support of Palestinian lives and rights. And then, subsequently, moving him to Louisiana was retaliatory and punitive, because he filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court contesting the legality and constitutionality of his detention. And so, the government’s response was to try to interfere with the court’s jurisdiction, to try to interfere with his access to counsel and to his family and to his support network by moving him a thousand miles away to Louisiana, where it believes it will have access to, you know, friendlier immigration courts and whatnot.

So, you know, we hope, even though we don’t expect the government to do the reasonable thing and voluntarily bring him back to New York — and if they don’t tell us today that they’re going to do that, then we’ll be in court tomorrow asking the court to order them to do that. And we will litigate the rest of the issues, including the free speech issues, from there.

AMY GOODMAN: And what about the Columbia University —Mahmoud lives in Columbia University housing. This direct appeal to the president of Columbia saying he was living in fear, that he couldn’t sleep. How could Columbia have protected him? Did ICE enter private Columbia housing illegally?

RAMZI KASSEM: There have been numerous reports of ICE in various Columbia housing facilities in the last couple of weeks, some substantiated, some not. That certainly raises a question about Columbia’s role.

Bigger picture, though, Columbia’s silence — well, I should say the Columbia administration’s silence has been noteworthy and shameful. For a university that has so often professed its concern for students, it is remarkably silent now that students are literally being abducted off of the streets surrounding Columbia’s campus. And I stress that this is the administration that I’m pointing a finger towards, because, you know, as your segment showed, other segments, other parts of the Columbia community, whether it’s the faculty or the students, have come out. And that’s commendable. They’ve come out in support of Mahmoud and of his family, and that’s great to see. But the university itself and its role in all of this has been, sadly, shameful to date.

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: I’d like to bring in Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, into the conversation. Murad, your response to what has been happening now with Mahmoud Khalil?

MURAD AWAWDEH: You know, this is, unfortunately, part and parcel to the Trump immigration agenda that we’re seeing play out, from his family separation agenda to his mass deportation plans. Mahmoud Khalil also falls under the category of this Trump administration trying to do everything it can to stymie people’s rights. You know, we’ve seen Tom Homan go out across Fox News, CNN and other networks talking about how individuals who are immigrants don’t have any rights. And this is sort of the rhetoric that they continue to hammer down on.

But fortunately, for everyone who calls his country home, they have constitutional rights, and Mahmoud Khalil is entitled to those rights, as well. And what we’re seeing right now with the Department of Homeland Security, and thankful for the CUNY CLEAR, as well as Center on Constitutional Rights, for stepping in and supporting Mahmoud in this moment, is that he has a right to due process, and that in this moment, he has done nothing wrong. He’s not been charged nor convicted with any crimes.

And it’s incredibly shameful that we continue to see Columbia spiral downward. This university used to be something that was considered the cream of the crop of universities, one of the top Ivy Leagues. There was a report from The Forward yesterday indicating that it may have been some board members of the university who actually called authorities on Mahmoud, which is incredibly disingenuous for an institution that continues to parade itself as an institution that wants to champion its students and build new leaders that we need for this world. What message is this sending to not just to their immigrant students, but all their students and families, that this is something that they would be participating in?

JUAN GONZÁLEZ: And you mentioned the possibility of a connection directly to the university about his arrest. What about — has the university issued any statement, given the fact that they’ve been talking so much in recent months about free speech and protection of free speech?

MURAD AWAWDEH: It does not seem that they have yet. They did send out an email to students shortly after the incident, indicating that they were, you know, aware of situations occurring — which only begs the question: If, you know, Mahmoud is living in university-owned property, and Columbia has policies on the books that says that they will not cooperate or allow ICE onto their properties without a judicial warrant, why was ICE allowed onto that property? This only even more so begs the question: What is Columbia’s role in this moment?

AMY GOODMAN: Let me ask you about a New York Times piece that came out right before Mahmoud was taken by ICE, saying, “The Trump administration is finalizing a new ban on travel to the United States for citizens of certain countries that would be broader than the versions President Trump issued in [his] first term. … A draft recommendation circulating inside the executive branch proposes a 'red' list of countries whose citizens Mr. Trump could bar from entering the United States,” referring essentially to a new Muslim ban.

MURAD AWAWDEH: Yeah, and this is part and parcel to, again, Trump’s racist and fascist agenda that he campaigned on and, now that he is in office, is trying to deliver on. We saw this happen in part one of Trump when he was in office, and he’s looking to revive that policy and actually put another ban in place. We believe that it’s imminent, any day now. So, folks who are intending to travel outside of the country should reconsider their travels. And people who are outside of the country who have visas or are LPRs, green card holders, should be considering to travel back as soon as possible.

AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us. We’ve been speaking with Murad Awawdeh, president of the New York Immigration Coalition, and with, as well, one of the attorneys for Mahmoud. He is Ramzi Kassem, professor of law at CUNY, the City University of New York, where he founded the legal clinic CLEAR. CLEAR and Center for Constitutional Rights have filed a federal habeas petition in the Southern District of New York challenging Mahmoud Khalil’s detention.

****************************

Mahmoud Khalil Was Detained by ICE Agent Honored by Trump at State of the Union. A federal judge has since blocked his potential deportation—for now
by Jason Paladino
Drop Site News
Mar 10, 2025
https://www.dropsitenews.com/p/mahmoud- ... ored-trump

The Trump administration's attempt to deport Mahmoud Khalil, a lawful permanent resident who hasn't been charged with any crime, represents a frightening erosion of First Amendment protections that threatens all Americans. This extraordinary action—detaining and attempting to remove someone for protected political speech—establishes a dangerous precedent where government can bypass due process and criminalize dissent. On Monday evening, a federal judge temporarily blocked the attempted deportation. Sign and share our petition to stand with millions of Americans who believe in protecting constitutional rights. Scroll to the bottom to participate in a letter-writing campaign.

Demand the Release of Mahmoud Khalil

—Ryan Grim

Image
Homeland Security agent Elvin Hernandez during the State of the Union address on February 5, 2019. Photo: SAUL LOEB/AFP via Getty Images.

In 2019, Immigration and Customs Enforcement Special Agent Elvin Hernandez sat in the gallery watching the State of the Union address with First Lady Melania Trump. President Donald Trump celebrated Hernandez as a hero, praising the story of a boy from the Dominican Republic who went on to become an ICE agent and work on human trafficking cases. Hernandez stood and saluted as the president sang his praises.

“We are joined tonight by one of those law enforcement heroes: ICE Special Agent Elvin Hernandez. When Elvin was a boy, he and his family legally immigrated to the United States from the Dominican Republic. At the age of eight, Elvin told his dad he wanted to become a Special Agent. Today, he leads investigations into the scourge of international sex trafficking.”

Image
The White House45 Archived @WhiteHouse45
February 9, 2019
Legal immigration gave a young Elvin Hernandez the chance to become an American hero.
Today, he fights international sex trafficking as an ICE Special Agent -- part of a team that secured justice for more than 1,500 perpetrators just last year.


That same special agent was present when plainclothes officers raided a Columbia University-owned residential building and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a recent graduate of Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs and a lead negotiator for the Gaza Solidarity Encampment in April 2024.

Hernandez’s involvement was made public in a declaration filed in a habeas corpus case filed by Khalil’s attorney, Amy Greer. In response, Judge Jesse E. Furman of the Southern District of New York ordered the government to halt Khalil’s potential deportation until a Wednesday hearing in Manhattan, which his lawyer told Drop Site is “the right decision.” "We are grateful the Court has taken immediate action to protect Mahmoud's rights," she said.

At 8:26 p.m. on Saturday, Khalil called Greer to make her aware of the unfolding situation. ICE’s Hernandez then took the phone and spoke to Greer directly, before eventually hanging up on her.

When Greer asked Hernandez why they were making the arrest and if they had a warrant, he replied that they had an administrative warrant and that the basis of the arrest was the Department of State revoking Khalil’s student visa. Greer then told the agent that Khalil does not have a student visa—he is a legal permanent resident with a green card. Hernandez responded that DHS had “revoked that too.”

No charges have been filed against Mahmoud Khalil. DHS Spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin released a statement claiming that Khalil’s activism was “aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.”

On Monday, the president released a statement directly taking credit for the raid and promising more to come. “Following my previously signed Executive Orders, ICE proudly apprehended and detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Radical Foreign Pro-Hamas Student on the campus of Columbia University,” the post begins. A DHS official initially told Drop Site to contact the White House for information about the arrest.

According to the filing, Greer explained to Hernandez that they can’t simply revoke his green card without due process. Hernandez replied that he would have a chance to go before an immigration judge. When Greer then pushed back and asked what grounds the agents had to start immigration proceedings, Hernandez did not seem thrilled.

“When I began to ask more questions about what grounds they would have to put Mahmoud in immigration proceedings, Agent Hernandez started to grumble at me. I asked him to show me, Mahmoud, or his wife the warrant and he hung up on me,” Greer wrote in the legal filing.

His legal team and wife were unable to locate him for over 24 hours after his detention. According to the ICE database, Khalil was sent from New Jersey to the Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center. His legal team is attempting to petition the court to return him to New York.

According to LinkedIn, Hernandez works for Homeland Security Investigations, a directorate of the Department of Homeland Security’s ICE. Created in 2010, HSI describes its role as to “shield our nation from global threats to ensure Americans are safe and secure.” It has offices in 235 U.S. cities and 90 offices in over 50 countries and boasts a budget of just under $2.5 billion for Fiscal Year 2025. According to its budget documents, HSI “combats transnational criminal enterprises that seek to exploit America’s legitimate trade, travel, and financial systems.”

A 2022 Department of Justice press release thanks supervisory special agent Elvin Hernandez for his work on the R. Kelly case.

ICE did not respond to a request for comment. An online letter-sending campaign calling for the immediate release of Khalil now has over 1.8 million letters sent.

Meghnad Bose contributed reporting. If you have information about Khalil’s ICE detention, contact Jason Paladino securely on Signal at jpal.01.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 1:55 am

Why Democrats Must Vote NO on the CR [Continuing Resolution]
by Senator Bernie Sanders
March 13, 2025

This CR would literally take food out of the mouths of hungry children, take healthcare away from seniors, and give a huge tax break to the wealthiest people on the planet. It cannot pass.



Transcript

people all over this country
understand we are a nation today that
faces enormous
crisis
sadly the continuing resolution passed
tuesday in the us house and will which
will come to this body very
shortly not only does nothing to address
these crises but in fact it makes a bad
situation much worse
today at a time when we have more income
and wealth
inequality than we have ever had in the
history of this
country
60% of our people are living paycheck to
paycheck and what that means mr
president i grew up in a family living
paycheck to
paycheck it means that people are
worried about how they're going to
afford housing what happens if their
landlord raises the
rent people go to the grocery store and
they see the high price of food and
wonder how they're going to feed their
kids people are looking at the
outrageous cost of child care but you
need child care if you're going to go to
work how can you afford child
care our health care system is
dysfunctional people worry about how
they can afford healthcare if they are
lucky enough to be able to find a
doctor that is the reality of what's
going on in our country today rich are
getting richer working people are
struggling and 800,000 americans are
sleeping out in the
streets so given that reality what does
this bill do the bill written by the
right-wing extremists in the house of
representatives without any bipartisan
discussion at
all what does this bill do well let me
count the
ways that it makes the financial
struggles of working people even more
difficult than they are today
and it does all of that mr president to
lay the
groundwork for massive tax breaks for
elon elon musk and the billionaire
class for a
start some 22% of our seniors in this
country are trying to survive on
$15,000 a year or less which to me is
really quite incredible i don't know how
anybody let alone a senior survives on
15,000 a year or less half of our
seniors are trying to survive on 30,000
a year or
less so what does the trump musk
administration do to address the
terrible economic pressures on seniors
all over america well they got a
brilliant
idea they illegally fire thousands of
workers at the social security
administration with plans to cut that
staff in
half mr president in america
today 30,000 people die each year
waiting to receive their social security
disability benefits because of a grossly
underststaffed and
underresourced social security
administration
my office and i expect your office and i
expect every other office gets calls
every day from seniors saying "i'm
having a problem with social security i
can't make contact with the social
security people they're not getting back
to me." and that is because today they
are understaffed
if musk and trump get their way and the
social security administration staff is
cut in half nobody can deny that that is
a death sentence for many thousands of
seniors who desperately need their
benefits now mr musk who's worth a few
hundred billion may not
understand that there are millions of
seniors in this country who have nothing
in the bank worry every day how they're
going to heat their homes or buy the
food that they need and if they can't
get the benefits that they need some of
them will in fact
die and let me be
clear when you have mr musk calling
social security a ponzi
scheme despite the fact that it has paid
out every benefit owed to every eligible
american for the last 80 plus years that
ain't no ponzi scheme
when you have the president of the
united states coming before congress and
lying outrageously lying about millions
of people who are 150 or 200 years of
age receiving social security benefits a
total
lie everybody should understand what's
going on trump and musk are laying the
groundwork for
dismantling the most successful federal
program in history social security a
program that keeps over 27 million
americans out of poverty and by the way
just to set the record
straight over
95% over
99% of the more than 70 million social
security checks that go out each month
are going to people who earned those
benefits over
99% people 150 or 500 years of age are
not getting social security checks
but this continuing resolution passed in
the house is not just a vicious attack
on social security it is attack on the
veterans of our nation the men and women
who put their lives on the line to
defend our country
while we made some progress under the
biden administration in improving
veterans healthcare the truth is that
the va has remained significantly
understaffed in the fourth quarter of
2024 there were
36,000 vacancies at the va
we needed
2400 more
doctors 6,300 more registered
nurses 3,400 more schedulers 1,800 more
social workers and 1,200 more
custodians so what does the trump
administration and mr must do to address
this very serious work force workforce
shortage their answer is that they are
threatening to dismantle the va by
firing
83,000 employees in other words you got
a shortage today and their solution to
the shortage is to fire
83,000 workers
not only does this cr do nothing to stop
that but it cuts more than 20 billion in
funding needed to provide care for
veterans exposed to burn pits agent
orange and other toxic substances next
year mr
president pathetically our nation the
richest country on earth has the highest
rate of childhood poverty of almost any
major country on the planet and that is
often reflected in the crisis facing
many public schools
today throughout america children are
coming into school hungry kids are
coming into school with serious mental
issues kids are coming into school from
dysfunctional families families often
dealing with drug abuse and what is the
trump musk administration doing about
that crisis well their response was
interesting just the other day they
fired half of the staff at the
department of education
that means that it will be far harder to
administer the title one program that
helps 26 million low-income kids get the
education they need and pays the
salaries of some 180,000 public school
teachers throughout the country so how
does a school in a workingclass
community survive if you don't get the
funds to pay good
teachers further it means that it will
be far harder to administer the
individuals with disabilities education
act the ida that provides vital
resources for 7 and a2 million kids with
disabilities we have made progress in a
bipartisan way over the last number of
years to say to families that if your
kid has a disability that kid can still
go to a public school there will be
services available for that kid
but when you cut the department of
education staff here in washington in
half that is going to be extremely
difficult to
do and it means that it will be far
harder for some 7 million lowincome and
workingclass students to get the pel gr
pel grants they need to get a higher
education
in fact just hours after the department
of education laid off half of its staff
the website for the free application for
federal student aid that working
families used to apply for pel grants
and other financial institutions
crashed fired workers the website
crashed people who are applying for pel
grants this
cr that we will be looking at perhaps
tomorrow gives the trump administration
the green light to make these horrific
cuts to education and it's not just
education mr president we have a major
health care crisis in our country
despite spending twice as much per
capita on healthcare as the people of
any other major country 85 million
americans are uninsured or
underinsured over 500,000 of our people
go bankrupt because of medically related
debt over 60,000 people die each year
because they can't afford to get to a
doctor on time and our life expectancy
is not only lower than almost any other
major country it is a system in which
working class and low-income americans
die 7 years younger than wealthier
americans so you got a crisis people
can't find a doctor people are going
bankrupt because of health care bills
and what does this cr do well at a time
when in particular our primary health
care system is completely broken when we
don't have enough doctors or nurses or
dentists or mental health
counselors this proposal cuts cuts
community health center funding by 3.2%
2% cuts the national health service
corps by over 5% and cuts funding for
teaching health centers a program which
helps train doctors in rural and
underserved areas by almost 13% so in
the midst of a horrific primary health
care crisis in vermont and all over
rural america this proposal will make it
that much harder for people to get the
health care that they desperately need
but it's not just
healthcare everybody in this country
from vermont to los angeles understands
we have a major housing
crisis and it's not just all of the
homelessness we are seeing over 20
million of our people incredibly spend
more than 50% of their limited income on
housing how in god's name do you pay for
anything else how do you buy food how do
you take care of health care if you're
spending 50% or more for your housing so
how does this cr address the housing
crisis well it does it by cutting rental
assistance for lowincome families in
america by 700 million which could lead
to more than 32,000 families in our
country being evicted from their homes
well that is a heck of a solution to the
housing crisis you make it much worse
but it's not just
housing i know that the president might
disagree he thinks that climate change
is a hoax whole scientific community
understands that it is an existential
threat they understand that the last 10
years have been the warmest ever
recorded and extreme weather
disturbances and natural disasters have
been taking place all over the world
from california to india across europe
to north
carolina so what does the cr do about
the existential threat of climate change
it does not even specify funding levels
within the environmental protection
agency in other words the administration
could simply eliminate funding for
climate change and environmental justice
and that would be consistent with this
cr and on top of all of this the
administration is already indicating
that they will simply ignore the
provisions of the spending bill they
don't like this week it was reported the
vice president jd vance said to the
senate republican caucus quote "i want
everyone to vote yes the president under
section two will ensure allocations from
congress are not spent on things that
harm the taxpayer there's so much grift
in washington let's move the cr get to
reconciliation and for congress to pass
appropriations." end of quote in other
words what vance is saying is don't
worry about what's actually in the bill
the trump administration doesn't like it
they won't do it and let's be
clear the house cr that was passed in an
extremely partisan vote i think they won
by three or four votes one democrat out
of 20 whatever 15 voted for it
the house
cr and the trump
administration are doing everything they
can to lay the groundwork for more tax
breaks for
billionaires paid for by massive cuts to
medicaid nutrition assistance housing
and education so you're looking at a
onetwo punch a very bad cr and then a
supple a reconciliation bill coming down
which will be the final kick in the
teeth for the american people
this legislation that the republicans
are working on the reconciliation bill
would cut taxes for billionaires in the
top
1% by over 1.1 trillion
dollars over the next decade
according to a recent study if all of
trump's so-called america first policies
are enacted the bottom 95% of americans
will see their taxes go up while the
richest 5% will see their taxes go down
way
down i should also mention that that
reconciliation bill which republicans
are working on right now would also cut
medicaid by
$880 billion
tax breaks for
billionaires throwing low-income kids
off of health
care decimating nursing homes all over
america because nursing homes receive
twothirds of their funding from
medicaid making it harder for community
health centers to survive who provide
healthcare to 32 america 32 million
americans because 43% of their revenue
comes comes from medicaid cut medicaid
by
$880
billion you will
significantly
deteriorate the quality of health care
all over america at a time when the
system is already
broken further the reconciliation bill
proposes to cut at least 230 billion
from nutrition
today nearly one out of five kids in
america rely on federal nutrition
programs to keep them going keep them
from going hungry
and i find it rather remarkable that the
richest person on earth somebody worth
hundreds of billions of dollars that he
and his other oligarch friends are
working night and day to cut programs
for the working people of this country
and to actually deny food to hungry kids
in america
there is no world no universe no
religion that would not believe that
that is grossly
immoral and unacceptable you don't give
tax breaks to the rich and take food
away from hungry
children mr
president the house cr bill that we will
be soon voting on here is a piece of
legislation i cannot support
instead what the senate must do is pass
a 30-day cr so that all members of
congress not just the house republican
leadership can come together and produce
a good piece of legislation that works
for all americans and not just the
few we have an opportunity now to serve
the american people we have an
opportunity to write something that
reflects what people in the congress
feel what the people in america feel now
i go around the
country and just a couple of weeks ago i
held a telephone town hall in vermont we
are a small state mr president we only
have about 650,000 people and yet on
that telephone town hall there was some
34,000 people listening in that is a
significant percentage of a small state
i have been in many parts of the country
recently i've been in uh i have been in
iowa i have been in
wisconsin i have been in nebraska i've
been in michigan and what i can tell you
with absolute certainty is whether
people are conservative whether they're
republican whether they're progressives
whether they're moderate independent
whatever they may be there are very few
people in this country who think we
should give a trillion dollars in tax
breaks to the rich and cut back on
medicaid education and nutritional
programs for hungry children so mr
president what i strongly propose is
that we pass a 30-day cr that we do what
has always been the case here in the
senate have both bodies both parties
work together to come up with a good
piece of
legislation and with that mr president i
yield the floor
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 8:20 pm

Elon Musk shared, then removed a post absolving dictators for genocide
by Kate Conger
The New York Times
March 14, 2025 at 4:45 pm
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/14/tech ... n-mao.html

NOTICE: THIS WORK MAY BE PROTECTED BY COPYRIGHT

YOU ARE REQUIRED TO READ THE COPYRIGHT NOTICE AT THIS LINK BEFORE YOU READ THE FOLLOWING WORK, THAT IS AVAILABLE SOLELY FOR PRIVATE STUDY, SCHOLARSHIP OR RESEARCH PURSUANT TO 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107 AND 108. IN THE EVENT THAT THE LIBRARY DETERMINES THAT UNLAWFUL COPYING OF THIS WORK HAS OCCURRED, THE LIBRARY HAS THE RIGHT TO BLOCK THE I.P. ADDRESS AT WHICH THE UNLAWFUL COPYING APPEARED TO HAVE OCCURRED. THANK YOU FOR RESPECTING THE RIGHTS OF COPYRIGHT OWNERS.


Image
Elon Musk reposted
Rothmus@Rothmus
@TheAliceSmith
Stalin, Mao and Hitler didn't murder millions of people. Their public sector workers did.


Early on Friday, Elon Musk shared a post written by an X user about the actions of three 20th-century dictators — then quickly deleted it after it sparked a backlash.

The post falsely claimed that Josef Stalin, the communist leader of the Soviet Union until 1953; Adolf Hitler, the leader of the Nazi party in Germany; and Mao Zedong, the founder of the People’s Republic of China, didn’t cause the deaths of millions of people under their watch. Instead, the post said, their public sector workers did.

Musk shared the post without any other comment. He removed it soon after users on X criticized the post, saying it was antisemitic and dismissive of genocide. Historians have widely chronicled that millions of people died under Stalin, that millions of Jews were massacred under Hitler during the Holocaust, and that millions of Chinese were displaced or killed during Mao’s Cultural Revolution.

It was the latest post by Musk to devolve into controversy. In 2023, Musk endorsed an antisemitic post on X as “the actual truth” of what Jewish people were doing, prompting advertisers to flee. And after an assassination attempt on Donald Trump last year, Musk wrote — then deleted — a post suggesting it was odd that nobody had tried to kill President Joe Biden Jr. or Vice President Kamala Harris.

Musk has long appeared to favor strongmen and has promoted right-wing modern-day leaders. He has repeatedly used X to support politicians like Javier Milei of Argentina, Jair Bolsonaro of Brazil and Narendra Modi of India, leaders in countries where he also has business interests. Most recently, he threw his support behind the hard-right Alternative for Germany party, hosting an online town hall for its candidate for chancellor.

“It is deeply disturbing and irresponsible for someone with a large public platform to elevate the kind of rhetoric that serves to undermine the seriousness of these issues,” the Anti-Defamation League said in a statement about Musk’s sharing of the post.

Musk did not respond to a request for comment.

Musk frequently uses X as a megaphone to share everything from juvenile memes to major U.S. policy proposals, blasting his opinions to his more than 219 million followers. But his viewpoints are drawing more scrutiny since he has become a close adviser to Trump helping overhaul government spending.

Musk has transformed X, removing many rules around hate speech and disinformation and allowing thousands of accounts banned by the company’s prior leadership for problematic posts to return to the platform — including Trump’s.

Around 2:30 a.m. Friday, Musk shared the post written by an X user that said, “Stalin, Hitler and Mao didn’t murder millions of people. Their public sector workers did.”

Musk in recent weeks has battled with public sector workers in Washington as part of his work with his cost-cutting initiative, known as the Department of Government Efficiency. He has accused federal workers of trying to conceal fraud and encouraged them to quit their jobs.

The post sparked backlash from federal employee unions, among others.

“America’s public service workers — our nurses, teachers, firefighters, librarians — chose making our communities safe, healthy and strong over getting rich. They are not, as the world’s richest man implies, genocidal murderers,” Lee Saunders, the president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, said in a statement.

Musk on Friday shared several comments on X defending himself from accusations of antisemitism and claiming his critics were the ones aligned with Nazism.
Musk also recently came under fire for a making a gesture that resembled the Roman salute, which is also known as the “fascist salute” and was later adopted by the Nazis.

“Look at what they did to President @realDonaldTrump,” Musk wrote in one post. “He was loved by democrats until he ran for president. Now they call him Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin, etc. and try to kill him,” referring to another dictator, Italian fascist leader Benito Mussolini.

**************************

President Trump is taking a hard-line stance in the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Full Measure with Sharyl Attkisson
Mar 14, 2025

Trump wants peace in Russia/Ukraine and he wants both leaders to join in the ceasefire. Here’s how to watch Sunday: https://tinyurl.com/3ueu8awr



[Sharyl Atkisson, Full Measure] But as a candidate, you said you would have this war settled in 24 hours?

[Donald Trump] Well, I was being a little bit sarcastic when I said that. What I really mean is I'd like to get it settled.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 9:14 pm

Lori Wallach, Trade Expert, on Tariffs
by Ralph Nader and Lori Wallach
The Ralph Nader Radio Hour
March 15, 2025
https://www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/p/b ... estruction

Transcript

[Steve Skrovan] Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio. I'm Steve Skrovan, along with David Feldman, and Ralph. We're hearing a lot about tariffs. Our next guest knows more about this than anyone we know. David?

[David] Laurie Wallach is a 30-year veteran of international U.S. congressional trade battles, starting with the 1990s fights over NAFTA and WTO, where she founded the Global Trade Watch Group at Public Citizen. She is now the director of the Rethink Trade Program at American Economic Liberties Project, and is also senior advisor to the Citizens Trade Campaign, the U.S. National Trade Justice Coalition of Unions in Environmental, Consumer, Faith, Family, Farm, and other groups. Welcome back to the Ralph Nader Radio Hour, Lori Wallach.

[Lori Wallach] Thank you very much.

[Ralph Nader] Welcome back, Laurie. Well, tell us what the situation is now with Trump tariffs, the zigzag Trumpsters on tariffs, and what's likely to be happening in terms of a trade war?

[Lori Wallach] We now have such an enormous trade imbalance. We have lost so many million manufacturing jobs, and frankly, the national resilience and security that goes with being able to make key things. We have hollowed out so many communities, in so many states, that we literally have our life expectancy going down from depths of despair, where there is a gap of eight years in life expectancy based on whether or not you have a college degree. Because the majority of our country, who does not have a college degree, has had such a terrible path of lower wages, of the tax bases in their communities also collapsing, both with their taxes, but the companies, those 90 million factories that were offshored or killed by unfair imports, they're not paying taxes. That means that the local hospitals closed, and the schools closed, and the fire department doesn't have a full staff, and your whole quality of life is falling apart.

And you know what those deaths of despair, that difference in life expectancy is based on? It's things like drug overdoses. It's cirrhosis, and other alcohol related disease. It is untreated diabetes, and related side effects, because people can't afford the medical care. Literally a huge swath of our country has gotten viciously hurt by this model.

And they are honking mad, and not wrongly so. And so what we've seen is both a swing towards whatever politician is talking their tune about how they got screwed by this trade agenda and that they're going to do something about it. We have seen the word tariff now take on its own positive emotive value, in the way NAFTA is a dirty word. You could be a working class person who was not even born when NAFTA was destroying American manufacturing. Yet, NAFTA is a dirty word. You may not even know the details of what it is. It just means bad trade. Tariff has started to mean, and there's a bunch of social science research and opinion research showing this, "Standing up for me and my community; fighting for me; standing up against unfair trade." And so the deployment of tariffs has a political value separate from whether it's useful, which gets us to Trump. He talked a lot about tariffs. He won because of tariffs.

He won the first time because we had the Democrats, the Democratic president, Obama, pushing for passage of that Pacific Rim NAFTA, the TPP, right through the fall of the election. And he basically, in picking up and getting a majority of working-class voters, the first-time Republicans have had a clean majority of working-class, non-college-educated voters, basically taking what would have been the FDR coalition and moving that to Republican voting. That happened because he deployed, as a genius marketer, the idea of tariffs as the symbolic value of "You've been screwed; I'm standing up for you; I'm going to fight back." And what did we get from the Democrats? We got the tone-deaf answer of "Tariffs are attacks on all of us," where most of the country was begging for someone to pull out a big honking tariff and hit some multinational corporation over the head and try and build back their community. So now we've got Trump in office with a lot of expectations for working class Americans, the Democrats in total disarray, no path forward for Democrat Party without winning back the working class. And the real question is, what's Trump actually going to do with his lack of discipline, lack of diagnosis? Is he even, were he so inclined, going to deploy the tariff tool in a way that actually delivers the necessary change?

Footnote: to date, it does not look so good. Or are we actually going to see some real change? I mean, the first Trump term was super helpful on the trade front because there was a guy, who was the top trade guy, named Robert Lighthizer, super smart guy, who actually does care about working people -- probably the only good person in the entire Trump administration -- and the man was perfectly suited to break all the damn furniture in the neoliberal living room. And so he busted up a whole bunch of stuff. He actually showed that you can deploy tariffs, and actually, the earth won't hurl into the sun, which is what we were basically told by all the economists. "Oh, if you use that tool, that's the end of us all."

So all of this was set up. Biden sort of built on it. He raised tariffs relative to what Trump had in place. He added the missing stuff.

The other industrial policy tools you need to actually get, the tariffs translate into investment in new manufacturing jobs. And now, here we are with Trump, and it's looking like a tariff roller coaster as compared to tariff strategy, where the investors need to like invest in making a new factory. This roller coaster is such that they're looking for the barf bags, not their checkbooks. I mean, this is not looking good.

[Ralph Nader] Well, it's not looking good. And I want to just clarify something for our listeners here. These corporate managed trade agreements have done two things that are very bad for our country. First of all, they've managed to surrender our sovereignty to a rather secretive World Trade Organization in Geneva, Switzerland, which can actually enforce sanctions if we violate these corporate trade agreements. So one example that Lori and I would tell members of Congress, Senator Harkin knew that child labor is illegal in this country, but we were importing products from South Asian nations that were using child labor. So he wanted to prohibit that. And he was told by the Office of Trade Representative, "Don't do that, Tom, because it violates the World Trade Organization Agreement, and they can take you to the World Trade Organization tribunals in Geneva, and you'd lose." So we lost sovereignty over importing child labor exploited products into our own country.

The second example is this. These corporations couldn't go to a state, say, like Mississippi. What if Mississippi wanted to pay its workers $4 an hour? And these companies in New York, and Illinois, and California say, "Hey, we want to go there."

Well, they couldn't because you had a federal safety net of a minimum wage, and other minimum safety nets under the Fair Labor Trade Standards Act. So what did these companies do? They just went into a foreign Mississippi called China, starting out at $2 a day, or $3 a day, and using this exploited labor with their Chinese corporate partners like Apple computers, where they have nets on various levels of the factory because these famished and exploited workers would try to commit suicide by jumping out of the factory window. And they basically made a ton of money, and then exported the products back to the United States. Textiles, furniture, pharmaceuticals, auto parts, you name it, iPhones. You see, Lori, how pernicious this is from any standard of loyalty to our country, to our community, to our workers, which built these industries, and to the taxpayers who subsidize these American companies, and to the military that went overseas and defended these corporations from left-type governments that wanted to stand up. I just want to interject those to show how pernicious these U.S. corporations have been over the years, and what they've gotten away with. What's the prognosis in the next few weeks or months with the Trumpsters?

[Lori Wallach] So the next big moment is April 2nd, where they're going to announce something they're calling, "The reciprocal tariff plan." And we're going to see if they really are doing reciprocal tariffs, which would be a really bad idea. That is more free trade agreements. That is the myth you can export your way out of our trade deficit. It's the same story workers and farmers in this country have been told with each bad trade agreement, which is, "We have to get the other countries to cut their tariffs. That's what we have to do." Versus, "Are we going to see reciprocal trade?" Because just as a footnote, reciprocal tariff is just an ignorant idea.

And so it's the idea of like, "We have to have the same tariff levels as everyone else. So, that would work out real well." So, hello, we export $2 billion in cars, vehicles, trucks to Japan every year. They send us $54 billion in cars. Guess what? We are the people with the 25% tariff on trucks and the 2.5% tariff on cars. Japan is duty-free in all vehicles. Clearly, having reciprocal tariffs in that circumstance means we're going to be even more deeply screwed, because now we're going to be flooded with tariffs, not just cars. So the idea of, "The one for one," nah, not the way to go. But will they try and do reciprocal trade? Reciprocal trade is a different thing. And it is not wrong.

So I'm going to step back and say something that will probably blow the mind of the listener who loves Ralph Nader and is listening to his show, which is, there are three totally legitimate, totally kosher uses of tariffs. Number one, you use tariffs as incentive. So friends, if you are for the climate crisis being dealt with, you are probably for border carbon adjustments, CBAMs. That is a tariff. That is a tariff against products to equalize the cost of internalizing carbon emissions. So that basically you create an incentive to internalize those costs, to have low carbon production, and you don't ruin the companies that are doing the right thing. Are you for enforceable labor standards? You're for tariffs. Stand by. Because how you sanction countries that are cheating on stuff like suppressing wages by busting independent unions, you put up a tariff.

Similarly, and there are all kinds of forms of cheating that you basically use this as a punishment for. So if you are producing with huge subsidies and/or you are devaluing your currency, so that no matter how good your domestic competition is they can never win because you've got a thumb on the scale, then you have what is called a "Countervailing duty." It's just another word. Duty is a tariff. A tariff is a duty. And you countervail the cheating value. So those are uses of tariffs against unfair trade practices and disciplining that.

The second use is incentives to invest. Tariffs can be used to create or shape a market. And so a lot of people know developing countries use this. We did vis-a-vis Europe when we were a developing country. You figure out a couple sectors that you think are really important for your country to have capacity in. Now, after COVID, we learned some very bad lessons of things we can't make here anymore, that we cannot be so reliant on just one source.

I mean, and I'm not just talking about China sends us way too much stuff, which is true. We were over-reliant on Italy for antibiotics. And when they were hit by that horrible wave of COVID, we had a huge crisis in supplying antibiotics, because this hyperglobalization model has led to such concentration in production. We have these single source, super brittle, super thin supply chains. And so we need to pick some things.

[Ralph Nader] Just to interject there, Lori, our listeners should know that we don't produce antibiotics in this country. 99% of all antibiotics are produced in countries like China and India, where the labs are not adequately inspected by visiting Food and Drug Administration inspectors. So there's an example of what you're pointing out to.

[Lori Wallach] So if we want to incentivize some production back here, we need to set aside some portion of our market for domestic demand. So we're generating a demand, we're generating a market, to actually buy the domestic stuff. And so, for instance, at least to get the company started out, and to get incentives to invest, you create a market, you create demand. So you would raise tariffs on, name the product. When you use tariffs this way, you pick the sector, and you apply it across the board, typically you phase them in, because you just can't go cold turkey from, "We don't make it" to, "Oh, we're going to tariff the other stuff." You, over time, so that you have the ability to get the investment you're incentivizing to meet that demand, you basically phase in tariffs over time to a higher rate so that by the time, four years later, you've invested also with the other industrial policy tools to get people to make the capacity, you basically can make some of it here. And you also do that to diversify the import source, so that China doesn't become the sole source. There are other tools you can use. But that's an example of using incentives as tariffs in a package of policy tools.

The third use is to rebalance trade. And to do that, you basically have to differentiate the countries that are global surplus countries. Those are the countries like China, like Vietnam, where we have countries that have big honking trade surpluses. They sell way more to the whole world than they buy from the world. This is not the bilateral deficit problem. That's a US-Mexico problem. That goes in bucket one. That is unfair, specific things that we can change the rules. We can adjust. That's a bucket one thing. Tariffs can come later. We can try and fix the rules, use the penalty later if we don't get it right.

Bucket three over here is macroeconomic rebalance. We would need to do this most effectively with a lot of the other countries that are in deficit. So right now, there's a handful of countries that have global surpluses. Interestingly, Germany and the Netherlands are in there. That's because they effectively have a devalued currency. If they were trading in Deutschmark, or Guilder, instead of the bucket that is the euro, which includes the weaker economies, they would be having a balanced trade. But because they have effectively a devalued currency relative to their economic strength they're trading in, they have huge global surpluses with the world, and deficits with most of the world.

So with that kind of a rebalancing, you basically need with your allies and partners, to first try and talk the countries into changing those policies. And then if you don't, you put up barriers to keep out the surplus goods, which, you know, is actually good for the workers in those countries, because it forces consumption of their overproduction by their domestic citizens, which is to say, you know, a big part of how you do this is you devalue currencies, you do honking huge subsidies, and you suppress wages. And so in the Chinas, in the Vietnams, part of the wage suppression isn't just mean; it's they don't want consumption in the country. They're exporting it. That is actually their economic model is to dump it, to beggar thy neighbors, and produce it there, dump it elsewhere.

So those are three totally legit uses of tariffs. There are some other tools that can do those things, but politically, tariffs may be the most accessible.

Now, there are downsides, but one of those downsides, and I hope you asked me this question, it's not that tariffs always raise prices for consumers. Tariffs raise wholesale prices, not consumer prices. If you want to know what the difference is, go ahead and ask.

[Steve Skrovan] What's the difference, Laurie?

[Lori Wallach] So the difference between whether tariffs raise the consumer price has a lot to do with the same corporate price gouging that we've been seeing over the last couple of years, and we can see right now, for instance, on eggs. The actual supply of egg-laying chickens, and the actual supply of eggs, is not greatly reduced. Rather, that sector is now so concentrated at every level, that the handful of companies can basically control the markup between what the farmers paid and what the consumer pays.

And so what we see, for instance, is just take the example of the Nike shoe that you pay $120 for. And it's based on market research. They know they're going to make the biggest total profit with that margin because they'll get the biggest value. They make it $130, people will buy less units. So even though they make more for each one, they'll make less overall. But that shoe comes into the US as a wholesale cost to the retailer, at maybe $20, $25. And so in that $100 markup, let's just say you put on a 25% tariff. And let's just, to make the math easier, let's make it a $24 shoe. So $6, $30 now is the cost at wholesale. But you know if you raise the price at retail, you're going to sell less shoes. So you just absorb it into the profit margin, which the most sort of careful study of the first round of Trump tariffs showed is mainly what happened, with the potential increase in costs, the wholesale cost went up, but it didn't get what's called, "Passed on into the retail price because it was absorbed out of profits."

So particularly in markets, where there is concentration, and there's control in a gap like that, the companies both have the ability to absorb it, but also can price gouge you. So we need accompanying policies, like very strong competition policy laws, or for instance, we want protection, and therefore more manufacturing capacity to translate into higher wages, we need to make it easier to organize unions. We need to ban stock buybacks in the sectors that get protection, so that the gains from protection don't just go into bigger dividends or stock buybacks, but rather turn into higher wages for the workers who will now be having new industrial jobs.

So when you use tariffs, you can control for what happens in prices. You can control what happens for wages if you use these accompanying policies. The big problem in this, Ralph, gets to your question, "What is Trump going to do?" I'm not holding my breath that Trump, or this Republican Congress, is strengthening union rights, or dealing with price gouging, or dealing with basically competition policy for the big corporations that fund them. So I think, though the tools could be highly auspicious, it is going to be pretty risky, that that translates into the outcomes that actually I think a lot of Democrats would support because, you know, Ralph, when you and I were up on the hill back then, it was Democrats advocating for balanced trade, balanced trade to help workers, balanced trade to distribute production, balanced trade for peace. And whether or not this crew can do the right use of the tariffs, I am highly skeptical of.

[Ralph Nader] Well, one thing, is it fair to say, Lori Wallach, that the World Trade Organization system of governance and tribunal sanctions has collapsed? All the countries now are just doing what they want to do. They're violating the World Trade Organization standards and getting away with it. So what's left of the World Trade Organization in Geneva?

[Lori Wallach] So on that parallel track, separate from the balance of trade and tariffs, on the sort of rules of the global economy, what exists is still those rules are in place. And to some degree, because the enforcement system is not operational anymore, you have the big and powerful countries mainly able to break those rules. But you have the less powerful countries who still are in the stranglehold. And one of the things that we see the Trump administration doing is threatening countries with tariffs. This is a fourth use of tariffs, one that I don't think is actually legit, which is just the bullying use of tariffs for non-trade things. Or for things that shouldn't be in a trade agreement, as we argued about WTO, but got slipped in there, like monopoly intellectual property protections.

So those kinds of rules, the U.S. goes around and basically says, Trump does, "We're going to tariff you if you don't do X, Y, and Z intellectual property rules for our big pharma companies." Or, "We're going to get you if you don't allow in our banks, or now increasingly our big tech companies." So that, unfortunately, for a lot of smaller countries, still is hanging over them. And that is why one very big thing that's going to happen this year is the renegotiation of the US-Mexico-Canada agreement. That's Trump's NAFTA 2.0. And that is our chance, sort of the appetizer for the main course being replacing WTO. This is the appetizer. This is our trial run, is to use this USMCA renegotiation. It's a required review. We need to make it a renegotiation with a national push, to actually rewrite these rules, chuck out some of the bad corporate rules.

And particularly with Trump and these threats, a lot of it is just like horrifically cynical. So the Mexico and Canada tariffs are ostensibly about Canada and Mexico being sources of fentanyl, the deadly illegal drug, and undocumented migration. They are using a particular statute for these tariffs because Congress has constitutional authority.

So if you're going to put in a tariff, you need some authority. It's not something like in the part of the Constitution for the president. So they're using a delegation of authority through a thing called "The International Economic Emergency Powers Act, IEPA," and they had to declare an emergency. So fentanyl and migration was the emergency.

But here's the thing. When Trump originally did that executive order about that on February 1st, he also closed a thing called "The de minimis loophole." That is this lunatic trade loophole that allows in uninspected a $800 value of imports to every American every day. And this has been exploited by the huge digital platforms like the Xi'an's, the Temu's, Amazon, to basically skirt paying any of the penalty tariffs, any inspection, any normal customs information. So we don't even know where half the stuff is. This has become a super-highway for fentanyl, and tons, but in small packages under the $800 value, of chemicals, the precursor chemicals to make fentanyl, are being drop shipped direct to consumer from China, which makes the stuff that is the precursor chemicals, and there is being driven across the border to Mexico to the cartels. And that loophole, they closed in the February 1st original order with the China tariff. And then four days later, Trump met with the Federal Express CEO, who apparently was not happy, because they deliver a bunch of those de minimis packages, because Ralph, now four million de minimis packages come in every day, 80% from China, uninspected, untariffed. So the FedEx guy talks to him in the Oval Office, boom, the next day they reopen that loophole.

So now we have the lunacy of tariffs on China that can be circumvented through a loophole that Trump initially closed and then reopened. The prospect that even the bullying uses of the tariffs, because, you know, a tariff is not going to stop fentanyl. Can I just make the obvious point as a recovering trade attorney? You do not send your fentanyl in through a customs declaration that goes in and says, "Hi, I am bringing in fentanyl." Let me explain to you what it is. This is illicit! So it's not as if literally we're sanctioning that particular shipment with a high tariff. What we need to do is close the uninspected package loophole. And instead of doing that, they just basically use tariff as a stick to sort of try and get press on beating up on Mexico and Canada.

[Ralph Nader] There was an effort in Congress a short time ago to do that. What's the likelihood? It seems to be ripe for both Democrat and Republican collaboration here to close that huge gap.

[Lori Wallach] Unfortunately, the express delivery guys, Federal Express, UPS, DHL, and the Xi'ans, Temus, Amazons, have so far been able to get key members of Congress to block the good legislation on this. There have been a couple of bills that really would fix it. That said, I just want to make clear to everyone, this is something that Trump can fix unilaterally without Congress.

[Ralph Nader] So basically, the bully that he is, when he's confronted by corporate bullies, his size or bigger, he backs down.

[Lori Wallach] He basically reversed the ability to stop fentanyl coming from China and to enforce his own China tariffs at the behest of the CEO of Federal Express.

[Ralph Nader] Well, on that point, we're out of time. Before we conclude, Lori Wallach, tell us once more about the website for the American Equiliberties Project, and what one or two articles you've written recently that can clarify this whole trade situation under the Trump regime?

[Lori Wallach] So the website I would recommend folks go to is rethinktrade.org. That's rethinktrade.org. It's a subset of the American Economic Liberty Project's website. And then the articles I would recommend, I had a piece in Compact magazine, the conservative magazine, that laid out, and they were very willing to print it, why Trump's tariffs with Mexico and Canada didn't make sense, and why closing the de minimis loophole really was going to be the thing that could actually fix the fentanyl problem.

And then another thing I would recommend is for folks to follow me on Blue Sky and on Twitter, because what I end up doing, as well as these Instagram videos, I also do sort of rapid response stuff on Twitter and on Blue Sky. And so if you want to sort of know what's happening in real time, that might be one of the best ways to do it. And I am at WallachLori, so at W-A-L-L-A-C-H-L-O-R-I.

[Ralph Nader] And take this information, listeners, and send it to your senators and representatives, or when they come to get your votes and do the handshaking, give them a piece of your mind. Thank you very much, Laurie Wallach.

[Lori Wallach] Thank you, gentlemen. Always a pleasure.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 10:35 pm

Part 1 of 2

The Economic Cost of Food Monopolies: The Rotten Egg Oligarchy
by Food & Water Watch
March 2025
https://www.foodandwaterwatch.org/wp-co ... stEggs.pdf

Inflation was already spiraling out of control when the current bird flu outbreak began in February 2022. Eggs have often led the inflation charge, today costing over twice as much as just a few years ago. Meanwhile, bird flu has now jumped to commercial dairies, infecting dozens of farmworkers along the way. Disease experts warn that future mutations or viral reassortment with the seasonal flu could unleash the next global pandemic.

The corporate food system is to blame for exacerbating the scale of the outbreak as well as the high cost of eggs. Factory farms are virus incubators, with the movement of animals, machines, and workers between operations helping to spread the virus. Meanwhile, just a handful of companies produce the majority of our eggs, giving them outsized control over the prices paid by retailers, who often pass on rising costs to consumers. This highly consolidated food system also enables companies to leverage a temporary shortage in one region to raise prices across the entire country.

Food & Water Watch (FWW) analyzed government reports on egg trends as well as corporate filings for Cal-Maine, the U.S.’s leading egg producer. We found that:

• Average retail prices for eggs in the U.S. jumped 2.5-fold from January 2022 to January 2023, reaching $4.82 per dozen. Eggs went from being a go-to animal protein to costing as much as ground beef in a matter of months.

• Egg price spikes hit regions that were bird flu-free until recently. The U.S. Southeast remained free of bird flu in its table egg flocks until January 2025, and actually increased egg production in 2022 and 2023 over 2021 levels. Nevertheless, retail egg prices in the Southeast rose alongside January 2023’s national price spikes.

• Egg prices never returned to pre-outbreak levels, even after retail inventories recovered. From April to December 2023, national retail inventories of eggs exceeded the five-year average by as much as 12.8 percent. Nevertheless, average egg prices exceeded the fiveyear average in each month as well.

• Cal-Maine did not experience any bird flu outbreaks in its flocks in its fiscal year (FY) 2023, and actually sold more eggs than in the previous two years. Yet it still sold eggs at inflated prices (2.8 times as much for conventional eggs compared to FY 2021), pocketing nearly $1 more per dozen sold after covering its expenses. This amounted to over $1 billion in “windfall profits.”

• Cal-Maine’s gross profits ballooned more than seven-fold in FY 2023 compared to FY 2021. It awarded its shareholders lavish dividends totaling $250 million — 40 times more than in FY 2022.

• The bird flu outbreak and Cal-Maine’s price increases likely helped push its stock value up, which more than doubled since the start of the outbreak. This increased the value of the portfolio of the company’s board chair by over $9 million in just three years (January 2022 to January 2025), even with fewer shares controlled.

We cannot afford to place our food system in the hands of a few corporations that put corporate profit above all else. Nor can we allow the factory farm system to continue polluting our environment and serving as the breeding ground for the next human pandemic. We need to enforce our nation’s antitrust laws to go after corporate price fixing and collusion. We also need a national ban on new and expanding factory farms, while transitioning to smaller, regional food systems that are more resilient to disruptions.

What Is Bird Flu?

Highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI), often called bird flu, is a fatal, quick-spreading strain of flu impacting domestic and wild bird populations. Symptoms include sneezing and coughing, misshapen eggs, lower egg production, diarrhea, and sudden death.1 It also infects mammals, including humans, although the symptoms vary in severity. The virus is circulating among dairy operations, causing lethargy and reduced milk production in cows, and sometimes death.2

Nearly half of all confirmed bird flu infections in humans since 2003 have been fatal. And while this current outbreak has manifested in milder symptoms in humans, experts caution that there is no guarantee this will continue. For example, in January 2025, a Louisiana resident died after contracting bird flu from an infected backyard flock. The virus appeared to have mutated inside the patient and led to respiratory distress, marking the first U.S. death from bird flu in this current outbreak.3

The current, ongoing outbreak (HPAI H5N1) was first detected in January 2022 in wild birds in South Carolina, precipitating the largest bird flu outbreak in U.S. history. The first detection in domestic poultry (an Indiana turkey operation) occurred in February 2022, followed by 14 additional detections that month. These initial infections followed the migratory patterns of wild birds.4 By the end of 2022, HPAI infected over 57 million domestic poultry across 47 states, with three quarters of infections occurring on commercial egg operations.5 As of February 2025, the virus continues to infect dairy and poultry farms, as well as farmworkers.

Corporate Price Gouging

Seemingly no part of the U.S. economy is untouched by recent inflation, which rose more than 20 percent since the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic.6 Today, the cost of feeding a family of four on a “thrifty” food plan is 50 percent higher than five years ago.7 Yet wages have not increased at the same rate.8 Participation in the federal food assistance program (SNAP), however, increased from 2019 levels as families struggled to afford food.9

Rising inflation does have beneficiaries — namely, the handful of agribusinesses behind every step of the food chain, from seeds to food processing to the supermarket. The multinational food corporation Tyson Foods took in 26 percent more revenue in 2024 compared to 2019,10 while doubling its CEO compensation.11 Walmart compensated its CEO nearly $27 million in 2024 — 976 times the median wage of its employees.12 This disconnect between corporate profits and the struggles of many U.S. families raises the question of whether corporations take advantage of events like the Covid-19 pandemic and economy-wide inflation to raise prices even higher.

One victim of corporate profiteering is the egg sector. Prices have fluctuated wildly since the first infection of this bird flu outbreak was detected in commercial flocks in February 2022. However, a deep dive into corporate filings and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) data suggests that corporations may have used the outbreak as a smokescreen for raising prices beyond what was necessary to cover any rising costs.

The incredible, unaffordable egg

In January 2022, one month before the current outbreak was first detected in domestic poultry, a dozen eggs in the U.S. cost an average of $1.93. By January 2023, it rose to $4.82 (see Fig. 1). In a matter of months, eggs had gone from being a go-to, affordable animal protein to as expensive as ground beef.13 People facing sticker shock at the supermarket and reading headlines about bird flu outbreaks may assume that these price spikes are all due to widespread egg shortages. However, the USDA noted early in the outbreak that the increases in prices outweighed the decreases in egg production.14

Image
Fig. 1: U.S. Egg Production and Retail Prices. Monthly egg production and average price per dozen

For example, FWW analysis of USDA data shows that the monthly U.S. egg-laying flock in 2022 never fell more than 6.7 percent from the five-year average, and monthly egg production never fell more than 5.6 percent. Moreover, in the month preceding the first detection in commercial flocks, national retail egg inventories were 22 percent above the four-year average, likely helping to buffer upcoming production losses. Notably, per capita egg consumption in 2022 barely budged, with Americans consuming on average 3.5 fewer eggs than the previous year.15

Egg prices were already climbing before the Covid-19 pandemic. They spiked in March 2020 (when U.S. lockdown began) as well as several more times in following years, as the bird flu outbreak evolved. Meanwhile, drops in egg production were not nearly as dramatic as these wild price spikes suggest (see Fig. 1).

Regional shortages, national price spikes

While consumers across the U.S. experienced price shocks, supply disruptions were not evenly spread. The U.S. Southeast remained free of bird flu outbreaks in its table egg flocks until January 2025. The region produces roughly 7 percent of the nation’s table eggs and actually increased production in 2022 and 2023 over 2021 levels. In January 2023 — when the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported the second highest average egg prices of all time— the Southeast’s retail egg inventories remained virtually unchanged from the five-year average.

Regardless, egg retail prices in the region, as reported by the USDA, follow national trends. FWW found that consumers in the Southeast paid an estimated $2.99 per dozen eggs in the third week of January 2023, slightly higher than the national average reported by the USDA that week ($2.92) and over two-and-half times the five-year January average for the Southeast. Similarly, BLS inflation data for the South [a] reported its highest ever average egg price at $4.78 per dozen, just below the national average of $4.82 (see Fig. 2).

a BLS’s South region contains all states in USDA’s Southeast region, plus 7 additional states and the District of Columbia. Only three counties in BLS’s South region (two in Maryland and one in Delaware) had experienced confirmed bird flu outbreaks in commercial table-egg flocks by January 2023.


Image
Fig. 2: Egg Price Spikes Hit Regions With Stable Retail Inventory

Overall, national egg inventories in January 2023 fell just 4 percent from the five-year average, with only the Southwest and Northwest regions facing steep shortages (down 15 percent and 41 percent, respectively). In contrast, the Northeast’s retail inventories were up 11.5 percent from the five-year average. Even so, consumers there paid around $3.99 per dozen in the last week of January 2023, according to USDA data.

High egg prices are here to stay

The year 2023 was relatively uneventful for commercial table egg flocks, with no reported outbreaks of bird flu from January through October. Flocks began to recover, and national retail inventories replenished. From April to December 2023, the national average retail inventories for Grade A eggs each month exceeded the five-year average by as much as 12.8 percent. Nevertheless, while egg inflation cooled from the previous spikes, average national prices reported by the BLS still exceeded the five-year average each month from April to December, by between 8 and 68.5 percent. The BLS’s Midwest and South regions similarly saw prices exceed five-year averages by as much as 62.3 and 63.5 percent, respectively.

Egg inflation began climbing again in 2024, as the table egg flock decreased and production fell, likely due to a resurgence of bird flu outbreaks.16 The Northwest and Southwest experienced significant declines in retail inventories ahead of the 2024 holiday season, when egg demand is generally higher.17 As of January 2025, people across the country were again facing surging egg prices — even in areas where retail inventories were less impacted.

For example, Midwest egg production at the end of 2024 was about where it was in mid-2024, when BLS-reported prices averaged around $2.50 per dozen. By December 2024, the Midwest was the only region with retail inventories above its five-year average. USDA retail price data are not available for the Midwest region during this time period, but BLS data show that a dozen eggs in the Midwest [ b] cost $4.16 in December 2024 — compared to $4.15 nationally.

b There are slight differences between BLS and USDA regional definitions; see Methodology for details.


The days of being able to buy a dozen eggs for a buck and change appear to be over. This adds to the burden already facing consumers in an age of rapid inflation. Roughly 97 percent of U.S. households purchase eggs,18 which are considered a necessity. Egg demand is “inelastic,” meaning that rising prices do not necessarily reduce consumption.19 Price spikes most acutely impact those households with the least amount of money to allocate toward food.

But for egg producers, the outbreak and continued price spikes signaled an opportunity for windfall profits.

Cal-Maine: America’s Egg Baron

Just four companies own over one-third of the U.S. egg-laying flock. Most are privately held companies, meaning that they do not have to make their financial information public. But the leading U.S. egg producer, Cal-Maine, is a publicly traded company, with the largest flock of hens, pullets, and breeders in the U.S. According to Cal-Maine’s filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company sells over 1 billion dozen shell eggs each year (roughly 21 percent of domestic consumption).20

Cal-Maine is a member of the Eggland’s Best cooperative and sells eggs branded as Egg-Land’s Best and Land O’ Lakes. It owns the Farmhouse Eggs, 4-Grain, Sunups, and Sunny Meadow trademarks. Retail stores make up most of its sales, with Walmart alone accounting for one-third.21

Cal-Maine owns 43 egg production facilities, housing up to 48 million laying hens — or an average of over 1 million hens per operation. These are located mainly across the U.S. Southeast and Southwest.22 Cal-Maine sells its eggs in dozens of U.S. states (see Fig. 3).

Image
Fig. 3: Most of Cal-Maine's Operating Areas Had no Bird Flu Outbreaks in Fiscal Year 2023. Cal-Maine's operating areas and counties with continued bird flu infections in commercial table-egg flocks. January 2022-June 2023

Cal-Maine followed Big Ag’s playbook for dominating the egg market. It made 25 acquisitions since 1989. It also vertically integrated its operations and now controls each step of the production chain — from hatching chicks and maintaining flocks, to manufacturing feed, to processing and distributing its eggs. Over 90 percent of the eggs it produces come from company-owned farms, with the remainder coming from contract growers. Additionally, Cal-Maine purchases and resells eggs from private farms.23

Cal-Maine’s bird flu windfall

One may assume that the largest U.S. producer of eggs would have suffered losses due to bird flu. But remarkably, Cal-Maine apparently sailed through the first two years of the outbreak untouched, without a single reported outbreak in its egg flocks until December 2023.24 In fact, Cal-Maine sold more eggs in its FY 2023 (ending June 3, 2023) compared to the previous two years, thanks in part to increased sales of specialty eggs like organic or cage-free.25 And most states it sold eggs in had yet to experience any bird flu outbreaks in commercial table-egg flocks (see Fig. 3).

FWW analysis of SEC filings found that, while Cal-Maine sold 7 percent more eggs in FY 2023 compared to FY 2021, its gross profit ballooned more than seven-fold [c] (see Fig. 4). This surge is largely attributed to selling its eggs at such high prices — 2.8 and 1.3 times as much for conventional and specialty eggs, respectively. Rising egg prices more than offset any increases in production costs in FY 2023, as well as the cost to purchase third-party eggs for later resale. In other words, Cal-Maine sold eggs at substantially higher prices than necessary to cover rising costs, reaping over $1 billion in windfall profits.

c Even when accounting for inflation, Cal-Maine’s gross profit still rose six-and-a-half fold from 2021 to 2023.


Image
Fig. 4: Cal-Maine's Profits Soared Amid the Bird Flu Crisis. Eggs sold and gross profit, in fiscal years (FY) ending in June

To illustrate Cal-Maine’s strategy to increase prices, FWW found that Cal-Maine’s cost per dozen eggs sold (conventional or specialty) rose $0.53 in FY 2023 over FY 2021 levels, before the current bird flu outbreak began. Costs include feed and processing, along with outside egg purchases (costing an average of $3 per dozen purchased in FY 2023). When only considering shell eggs that Cal-Maine produced on its corporate or contract farms, FWW estimates that Cal-Maine’s cost per dozen sold rose by $0.42.

However, the average price that Cal-Maine received per dozen eggs sold more than doubled in FY 2023 compared to FY 2021, and for conventional eggs specifically, it nearly tripled. Consequently, Cal-Maine pocketed an average of $1.14 per dozen eggs produced and sold in FY 2023 after covering its costs, compared to $0.15 in FY 2021 — a seven-and-a-half-fold increase. In other words, Cal-Maine pocketed nearly $1 more per dozen eggs produced and sold in FY 2023 compared to FY 2021. With Cal-Maine producing over 1 billion dozen eggs in FY 2023, this amounts to over $1 billion dollars in windfall profits attributed to Cal-Maine’s soaring egg prices.

The majority of Cal-Maine’s customers are retailers, who then sell eggs to consumers.26 The grocery industry is also highly concentrated: the top four grocery retailers take in three quarters of all grocery sales. Rising industry concentration can increase the “pass-through” of price spikes into retail prices27 — meaning that grocery retailers raise prices and leave consumers footing the bill. Some retailers have also raised prices beyond inflation, as a Kroger executive reportedly revealed in testimony regarding the company’s failed attempt to merge with Albertsons.28

This is not the first time that Cal-Maine has allegedly profited from national disasters without experiencing supply shortages. According to a lawsuit filed by the attorney general of Texas, the company had no outbreaks at its facilities during the 2015 bird flu outbreak but still sold at elevated prices. This allegedly helped generate an estimated $143 million in windfall profits in one quarter alone. Texas’s lawsuit accused Cal-Maine of price gouging at the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, arguing that the company tripled its prices despite not experiencing any shortages or supply chain disruptions.29

While egg inflation cooled a bit during Cal-Maine’s FY 2024, they remained elevated from FY 2021. For example, Cal-Maine sold eggs for an average of $1.93 per dozen in FY 2024, $0.72 more than in 2021, while the cost per dozen produced rose just $0.33. This helped Cal-Maine triple its FY 2024 profits over FY 2021 levels, despite selling just 7 percent more eggs.

Egg inflation skyrocketed again in late 2024 and hit an all-time high of $4.95 per dozen in January 2025. The impacts of these price spikes on Cal-Maine’s FY 2025 profits will be revealed when the company files its annual report in mid-2025.

Cashing in on the crisis

Cal-Maine’s current CEO, Sherman L. Miller, took in $1.1 million in total compensation in FY 2023 — 26 times the median employee income of $45,107.30 Additionally, Miller and other stockholders were awarded huge dividend payments thanks to Cal-Maine’s record-breaking profits. The company paid out $252.3 million in dividends in FY 2023 — 40 times as much as in FY 2022.31 FWW estimates that Cal-Maine’s board chair and former CEO, Adolphus B. Baker, who owns more than 150,000 shares, would have taken in over $800,000 of these dividends alone.

Additionally, executive leaders and other stockholders saw the value of their stocks rise substantially as bird flu spread. In January 2022, Cal-Maine’s stock was closing at around $40 per share, but then it rose in tandem with the evolving outbreak. It averaged $55 per share in January 2023, when the BLS reported the second highest national average egg price ever. The stock share price backslid a bit as 2023 progressed (with no outbreaks in table egg flocks occurring until November). But as outbreaks continued in 2024, and surged in its final months, so too did Cal- Maine’s share value, reaching a historic high of $116 per share in January 2025. Baker’s shares appreciated by nearly $10 million from January 2022 to January 2025 — despite Baker owning slightly fewer shares.

The Industry Playbook on Leveraging Crises

Referencing egg prices in its financial documents, Cal-Maine states, “We do not sell eggs directly to consumers or set the prices at which eggs are sold to consumers.”32 This statement may make it appear as though egg prices are entirely outside of Cal-Maine’s control. However, Cal-Maine sells to entities like grocers that then sell to consumers, so the price it sells its eggs at certainly factors into grocery store prices.

The company states in its financial disclosures that many of its customers rely on Cal-Maine for the majority of their egg needs.33 As the dominant player in an industry that continues to consolidate,34 it is reasonable to assume that Cal-Maine has some degree of leverage in these markets. Add a national outbreak of bird flu, and you have the perfect environment for corporate price gouging.

BLS data show that egg price inflation was on the rise before the 2022 bird flu outbreak. The CEO of Vital Farms (which produces pasture-raised and organic eggs) called the price increases by other egg producers during the first year of the bird flu outbreak a “head-scratcher.” And while he did not outright accuse his competitors of price gouging, he stated, “I don’t see anything in my cost structure that would have led me to raise our prices by as much as [reported].”35

So how are egg prices determined? And does corporate power play a role?

Urner Barry and egg prices

Cal-Maine has faced price-gouging lawsuits in the past, including the aforementioned lawsuit brought by the Texas attorney general. The lawsuit referred to Cal-Maine as a “powerhouse” in Texas, and alleged that the company broke state law by raising prices during an ongoing declared disaster (in this case, the Covid-19 pandemic). The lawsuit points to claims on Cal-Maine’s website that market egg prices are outside of its control. Since Cal-Maine sells on the spot market (rather than through long-term contracts), the lawsuit states that the company “can offer purchasers whichever price it chooses.”36

This “market price” comes from a private firm that publishes price indexes on eggs and other commodities.37 Expana’s Urner Barry Egg Index38 is not a household name, but it may still play an outsized role in the prices we pay for eggs.

Expana researchers contact companies throughout the egg supply chain, who voluntarily provide data. This includes data on actual transactions as well as bids and “market participant assessments.”39 Expana distills these data into “benchmark” prices in its Urner Barry index, which, in turn, allegedly influence the prices set by the same producers.40 In other words, Urner Barry provides information to egg companies on the pricing direction of their competitors.

Urner Barry’s influence on egg prices features in other price-gouging lawsuits, including one brought against another leading egg producer, Hillandale, for pandemic price gouging. New York’s attorney general alleged that Hillandale raised egg prices by up to four-fold between January and March 2020 “simply to line its own pockets and profit off New Yorkers during a time of crisis.”41 The suit cited Hillandale leaders admitting that the rising prices had “nothing to do with cost or overhead” and were “solely Market based.” This “Market” was none other than the Urner Barry index, which the lawsuit described as a feedback loop where producers’ own inputs are used to set wholesale egg prices.42

The Texas lawsuit against Cal-Maine similarly calls out the company for referencing “the market” as an excuse for raising prices during the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, when what Cal-Maine really means is the Urner Barry index. The lawsuit states, “When Cal-Maine discusses ‘market prices’ (when no market exchange exists) and market forces that are ‘outside of our control’ (when Cal- Maine can exert control), it misleads purchasers who seek answers as to why pandemic egg prices have jumped.”43

Cal-Maine notes the influence of Urner Barry on U.S. egg prices, but also clarifies that the actual prices may differ “because of the individualized terms that we negotiate with individual customers which are influenced by many factors.”44 In other words, as the Texas lawsuit alleged, Cal-Maine does not appear to be tied to any market price for eggs.45

21st century corporate collusion?

Private companies like Urner Barry that rely on information from producers to influence food prices exist in other food sectors as well. Agri Stats, for example, collects information on production costs, prices, and other sensitive information from leading meat producers who subscribe to the service. Agri Stats then allegedly shares aggregated data with these processers, who pay millions of dollars for the service. 46

The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), along with six states, are currently suing Agri Stats for price fixing.47 In a competitive market, a processor whose prices are lower than its competitors’ is motivated to increase production, thereby increasing profits. Agri Stats, the lawsuit argues, instead “enables and encourages processors to increase prices and restrict output to boost profits industrywide.” 48 Agri Stats also reportedly refuses to provide this information to farmers and workers. Under U.S. antitrust legislation, it is illegal for companies to share competitively sensitive information on prices, costs, and production plans.49

While price fixing may convey images of corporate executives scheming behind closed doors, it may also be facilitated by third-party companies like Agri Stats. The DOJ suit alleges that information exchanged via Agri Stats has “unreasonably restrained trade, suppressed competition, and had the actual and likely effect of stabilizing and increasing prices and reducing output in the United States broiler chicken market.”50 And companies like Agri Stats may be more common than you think. Rising airfare and soaring rent are linked to such third-party companies that share price information with industry players.51

Urner Barry points the finger at higher feed and energy costs, along with bird flu, as the reason behind rising egg prices.52 But as this report’s case study shows, Cal-Maine’s profits rose by over $1 billion in FY 2023 compared to FY 2021, even after adjusting for rising costs. We do not have financial data for the other leading egg producers, as most are privately held companies and therefore are not required to file financial data with the SEC. Thus, we cannot determine whether egg price spikes covered these companies’ rising costs tied to inputs and bird flu, and whether they too experienced windfall profits like Cal-Maine. Federal regulators, however, could open up investigations into these companies’ practices to see whether price gouging occurred.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 10:36 pm

Part 2 of 2

Additional tactics to influence egg prices

Price-fixing lawsuits aimed at egg producers are not limited to disasters like the Covid-19 pandemic. In 2011, a group of leading food manufacturers including Nestlé and Kellogg brought a conspiracy suit against several egg companies, which included Cal-Maine and the trade group United Egg Producers (UEP). Over a decade later when the case finally went to trial, a jury found that the producers and trade groups illegally conspired to raise egg prices by restricting egg supplies through various tactics, such as forced molting and early slaughter. The jury agreed with the plaintiffs and awarded them millions of dollars in damages.53

The suit even called out UEP’s Certified program — which requires companies carrying the UEP Certified label to stock fewer hens in each cage — as yet another tactic for reducing supply. Defendants claimed that the Certified Program was created in response to customer demand for higher animal welfare standards. UEP documents presented as evidence, however, revealed a wider coordinated effort to reduce egg supplies and raise prices. These show the role played by Cal-Maine’s former CEO and current board chair Adolphus Baker in advocating for supply reductions.54

Corporations Throwing Fuel on the Pandemic Fire

Corporations profiting from the bird flu disaster are also exacerbating the outbreak. Backyard poultry flocks face a risk of bird flu infections thanks to their proximity to and contact with wild bird populations55; they are an indicator of disease in wild populations, rather than playing a role in spreading the disease between flocks. There is no evidence of bird flu spreading from backyard to commercial poultry flocks.56 The biggest risk factor for commercial egg farms remains being located near other farms with active infections.57 The 2015 bird flu outbreak was similarly introduced into commercial flocks by wild birds but later spread from farm to farm, following the movement of workers, materials, and equipment.58

HPAI is fatal to poultry, and an outbreak in a commercial operation necessitates culling the entire flock to prevent further spreading.59 These impacts cannot be understated. Today’s average factory egg farm confines over 800,000 birds, with some operations confining several million.60 This magnifies the scale of animal suffering and death, as well as the enormous environmental and safety burden of disposing of a million or more infected bird carcasses. As of February 2025, 99 percent of all impacted birds on commercial table-egg flocks were on factory farms (those with 100,000 or more birds).

In factory dairy farms, the scale and crowded conditions make them incubators for bird flu. The first H5N1 detection in commercial dairy farms occurred in March 2024. By the end of 2024, more than 900 dairy herds across 16 states had confirmed cases. The dairy industry’s prioritization of profits exacerbates the outbreak. Farms have been reluctant to participate in voluntary testing of milk and farmworkers, and even to report active infections, for fear of losing milk sales.61 Additionally, some dairies may not be informing workers of the risks of bird flu nor providing personal protective equipment (PPE). For example, a November 2024 report from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) surveyed workers on farms with previous bird flu infections. Only one-fifth of workers reported using respiratory protection after an outbreak was confirmed, and just over one-third of workers reported using safety goggles.62

The factory dairy industry’s exploitation of low-wage workers only heightens the risk to farmworkers. Many of these workers are undocumented and uninsured, creating barriers to testing, isolation, and treatment. Moreover, farmworker housing is notoriously crowded, meaning if human-to-human transmission were to occur, it could spread like wildfire within farmworker communities.63

Infections in cattle are an alarming development, given the close contact between dairy cows and farmworkers, as well as the potential for the virus to mutate in cows.64 As of February 2025, 70 people in the U.S. have had confirmed H5N1 infections, and one has died. While there has been no confirmed human-to-human spread of infections to-date, the virus could mutate and become transmissible between humans.65 Additionally, a hybrid virus could form if a farmworker catches seasonal flu and bird flu simultaneously, enabling gene swapping between the strains.66 This could also occur if the virus moves to hog farms. Past pandemics like the 2009 swine flu outbreak emerged after pigs served as “mixing pots” for several flu strains, creating a novel virus that spread rapidly between humans.67

Many disease experts are alarmed at the U.S.’s response to bird flu, raising concern that we are not doing enough to prevent the next human pandemic. In many states hit by bird flu in dairies, agriculture officials are reluctant to allow CDC researchers to access farms, with the Texas Agriculture Commissioner stating, “They need to back off.”68 The USDA’s response is also criticized as being slow-moving as well as deferential to the dairy industry.69 Experts have raised concerns that the new Trump administration, with its focus on reducing funding for science, may shift federal funding and priority from where it is needed to prevent a human pandemic.70

Conclusion and Recommendations

Bird flu is a threat not only to food affordability but also to human health. Our corporate-run food system both exacerbates disease outbreaks on factory farms while creating price-gouging opportunities.

State and federal officials must proactively fight the spread of bird flu. This includes giving health officials access to farms with active outbreaks and providing and mandating the use of PPE when handling infected livestock. But to effectively stamp out the risk of future zoonotic pandemics — infectious diseases that can be transmitted from animals to humans — we must break the stranglehold that corporations have on our food system, moving away from factory farms and providing workers with fair wages and healthcare access.

Food & Water Watch recommends that:

• Congress pass the Farm System Reform Act, to stop the growth of factory farms and provide funding to help transition to smaller, sustainable farming systems;

• Congress pass the Price Gouging Prevention Act, to make the practice of corporate price gouging illegal while protecting consumers and small businesses;

• The DOJ expand its investigation into price fixing by third-party platforms like Agri Stats, including investigating Urner Barry’s role in facilitating recent spikes in egg prices; and

• The DOJ and the Federal Trade Commission utilize the 2023 Merger Guidelines to block uncompetitive mergers in the food sector and beyond.

Methodology

HPAI data


Data on the evolving highly pathogenic avian influenza (HPAI) outbreak in poultry flocks come from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), downloaded from the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) website.71 The dataset includes all confirmed and reported infections in U.S. domestic poultry since January 2022. We filtered for all outbreaks on commercial table egg flocks, including layer, pullet, and breeder flocks. When referencing human infections, we cite the CDC’s bird flu landing page.72 Data on HPAI outbreaks in cattle operations come from the USDA.73 We filtered for outbreaks among dairy milking cows.

Egg price and retail availability

Egg price data come from two sources. When referencing egg inflation, we use U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) consumer price index data for one-dozen Grade A large eggs.74 These data are reported monthly and are also available in three of the BLS’s four regions (Northeast, Midwest, and South), although some regions are missing data for select months.

When referencing retail prices, we use the USDA Weekly Retail Egg Feature Activity reports.75 These cover national data and six U.S. regions (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, South Central, Southwest, and Northwest) and report on a weekly basis; however, regional data are similarly missing for select weeks. We chose to include these USDA reports as the agency’s Southeast region coincides geographically with the Southeast region in USDA reports on retail egg inventories (see below). This allows us to make observations on regional egg prices and retail inventories for a region that until recently had no bird flu infections in commercial table egg flocks.

Retail egg inventory data come from the USDA’s National Weekly Shell Egg Inventory reports,76 and we only include conventional large eggs. These reports also include six regions that are nearly identically defined [d] and report on a weekly basis, with all weeks and regions reporting for the years we considered.

d The only differences are Arizona and Utah, which are included in the Southwest region in the Retail Egg Feature Activity reports, and in the South Central region in the National Weekly Shell Egg Inventory reports.


For both USDA reports, we average all reported weekly averages to create monthly averages. Each month comprises reports published in the month in question, regardless of whether portions of those weeks occurred in the previous or following month.

Egg production

We use USDA survey data for estimates on national and state-level table egg production, as well as the table egg layers inventory and the percentage of laying flock in molting.77 We applied these molting rates to the inventory data to estimate the total productive table egg laying flock, following USDA methodology.78

This report compares table egg production, productive flocks, egg prices, and retail availability across multiple years using five-year monthly averages (or four-year monthly averages when data do not go back as far). For example, when comparing the Southeast’s retail egg inventories in January 2023 to the five-year average, we first calculated the monthly average in the Southeast for each January from 2018 to 2022, then took the average among these five preceding Januarys to calculate the five-year monthly average.

Some states did not report egg production data in the years we considered. Additionally, USDA surveys may withhold aggregate data for states or counties with little data reported. In the Southeast region, Florida, Tennessee, and Mississippi egg production data are not reported for all years considered in this report; we therefore excluded them from our analysis on changes to 5-year monthly average egg production in the Southeast. Kentucky, Michigan, North Dakota, Ohio, and Wisconsin are excluded from the Midwest for the same reason.

Cal-Maine profits, stock value, and marketing reach

We accessed Cal-Maine’s corporate filings to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).79 These include Cal-Maine’s annual reports (SEC Form 10-K), which cover its fiscal year (FY) that begins in June. As such, FY 2021 (ending May 29, 2021) is the last full year of reporting prior to the detection of bird flu in commercial poultry flocks in February 2022. We use FY 2021 as the baseline comparison to FYs 2023 and 2024, which occurred entirely within the time frame of the current bird flu outbreak.

We calculated “windfall profits” (gross profit earned attributed to rising egg prices) by first gathering data across Cal-Maine’s recent Form 10-K filings. We calculated the cost per dozen eggs sold in FY 2021 and deducted this from the average sale price in FY 2021, to see the profit margin per dozen eggs sold that year. We compared this to the profit margins we calculated for FYs 2023 and 2024, to estimate the numerical increase in profit per dozen eggs sold. Since these increased profits are thanks to rising egg prices following bird flu outbreaks, we characterize them as Cal-Maine’s “windfall profits.”

We valued Cal-Maine’s stock using historical downloaded from Nasdaq.80 Stock values represent the closing value on the day in question. We accessed data on shares owned by Board Chair Adolphus B. Baker from Cal-Maine’s SEC Form 4. Data on variable dividends paid by Cal-Maine are posted on the company’s website.81

We determined Cal-Maine’s production locations and market coverage using data posted on its website.82

Corporate concentration calculations

We reference WATTPoultry to estimate the total egg-laying flocks of the leading U.S. egg producers at the end of 2023.83 We compare this to the total productive flock that we calculated for December 2023 (see above).

We use the USDA’s estimate of total U.S. food-at-home sales for 2023 from grocery stores, supercenters and warehouse clubs, and other food stores (excluding convenience stores).84 We identify leading food retailers from both USDA and industry sources, and use annual reports and SEC Form 10-K filings covering the majority of 2023 to determine net food sales for each of these corporations. For Walmart, we include food sales for both its supercenters and its Sam’s Club warehouses.

_______________

Endnotes

1 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). “High Pathogenicity Avian Influenza Eradication —
Tennessee: Final Environmental Assessment.” March 2017 at 5.
2 USDA APHIS. “Detection of Highly Pathogenic Avian Influenza (H5N1) in Dairy Herds: Frequently Asked Questions.” Updated April 24, 2024 at 1
to 3; Douglas, Leah. “Cows dead from bird flu rot in California as heat bakes dairy farms.” Reuters. October 17, 2024.
3 Stobbe, Mike. “First US bird flu death is announced in Louisiana.” Associated Press. January 7, 2025; Katella, Kathy. “H5N1 Bird Flu: What you
need to know.” Yale Medicine. January 7, 2025.
4 USDA APHIS. “Epidemiologic and Other Analyses of HPAI-Affected Poultry Flocks: Interim Report.” June 2023 at 1 and 4.
5 Green, Alice L. et al. “Investigation of risk factors for introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus onto t able egg farms in the
United States, 2022: A case-control study.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Vol. 10. July 2023 at 1.
6 Food & Water Watch (FWW) analysis of U.S. Department of Labor (DOL). Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Series ID CUUR0000SA0. Available
at https://www.bls.gov/data. Accessed February 2025.
7 USDA. Food and Nutrition Service (FNS). “Official USDA Food Plans: Cost of Food at Home at Four Levels, U.S. Average, February 2020 .”
March 2020 at 1; USDA FNS. “Official USDA Thrifty Food Plan: U.S. Average, November 2024.” December 2024 at 1.
8 FWW analysis of DOL BLS. Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (QCEW). Available at
https://data.bls.gov/cew/apps/data_view ... tab=Tables. Accessed January 2025.
9 USDA FNS. Snap Data Tables. Available at https://www.fns.usda.gov/pd/supplementa ... ogram-snap. Accessed January
2025.
10 Tyson Foods, Inc. U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Form 10-K. Commission File No. 001-14704. FY ended September 28,
2019 at 42; Tyson Foods, Inc. SEC. Form 10-K. Commission File No. 001-14704. FY ended September 28, 2024 at 44.
11 Tyson Foods, Inc. SEC. Schedule 14A. Commission File No. 001-14704. December 2019 at 51; Tyson Foods, Inc. SEC. Schedule 14A.
Commission File No. 001-14704. December 2024 at 61.
12 Wal-Mart Inc. SEC. Schedule 14A. June 2024 at 91.
13 USDA. Economic Research Service (ERS). “Eggs became an increasingly expensive source of animal protein in 2022 and into early 2023.”
Updated March 16, 2023. Available at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ ... tId=106132.
14 USDA ERS. “Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: May 2022.” LDP-M-335. May 18, 2022 at 28.
15 USDA ERS. “Livestock, Dairy, and Poultry Outlook: September 2023.” LDP-M-351. September 18, 2023 at 29.
16 Timotija, Filip. “Egg prices jump with bird flu spreading before the holidays.” Hill. December 21, 2024.
17 Durbin, Dee-Ann et al. Associated Press. “Why are eggs getting more expensive again?” PBS News. November 27, 2024.
18 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. SEC. Form 10-K. Commission File No. 001-38695. FY ended June 1, 2024 at 5.
19 Bakhtavoryan, Rafael et al. “An empirical evaluation of egg demand in the United States.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics. Vol. 53.
2021 at 282; Ni Mhurchu, Cliona et al. “Food prices and consumer demand: Differences across income levels and ethnic groups.” PLoS ONE.
Vol. 8, Iss. 10. October 2013 at 1.
20 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (FY 2024) at 10 and 25.
21 Ibid. at 8 to 10.
22 Ibid. at 22.
23 Ibid. at 4 to 8 and 30.
24 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. SEC. Form 10-K. Commission File No. 001-38695. FY ended June 3, 2023 at 13; Cal-Maine Foods, Inc (FY 2024) at 4
and 25 to 26.
25 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (FY 2023) at 24.
26 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (FY 2024) at 8 to 10.
27 Bräuning, Falk et al. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston. “Cost-price relationships in a concentrated economy.” May 23, 2022 at 2 and 8.
28 Musumeci, Natalie. “A Kroger exec reportedly testified that the supermarket giant raised prices of milk and eggs beyond infla tion costs.”
Business Insider. August 29, 2024; U.S. Federal Trade Commission. [Press release]. “Statement on FTC Victory Securing Halt to Kroger,
Albertsons Grocery Merger.” December 10, 2024.
29 Petition at 10 to 12, Texas v. Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 01-20-00641-CV (Tex. 215th Dist. Ct.).
30 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. SEC. Schedule 14A. October 2023 at 34.
31 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (FY 2023) at 30.
32 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (FY 2024) at 5.
16
The Economic Cost of Food Monopolies: The Rotten Egg Oligarchy
33 Ibid. at 4.
34 O’Keefe, Terrence et al. WATTPoultry. “4 variables for US egg producers to factor in 2024 plans.” January 11, 2024; Kelloway, Claire. “Jury finds
egg companies guilty of price-fixing. Food & Power. November 30, 2023.
35 “Vital Farms CEO says he can’t explain significant rise in egg prices.” Yahoo Finance. January 26, 2023. Available at
https://finance.yahoo.com/video/vital-f ... 15640.html.
36 Petition at 1, 7 to 13, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 01-20-00641-CV.
37 Expana. [Press release]. “Mintec and AgriBriefing combine to create a market leading price reporting agency (PRA) and data provider.” January
10, 2023; Petition at 13 to 14, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 01-20-00641-CV.
38 Urner Barry by Expana. Urner Barry Egg Index EBP. Comcode: 4850. Available at https://www.urnerbarry.com/history/4850.
39 Urner Barry. “Urner Barry Price Reporting Methodology.” Revised January 2024 at 3; Petition at 11, New York v. Hillandale Farms Corp. et al.,
No. 451650/2020 (Sup. Ct., N.Y. County).
40 Petition at 13, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 01-20-00641-CV; Petition at 11, Hillandale Farms Corp. et al., No. 451650/2020.
41 Petition at 2, Hillandale Farms Corp. et al., No. 451650/2020.
42 Petition at 1 to 2, 11, Hillandale Farms Corp. et al., No. 451650/2020.
43 Petition at 13 to 14, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 01-20-00641-CV.
44 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. (FY 2024) at 5 to 6.
45 Petition at 9 to 13, Cal-Maine Foods, Inc., No. 01-20-00641-CV.
46 Complaint at 1 to 9, United States v. Agri Stats, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03009 (D. Minn.).
47 Ibid., ECF Nos. 1 and 50.
48 Complaint at 1 to 9, Agri Stats, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03009.
49 FWW. “Why Antitrust Laws Matter More Than Ever in Agriculture and Food.” May 2023 at 2; United States of America v. Agri Stats Inc. 0:23-cv-
03009 Doc. 1. 2023 at 3 to 4 and 58.
50 Complaint at 58, Agri Stats, Inc., No. 0:23-cv-03009.
51 Goldstein, Luke. “Three algorithms in a room.” American Prospect. June 5, 2024.
52 Rubio, Angel and Andrei Rjedkin. Urner Barry by Expana. “UB Consulting: Why the rise in egg prices?” January 20, 2023. Availa ble at
https://urnerbarry.com/Consulting/Blog/UBC-Blog/1244188.
53 Kraft Food Glob., Inc. v. United Egg Producers, Inc., No. 11-cv-8808, 2024 WL 4346418 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 30, 2024).
54 Ibid.
55 USDA APHIS (June 2023) at 8.
56 Ibid. at 8.
57 Green, Alice L. et al. “Investigation of risk factors for introduction of highly pathogenic avian influenza H5N1 virus onto t able egg farms in the
United States, 2022: A case-control study.” Frontiers in Veterinary Science. Vol. 10. July 2023 at 2; USDA APHIS (June 2023) at 17.
58 USDA APHIS (June 2023) at 7.
59 USDA APHIS (March 2017) at 5.
60 FWW. “Factory Farm Nation: 2024 Edition.” September 2024 at 8.
61 Douglas, Leah and Tom Polansek. “US undercounts bird flu in cattle as farmers shun testing.” Reuters. August 15, 2024; Mandavilli, Apoorva and
Emily Anthes. “U.S. milk to be tested for bird flu virus.” New York Times. December 6, 2024; Maxmen, Amy. KFF Health News. “How America lost
control of the bird flu and raised the risk of another pandemic.” PBS News. December 26, 2024.
62 Maxmen (2024); Mellis, Alexandra M. et al. “Serologic evidence of recent infection with highly pathogenic avian influenza A(H5) virus among
dairy workers — Michigan and Colorado, June-August 2024.” Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report. Vol. 73, No. 44. November 2024 at
methods and results.
63 Graham, Thomas. “As bird flu hops from cows to humans, dairy farm workers hold the key to preventing a pandemic.” Guardian. May 29, 2024;
Maxmen (2024).
64 Graham (2024); Katella (2025).
65 Lin, Ting-Hui et al. “A single mutation in bovine influenza H5N1 hemagglutinin switches specificity to human receptors.” Science. Vol. 386, No.
6726. December 2024 at 1.
66 Maxmen (2024).
67 Katella (2025).
68 Hill, Meredith et al. “‘They need to back off’: Farm states push back on Biden’s bird flu response.” Politico. May 6, 2024.
69 Maxmen (2024).
17
The Economic Cost of Food Monopolies: The Rotten Egg Oligarchy
70 Johns Hopkins. Bloomberg School of Public Health. “An update on avian influenza in dairy cows, poultry, and humans.” November 26, 2024;
Mandavilli and Anthes (2024).
71 U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). “USDA Reported H5N1 Bird Flu Detections in Poultry.” Available at https://www.cdc.gov/birdflu/
situation-summary/data-map-commercial.html. Accessed March 2025.
72 CDC. “H5 Bird Flu: Current Situation.” Available at https://www.cdc.gov/bird-flu/situation- ... index.html. Accessed March 2025.
73 USDA APHIS. “HPAI Confirmed Cases in Livestock.” Available at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/livestock-po ... influenza/
hpai-detections/hpai-confirmed-cases-livestock. Accessed March 2025.
74 DOL BLS. Series ID APU 0000708111. Available at https://www.bls.gov/data. Accessed February 2025.
75 USDA. Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS). “Weekly Retail Egg Feature Activity.” AMS_2757. Available at
https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/filerepo/reports.
76 USDA AMS. “National Weekly Shell Egg Inventory.” AMS_1427. Available at https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/filerepo/reports.
77 USDA NASS. Quick Stats. Available at https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov.
78 See USDA AMS. “Weekly Shell Egg Demand Indicator.” PYWSEDI. Available at https://mymarketnews.ams.usda.gov/filerepo/reports.
79 SEC. Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis, and Retrieval (EDGAR) system. Available at https://www.sec.gov/search -filings.
80 Nasdaq. Historical Quotes. Available at https://www.nasdaq.com/market-activity/ ... imeline=y5.
Accessed March 2025.
81 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. “Variable Dividend Policy.” Available at https://www.calmainefoods.com/dividend-policy.
82 Cal-Maine Foods, Inc. “Operating Locations.” Available at https://www.calmainefoods.com/locations. Updated December 31, 2024.
83 O’Keefe, Terrence. “The 60 largest egg producers in 2024.” Egg Industry. Vol. 129, No. 1. January 2024.
84 USDA ERS. Food Expenditure Series. “Nominal food and alcohol expenditures, without taxes and tips, for all purchasers.” June 2024. Available
at https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/ ... ure-series.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sat Mar 15, 2025 11:42 pm

Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua
by Donald Trump
The White House
March 15, 2025
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential ... de-aragua/

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A PROCLAMATION


Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States. TdA operates in conjunction with Cártel de los Soles, the Nicolas Maduro regime-sponsored, narco-terrorism enterprise based in Venezuela, and commits brutal crimes, including murders, kidnappings, extortions, and human, drug, and weapons trafficking. TdA has engaged in and continues to engage in mass illegal migration to the United States to further its objectives of harming United States citizens, undermining public safety, and supporting the Maduro regime’s goal of destabilizing democratic nations in the Americas, including the United States.

TdA is closely aligned with, and indeed has infiltrated, the Maduro regime, including its military and law enforcement apparatus. TdA grew significantly while Tareck El Aissami served as governor of Aragua between 2012 and 2017. In 2017, El Aissami was appointed as Vice President of Venezuela. Soon thereafter, the United States Department of the Treasury designated El Aissami as a Specially Designated Narcotics Trafficker under the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, 21 U.S.C. 1901 et seq. El Aissami is currently a United States fugitive facing charges arising from his violations of United States sanctions triggered by his Department of the Treasury designation.

Like El Aissami, Nicolas Maduro, who claims to act as Venezuela’s President and asserts control over the security forces and other authorities in Venezuela, also maintains close ties to regime-sponsored narco-terrorists. Maduro leads the regime-sponsored enterprise Cártel de los Soles, which coordinates with and relies on TdA and other organizations to carry out its objective of using illegal narcotics as a weapon to “flood” the United States. In 2020, Maduro and other regime members were charged with narcoterrorism and other crimes in connection with this plot against America.

Over the years, Venezuelan national and local authorities have ceded ever-greater control over their territories to transnational criminal organizations, including TdA. The result is a hybrid criminal state that is perpetrating an invasion of and predatory incursion into the United States, and which poses a substantial danger to the United States. Indeed, in December 2024, INTERPOL Washington confirmed: “Tren de Aragua has emerged as a significant threat to the United States as it infiltrates migration flows from Venezuela.” Evidence irrefutably demonstrates that TdA has invaded the United States and continues to invade, attempt to invade, and threaten to invade the country; perpetrated irregular warfare within the country; and used drug trafficking as a weapon against our citizens.

Based upon a review of TdA’s activities, and in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of the Treasury, on February 20, 2025, acting pursuant to the authority in 8 U.S.C. 1189, the Secretary of State designated TdA as a Foreign Terrorist Organization.

As President of the United States and Commander in Chief, it is my solemn duty to protect the American people from the devastating effects of this invasion. NOW, THEREFORE, I, DONALD J. TRUMP, President of the United States of America, by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. 21 et seq., hereby proclaim and direct as follows:

Section 1. I find and declare that TdA is perpetrating, attempting, and threatening an invasion or predatory incursion against the territory of the United States. TdA is undertaking hostile actions and conducting irregular warfare against the territory of the United States both directly and at the direction, clandestine or otherwise, of the Maduro regime in Venezuela. I make these findings using the full extent of my authority to conduct the Nation’s foreign affairs under the Constitution. Based on these findings, and by the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including 50 U.S.C. 21, I proclaim that all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States are liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured, and removed as Alien Enemies. I further find and declare that all such members of TdA are, by virtue of their membership in that organization, chargeable with actual hostility against the United States and are therefore ineligible for the benefits of 50 U.S.C. 22. I further find and declare that all such members of TdA are a danger to the public peace or safety of the United States.

Sec. 2. I direct the Attorney General, within 60 days of the date of this proclamation, to prepare and publish a letter under her signature declaring the policy described in section 1 of this proclamation as the policy of the United States and attaching this proclamation. I direct the Attorney General to transmit this letter to the Chief Justice of the United States, the chief judge of every circuit court of appeals, the chief judge of every district and territorial court of the United States, each Governor of a State and territory of the United States, and the highest-ranking judicial officer of each State and territory of the United States.

Sec. 3. I direct that all Alien Enemies described in section 1 of this proclamation are subject to immediate apprehension, detention, and removal, and further that they shall not be permitted residence in the United States.

Sec. 4. Pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act, the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security shall, consistent with applicable law, apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove every Alien Enemy described in section 1 of this proclamation. The Secretary of Homeland Security retains discretion to apprehend and remove any Alien Enemy under any separate authority.

Sec. 5. All executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall collaborate with law enforcement officials of the United States and with appropriate State, local, and tribal officials, to use all lawful means to apprehend, restrain, secure, and remove Alien Enemies described in section 1 of this proclamation.

Sec. 6. Pursuant to my authority under 50 U.S.C. 21 to direct the conduct to be observed on the part of the United States toward the Alien Enemies subject to this proclamation, to direct the manner and degree of the restraint to which such Alien Enemies shall be subject and in what cases, to provide for the removal of such Alien Enemies, and to establish any other regulations which are found necessary “in the premises and for the public safety,” I hereby direct the Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security to execute all the regulations hereinafter contained regarding the Alien Enemies described in section 1 of this proclamation. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are further directed to cause the apprehension, detention, and removal of all members of TdA who otherwise qualify as Alien Enemies under section 1 of this proclamation. The Attorney General and the Secretary of Homeland Security are authorized to take all necessary actions under the Alien Enemies Act to effectuate this proclamation, consistent with applicable law. In doing so, and for such purpose, they are authorized to utilize agents, agencies, and officers of the United States Government and of the several States, territories, dependencies, and municipalities thereof and of the District of Columbia. All such agents, agencies, and officers are hereby granted full authority for all acts done by them in the execution of such regulations when acting by direction of the Attorney General or the Secretary of Homeland Security, as the case may be.

Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Alien Enemies Act, 50 U.S.C. 21 et seq., I hereby declare and establish the following regulations which I find necessary “in the premises and for the public safety”:

(a) No Alien Enemy described in section 1 of this proclamation shall enter, attempt to enter, or be found within any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States. Any such Alien Enemy who enters, attempts to enter, or is found within such territory shall be immediately apprehended and detained until removed from the United States. All such Alien Enemies, wherever found within any territory subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, are subject to summary apprehension.

(b) Alien Enemies apprehended pursuant to this proclamation shall be subject to detention until removed from the United States in such place of detention as may be directed by the officers responsible for the execution of these regulations.

(c) Alien Enemies shall be subject to removal to any such location as may be directed by the officers responsible for the execution of these regulations consistent with applicable law.

(d) All property in the possession of, or traceable to, an Alien Enemy, which is used, intended to be used, or is commonly used to perpetrate the hostile activity and irregular warfare of TdA, along with evidence of such hostile activity and irregular warfare, shall be subject to seizure and forfeiture.

The Attorney General is further granted authority, pursuant to the Alien Enemies Act and 3 U.S.C. 301, in consultation with the Secretary of Homeland Security, to issue any guidance necessary to effectuate the prompt apprehension, detention, and removal of all Alien Enemies described in section 1 of this proclamation. Any such guidance shall be effective immediately upon issuance by the Attorney General.

This proclamation and the directives and regulations prescribed herein shall extend and apply to all land and water, continental or insular, in any way within the jurisdiction of the United States.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this fourteenth day of March, in the year of our Lord two thousand twenty-five, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and forty-ninth.

************************

Trump DECLARES WAR POWERS against America
MeidasTouch
Mar 15, 2025

MeidasTouch host Ben Meiselas reports on Donald Trump formally invoking the Alien Enemies Act or 1798 and declaring there is a war with Venezuela via their gangs.



Transcript

Donald Trump has just issued a
declaration stating that the United
States is at War and he is claiming
wartime powers under the alien enemies
Act of
1798 to deport whoever he wants to
deport

Alien and Sedition Acts (1798)
https://www.archives.gov/milestone-docu ... ition-acts

Citation: An Act Concerning Aliens, July 6, 1798; Fifth Congress; Enrolled Acts and Resolutions; General Records of the United States Government; Record Group 11; National Archives.

Passed in preparation for an anticipated war with France, the Alien and Sedition Acts tightened restrictions on foreign-born Americans and limited speech critical of the government.

In 1798, the United States stood on the brink of war with France. The Federalist Party, which advocated for a strong central government, believed that Democratic-Republican criticism of Federalist policies was disloyal and feared that "aliens," or non-citizens, living in the United States would sympathize with the French during a war.

As a result, a Federalist-controlled Congress passed four laws, known collectively as the Alien and Sedition Acts. These laws raised the residency requirements for citizenship from 5 to 14 years, authorized the president to deport "aliens," and permitted their arrest, imprisonment, and deportation during wartime. The Sedition Act made it a crime for American citizens to "print, utter, or publish...any false, scandalous, and malicious writing" about the government.

The laws were directed against Democratic-Republicans, the party typically favored by new citizens. The only journalists prosecuted under the Sedition Act were editors of Democratic-Republican newspapers.

Sedition Act trials, along with the Senate's use of its contempt powers to suppress dissent, set off a firestorm of criticism against the Federalists and contributed to their defeat in the election of 1800, after which the acts were repealed or allowed to expire. The controversies surrounding them, however, provided for some of the first tests of the limits of freedom of speech and press.

*************

Transcript

Note: The Alien and Sedition Acts consist of the following acts:

1. An Act supplementary to and to amend the act, intituled, "An Act to establish an uniform rule of naturalization, and to repeal the act therefore passed on that subject" of June 18, 1798, "Naturalization Act of 1798"
2. An Act concerning aliens of June 25, 1798, "Alien Act"
3. An Act respecting alien enemies of July 6, 1798, "Alien Enemies Act"
4. An Act in addition to the act, entitled "An Act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States" of July 14 1798, "Sedition Act"

The documents transcribed here are: The Alien Act, The Alien Enemies Act, and The Sedition Act.

FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
At the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.

An Act Concerning Aliens.

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and the House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States at any time during the continuance of this act, to order all such aliens as he shall judge dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States, or shall have reasonable grounds to suspect are concerned in any treasonable or secret machinations against the government thereof, to depart out of the territory of the United States, within such time as shall be expressed in such order, which order shall be served on such alien by delivering him a copy thereof, or leaving the same at his usual abode, and returned to the office of the Secretary of State, by the marshal or other person to whom the same shall be directed. And in case any alien, so ordered to depart, shall be found at large within the United States after the time limited in such order for his departure, and not having obtained a license from the President to reside therein, or having obtained such license shall not have conformed thereto, every such alien shall, on conviction thereof, be imprisoned for a term not exceeding three years, and shall never after be admitted to become a citizen of the United States. Provided always, and be it further enacted, that if any alien so ordered to depart shall prove to the satisfaction of the President, by evidence to be taken before such person or persons as the President shall direct, who are for that purpose hereby authorized to administer oaths, that no injury or danger to the United States will arise from suffering such alien to reside therein, the President may grant a license to such alien to remain within the United States for such time as he shall judge proper, and at such place as he may designate. And the President may also require of such alien to enter into a bond to the United States, in such penal sum as he may direct, with one or more sufficient sureties to the satisfaction of the per- son authorized by the President to take the same, conditioned for the good behavior of such alien during his residence in the United States, and not violating his license, which license the President may revoke, whenever he shall think proper.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, whenever he may deem it necessary (for the public safety, to order to be removed out of the territory thereof, any alien who mayor shall be in prison in pursuance of this act; and to cause to be arrested and sent out of the United States such of those aliens as shall have been ordered to depart therefrom and shall not have obtained a license as aforesaid, in all cases where, in the opinion of the President, the public safety requires a speedy removal. And if any alien so removed or sent out of the United States by the President shall voluntarily return thereto, unless by permission of the President of the United States, such alien on conviction thereof, shall be imprisoned so long as, in the opinion of the President, the public safety may require.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That every master or commander of any ship or vessel which shall come into any port of the United States after the first day of July next, shall immediately on his arrival make report in writing to the collector or other chief officer of the customs of such port, of all aliens, if any, on board his vessel, specifying their names, age, the place of nativity, the country from which they shall have come, the nation to which they belong and owe allegiance, their occupation and a description of their persons, as far as he shall be informed thereof, and on failure, every such master and commander shall forfeit and pay three hundred dollars, for the payment whereof on default of such master or commander, such vessel shall also be holden, and may by such collector or other officer of the customs be detained. And it shall be the duty of such collector or other officer of the customs, forthwith to transmit to the office of the Department of State true copies of all such returns.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That the circuit and district courts of the United States, shall respectively have cognizance of all crimes and offences against this act. And all marshals and other officers of the United States are required to execute all precepts and orders of the President of the United States issued in pursuance or by virtue of this act.

SEC. 5. And be it further enacted, That it shall be lawful for any alien who may be ordered to be removed from the United States, by virtue of this act, to take with him such part of his goods, chattels, or other property, as he may find convenient; and all property left in the United States by any alien, who may be removed, as aforesaid, shall be, and re- main subject to his order and disposal, in the same manner as if this act had not been passed.

SEC. 6. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force for and during the term of two years from the passing thereof.

Jonathan Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
TH. Jefferson, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate.

I Certify that this Act did originate in the Senate.
Attest, Sam. A. Otis, Secretary

APPROVED, June 25, 1798.
John Adams
President of the United States.

***

An Act Respecting Alien Enemies

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever there shall be a declared war between the United States and any foreign nation or government, or any invasion or predatory incursion shall be perpetrated, attempted, or threatened against the territory of the United States, by any foreign nation or government, and the President of the United States shall make public proclamation of the event, all natives, citizens, denizens, or subjects of the hostile nation or government, being males of the age of fourteen years and upwards, who shall be within the United States, and not actually naturalized, shall be liable to be apprehended, restrained, secured and removed, as alien enemies. And the President of the United States shall be, and he is hereby authorized, in any event, as aforesaid, by his proclamation thereof, or other public act, to direct the conduct to be observed, on the part of the United States, towards the aliens who shall become liable, as aforesaid; the manner and degree of the restraint to which they shall be subject, and in what cases, and upon what security their residence shall be permitted, and to provide for the removal of those, who, not being permitted to reside within the United States, shall refuse or neglect to depart therefrom; and to establish any other regulations which shall be found necessary in the premises and for the public safety: Provided, that aliens resident within the United States, who shall become liable as enemies, in the manner aforesaid, and who shall not be chargeable with actual hostility, or other crime against the public safety, shall be allowed, for the recovery, disposal, and removal of their goods and effects, and for their departure, the full time which is, or shall be stipulated by any treaty, where any shall have been between the United States, and the hostile nation or government, of which they shall be natives, citizens, denizens or subjects: and where no such treaty shall have existed, the President of the United States may ascertain and declare such reasonable time as may be consistent with the public safety, and according to the dictates of humanity and national hospitality.

SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That after any proclamation shall be made as aforesaid, it shall be the duty of the several courts of the United States, and of each state, having criminal jurisdiction, and of the several judges and justices of the courts of the United States, and they shall be, and are hereby respectively, authorized upon complaint, against any alien or alien enemies, as aforesaid, who shall be resident and at large within such jurisdiction or district, to the danger of the public peace or safety, and contrary to the tenor or intent of such proclamation, or other regulations which the President of the United States shall and may establish in the premises, to cause such alien or aliens to be duly apprehended and convened before such court, judge or justice; and after a full examination and hearing on such complaint. and sufficient cause therefor appearing, shall and may order such alien or aliens to be removed out of the territory of the United States, or to give sureties of their good behaviour, or to be otherwise restrained, conformably to the proclamation or regulations which shall and may be established as aforesaid, and may imprison, or otherwise secure such alien or aliens, until the order which shall and may be made, as aforesaid, shall be performed.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted, That it shall be the duty of the marshal of the district in which any alien enemy shall be apprehended, who by the President of the United States, or by order of any court, judge or justice, as aforesaid, shall be required to depart, and to be removed, as aforesaid, to provide therefor, and to execute such order, by himself or his deputy, or other discreet person or persons to be employed by him, by causing a removal of such alien out of the territory of the United States; and for such removal the marshal shall have the warrant of the President of the United States, or of the court, judge or justice ordering the same, as the case may be.

APPROVED, July 6, 1798.

***

FIFTH CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES:
at the Second Session,
Begun and held at the city of Philadelphia, in the state of Pennsylvania, on Monday, the thirteenth of November, one thousand seven hundred and ninety-seven.

An Act in Addition to the Act, Entitled "An Act for the Punishment of Certain Crimes Against the United States."

SECTION 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That if any persons shall unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing or executing his trust or duty, and if any person or persons, with intent as aforesaid, shall counsel, advise or attempt to procure any insurrection, riot, unlawful assembly, or combination, whether such conspiracy, threatening, counsel, advice, or attempt shall have the proposed effect or not, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and on conviction, before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and by imprisonment during a term not less than six months nor exceeding five years; and further, at the discretion of the court may be holden to find sureties for his good behaviour in such sum, and for such time, as the said court may direct.

SEC. 2. And be it farther enacted, That if any person shall write, print, utter or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them, or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to stir up sedition within the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

SEC. 3. And be it further enacted and declared, That if any person shall be prosecuted under this act, for the writing or publishing any libel aforesaid, it shall be lawful for the defendant, upon the trial of the cause, to give in evidence in his defence, the truth of the matter contained in publication charged as a libel. And the jury who shall try the cause, shall have a right to determine the law and the fact, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

SEC. 4. And be it further enacted, That this act shall continue and be in force until the third day of March, one thousand eight hundred and one, and no longer: Provided, that the expiration of the act shall not prevent or defeat a prosecution and punishment of any offence against the law, during the time it shall be in force.

Jonathan Dayton, Speaker of the House of Representatives.
Theodore Sedgwick, President of the Senate pro tempore.

I Certify that this Act did originate in the Senate.
Attest, Sam. A. Otis, Secretary

APPROVED, July 14, 1798
John Adams
President of the United States.


Now the invocation of the alien
enemies act that he just made moments
ago where he declares America is
currently under Invasion and therefore
he needs to enact these wartime Powers
says that he's only targeting the trend
aragua gang from Venezuela but the
implications here are that he can just
decide who he thinks belongs to that
gang and then without any oversight
without any constitutional rights start
doing mass deportations as he has
declared a current War an invasion is
taking place which obviously is not
happening right now now the alien
enemies Act of 1798 has only been
invoked three times in American history
during Wars the War of 1812 World War I
and the attack on Pearl Harbor Senator
Chris Murphy Democrat says the following
about the alien enemies act he goes the
1798 alien enemies act allows the
president to detain and remove without
due process all non-citizens students
tourists long-term green card holders
spouses of citizens it's to to be used
against citizens of a Nation that's at
war with the US it is thus a wartime
power that's why it has only been
invoked three times the War of 1812
World War I and World War II it has
never been used during peace time and is
not allowed to be used during peacetime
by itself the invocation is illegal and
dangerous it allows Trump to hunt down
non-citizens many of which have lived
here for decades totally legally and
remove them from their families and
workplaces for no reason maybe just
because they were critical of trump and
Trump's explicit purpose to allow him to
detain and Deport gang members and drug
traffickers is there's already
a law on the books that allows him to do
that he doesn't need a new law the law
says if you are a drug dealer if you are
engaged in crimes you get the full force
of the law you get deported you get
arrested you get treated like a
terrorist if that's who you are you
don't need the alien enemies act so then
why is he invoking this 18th century War
Powers law remember his plan is to
destroy our democracy so he can turn our
government and your tax dollars over to
his billionaire friends like Elon Musk
the slow but steady roll out of War
Powers is the Insurrection act next is
he going to start declaring martial law
and send the United States military on
the people as people start to rise up
it's all part of Donald Trump's attempt
to erode our rule of law and take
fascist control over our country until
and before we know it our entire country
could be gone to Donald Trump's
authoritarian desires that's what Trump
and these spineless magas want look
during the campaign Donald Trump said
that he was going to invoke the alien
enemies act we kept on calling it out
Corp media wasn't covering it let me
show you one example during the campaign
where Donald Trump did just that let's
play it to expedite removals of Tren day
aragua and other Savage gangs I will
invoke the alien enemies Act of
1798 can you believe
that we couldn't have an act like that
now because now everything's woke you
know we have woke generals like Millie
and mtis we have woke people they don't
do things like this so we had to go back
now there's probably dozens I know there
are dozens cuz I have all of the clips
let me show you one other time where
Donald Trump told the crowd about the
alien enemies act that those were the
good old days the good days is when the
alien enemies Act of 1798 was invoked
when there were tough politicians he
said he said you couldn't pass something
like that today here play this clip to
expedite removal of the trendee aragua
and other Savage gangs I will invoke
the alien enemies Act of
1798 can you
imagine those were the old days when
they had tough politicians I have to go
back that long think of that 1798 oh
it's a powerful act you couldn't pass
something like that that today we're
politically correct today people kill
and they end up getting out on bail in 2
minutes no this is a little different
act the aliens enemy act seven so Donald
Trump says you can't pass that today so
he is invoking it via executive order
and the pretext is that he's going after
gangs but in reality he's going to go
after we the people most people uh think
now as part of Donald Trump's
declaration under the alien enemies act
he says that the uh gangs are hybrid
criminal States and thus it is actually
Venezuela that has declared war on the
United States and thus he says is a
wartime president because of the
invasion by the country of Venezuela
against the United States via the gang
just so you can see what the actual
alien enemies act says I think as I talk
about it we should read the code section
50us code section 21 restraint
regulation and removal Whenever there is
a declared war between the United States
and any foreign Nation or government or
any Invasion or predatory incursion is
perpetrated attempted or threatened
against the territory of the United
States by any foreign Nation or
government and the president makes a
public proclamation of the event all
natives citizens Denis or subjects of
the Hostile Nation or government being
of the age of 14 years and upward who
shall be within the United States and
not actually naturalized shall be liable
to be apprehended restrained secured and
removed as alien enemies so the fact
that Donald Trump is saying that
Venezuela has declared war via Trend
deaga he's going to go after the
Venezuelans because they are citizens
he's going to say of Venezuela
regardless of whether or not they're
part of the actual gang and by the way
there were a lot of Venezuelans for
Trump a big contingency of trump
supporters were Venezuelans especially
in Southern Florida it goes on to talk
about how the president is authorized in
any such event by his Proclamation
thereof or other Public Act to direct
the conduct to be observed on the part
of the United States toward the aliens
who become so liable the matter and
degree of the restraint to which they
shall be subject and what C what cases
and upon what security their resident
shall be permitted and to provide for
the removal of those who not being
permitted to reside within the United
States refuse or neglect to depart there
from and to establish any other
regulations which are found necessary in
the premises and for the public safety
one of the times that this was invoked
was during during World War II where
Japanese Americans were placed in
concentration camps and many believe
that's what Donald Trump intends to do
with latinos with Venezuelans with
Cubans um with people who he just views
in general as not supportive enough of
him who he calls the enemies from within
now this follows Donald Trump shutting
down or the Trump regime shutting down
uh their attempt to house migrants in
Guantanamo Bay from this past week ice
returns all migrants from Guantanamo
State Stateside facilities a court
filing described strip searches and the
use of restrained chairs on some of the
290 migrants the Trump Administration
has cycled through the base this past
week the 40 remaining migrants held at
Guantanamo Bay Cuba were sent back to
the United States and are being held in
Louisiana according to two US defense
officials as Jen Griffin from Fox even
wrote g mode detention plans hit another
bump the
administration's decision to take
migrants to gitmo appears to best have
been an expensive photo op now Fox News
has learned all the migrants held that
GMO have been sent back to the US and
plans to send more to the US Naval
Station have been put on hold so what
does Donald Trump do because he wasn't
able to execute that fascist scheme he's
now invoking the alien enemies act just
a reminder this was part of the tens of
millions of dollars in propaganda used
by the Trump regime about guantan Bay
here's US Secretary of Homeland Security
who killed her dog Christy gnome
visiting the Guantanamo migrant
Operation Center at the naval station on
Guantanamo Bay where she lied and said
that they were holding
high-risk gang members there it turned
out almost everybody there was not a
gang member and that should tell you
what the Trump regime intends to do by
lying that they're going after gang
members in their invocation of the alien
enemies act here play this clip hi
everybody I'm down here at Guantanamo
Bay uh checking out some of the
operations that we're standing up to
house uh the worst of the worst and
illegal criminals that are in the United
States of America they won't be there
for long we want to thank president
Trump for all of his hard work to make
America safe
again I think it's also important that I
share with you as well um I want to show
you this clip the Venezuelans for Trump
and the Venezuelan Community reeling
this is just from a few weeks back where
the Venezuelan Community says they feel
betrayed as a result of Donald Trump
here play the clip conference in dur
Monday Venezuelan Americans denounced
the Trump Administration and South
Florida Republicans more than
betrayed Beyond betrayed they used us
they actually during the campaign and I
don't want to make this political but
during the campaign the the the the
elected officials the from the
Republican party they actually told us
that he was not going to touch the the
documented people well folks that's what
we have for now we will keep you posted
every step of the way um Donald Trump
invoking the powers of a dictator on
this Saturday March 15 2025 the United
States of America's democracy is under
Full Assault by the Trump regime it
pains me to have to report this but we
need to fight back
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sun Mar 16, 2025 6:13 pm

Judge blocks Trump from using 18th-century wartime act for deportations: Trump had invoked the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport five Venezuelans, but order halted by judge
Alien Enemies Act: what is it and can Trump use it to deport gang members?
by Maanvi Singh and Maya Yang
The Guardian
Sat 15 Mar 2025 17.25 EDT
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/202 ... portations

Image


Donald Trump has invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to deport five Venezuelan nationals from the US.

The White House issued a presidential proclamation on Saturday targeting Venezuelan members of the gang Tren de Aragua, saying: “Tren de Aragua (TdA) is a designated Foreign Terrorist Organization with thousands of members, many of whom have unlawfully infiltrated the United States and are conducting irregular warfare and undertaking hostile actions against the United States.”

Civil liberties organizations have accused Trump of invoking the 1798 act unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations and sidestep immigration law.

Hours later, a federal judge temporarily blocked Trump’s administration from using the act to carry out its intended deportations of the Venezuelans.

The US district judge James Boasberg of the federal district court in Washington DC agreed on Saturday to issue a temporary restraining order that prevents the Venezuelans’ deportation for 14 days.

“Given the exigent circumstances that it [the court] has been made aware of this morning, it has determined that an immediate Order is warranted to maintain the status quo until a hearing can be set,” Boasberg wrote in his order.

Boasberg’s decision comes in response to a lawsuit filed the same day by the American Civil Liberties Union and Democracy Forward. The organizations charge that the Trump administration unlawfully invoked the Alien Enemies Act.


In the lawsuit, ACLU and Democracy Forward argued the act has been invoked only three times in the history of the US: the war of 1812, first world war and second world war.

“It cannot be used here against nationals of a country – Venezuela – with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States,” the lawsuit stated.

“The government’s proclamation would allow agents to immediately put noncitizens on planes without any review of any aspect of the determination that they are alien enemies,” the lawsuit added.

At remote hearing before Boasberg, both ACLU and Democracy Forward asked that the temporary restraining order be broadened to everyone in danger of removal under the act, the civil liberties organizations said.

The president had previously ordered his administration to designate Venezuela’s Tren De Aragua gang as a foreign terrorist organization.

With Trump characterizing the gang as a foreign force that is invading the US, civil liberties organizations such as the ACLU feared Trump would invoke the 1798 act “unlawfully during peacetime to accelerate mass deportations, sidestepping the limits of this wartime authority and the procedures and protections in immigration law”.

The 227-year-old law is designed to primarily be used in wartime, and only Congress has the authority to declare a war. But the president does have the discretion to invoke the law to defend against a “threatened or ongoing invasion or predatory incursion”, according to the Brennan Center for Justice, a non-partisan authority on law and policy.

“This law shouldn’t be invoked because migration is not an invasion, and we’re not in a war time,” said Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, the deputy director of federal advocacy for United We Dream, an immigrant rights organization. “It’s extremely horrifying that we, as immigrants, are being labeled as terrorists, as invaders.”

Those subject to the Alien Enemies Act could be deported without a court hearing or asylum interview, and their cases would be governed by wartime authority rather than by immigration law.

The Alien Enemies Act specifically allows the president to detain, relocate, or deport immigrants based on their country of ancestry – and crucially covers not only citizens of hostile nations but also “natives”, which could include people who may have renounced their foreign citizenship and sought legal residency in the US.

The centuries-old law was also used to arrest more than 31,000 people – mostly people of Japanese, German and Italian ancestry – as “alien enemies” during the second world war, and played a role in the mass removal and incarceration of Japanese Americans during the war.

Trump has been building his case for invoking the act for years by characterizing the influx of migrants at the southern border as an “invasion”. He also previewed his invocation in an executive order on his inauguration day, directing the secretaries of state to plan by preparing facilities “necessary to expedite the removal” of those subject to the act.

“By invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, I will direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to US soil, including our cities and inner cities,” he said in his inaugural address.

Though anti-immigrant politicians and groups have long advocated for the use of the act in response to unlawful border crossings, Macedo do Nascimento said a number of executive orders and congressional policies have already broadened the federal government’s authorities to detain and deport immigrants.

“There are already laws that allow for mass detention. There are already laws, like the Laken Riley Act, that would broaden the dragnet of people who can be detained,” Macedo do Nascimento said. “So the idea of him invoking the Alien Enemies Act feels kind of needless. To me, it is really about building the narrative to label immigrants as terrorists.”

****************************

J.G.G. v. TRUMP (1:25-cv-00766), District Court, District of Columbia, Assigned To: James Emanuel Boasberg

16-2. Mar 15, 2025. MINUTE ORDER: As discussed in today's hearing, the Court ORDERS that: 1) Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification is GRANTED insofar as a class consisting of "All noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to the March 15, 2025, Presidential Proclamation entitled 'Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of The United States by Tren De Aragua' and its implementation" is provisionally certified; 2) The Government is ENJOINED from removing members of such class (not otherwise subject to removal) pursuant to the Proclamation for 14 days or until further Order of the Court; 3) The Government shall file any Motion to Vacate this TRO by March 17, 2025, with Plaintiffs' Opposition due by March 19, 2025; and 4) The hearing set for March 17, 2025, is VACATED and RESET for March 21, 2025, at 2:30 p.m. via Zoom. So ORDERED by Chief Judge James E. Boasberg on 3/15/2025. (lcjeb1)
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Sun Mar 16, 2025 9:04 pm

Image


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

AMERICAN FEDERATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, AFL-CIO, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT, et al.,

Defendants.

No. C 25-01780 WHA

MEMORANDUM

INTRODUCTION


Each federal agency has the statutory authority to hire and fire its employees, even at scale, subject to certain safeguards. The Office of Personnel Management has no authority to hire and fire employees in another agency. Yet that is what happened here — en masse. OPM directed all (or at least most) federal agencies to terminate all probationary employees for “performance.” Because the organizational plaintiffs in this case have shown they will suffer irreparable harm resulting from the immediate impairment of public services (and meet other tests), they are entitled to a preliminary injunction. The Court granted it from the bench — ordering the reinstatement of probationary employees at the relevant agencies.

STATEMENT

First, OPM directed other agencies to fire their probationary employees.

A “Forest Service Briefing Paper” circulated by its human resource management to “Supervisor[s]/Leader[s]” stated:

All federal agencies, including the Department of Agriculture, were notified on February 12, 2025, by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) to terminate all employees who have not completed their probationary or trial period. . . . OPM directed agencies to separate Probationary employees starting 2/13/25 . . . . Based on this direction it is necessary to start providing notices of separation to employees in probationary and trial period positions starting 2/13/25.


(Dkt. No. 71 at 16 (emphasis added) (February 13, 2025)).

Then, in February 13 and 14 phone calls, OPM discussed probationary employee terminations with leadership from other agencies. Defendants have not provided transcripts of those calls nor declarations from any person who attests to having participated on one.

On February 13, the Department of Energy sent a probationary business cost analyst a termination letter stating: “Per OPM instructions, DOE finds that your further employment would not be in the public interest” (Dkt. No. 70-14 at 15 (emphasis added)).

That same day, a probationer at the Bonneville Power Administration (within the DOE) received a termination letter that stated: “Per OPM instructions, DOE finds that your further employment would not be in the public interest. For this reason, you are being removed from your position with DOE and the federal civil service effective today” (Dkt. No. 39-4 at 10 (emphasis added)).

On February 14, a probationer terminated by the Foreign Agricultural Service asked the Department of Agriculture’s deputy chief human capital officer by email about the “specific details of my performance that were evaluated and found to be insufficient” (Dkt. No. 39-6 at 5–6). The response: “[A]gencies were directed to begin providing termination notices . . . beginning immediately upon OPM notification” (ibid.).

On February 18, meanwhile, the National Science Foundation fired its probationers en masse via Zoom. During that call, NSF officials stated: “We were directed last Friday [February 14] by OPM to terminate all probationers except for a minimal number of mission critical probationers” (Dkt. No. 18-9 at 27 (emphasis added)). When confronted by the terminated probationers, the officials continued: “Up until Friday [February 14]. Yes. We were told by OPM it was the agency’s discretion whether to remove probations or not. We chose to retain them all” (id. at 26). But “late Friday night,” “[t]hey told us that they directed us to remove probationers” (ibid. (emphasis added)). “[T]here was no limited discretion. This is not a decision the agency made. This is a direction we received” (id. at 21) (emphasis added). Asked if NSF had at least attempted to negotiate with OPM to minimize the number of terminations, NSF responded: “There’s no negotiation” (id. at 34). Defendants concede that on March 3, three days after the undersigned issued a memorandum opinion and amended the temporary restraining order, NSF’s director re-hired nearly all the probationers terminated February 18.

In a February 21 Internal Revenue Service “town hall,” IRS Chief Human Capital Officer Traci DiMartini stated:

I’m not sure why it’s happening . . . . Regarding the removal of the probationary employees, again, that was something that was directed from OPM. And even the letters that your colleagues received yesterday were letters that were written by OPM, put forth through Treasury, and given to us . . . . I cannot explain to you why this has happened. I’ve never seen OPM direct people at any agency to terminate.


(Dkt. No. 39-5 at 8–9 (emphasis added)).

She continued:

And our actions are being watched by OPM. So that’s, again, something else that’s unprecedented. . . . Everything we do is scrutinized. Everything is being looked at twice. Any changes that are made in our system that show any type of action that has been deemed impermissible, we have to respond to why it happened.


(id. at 7–8).

On February 25, Tracey Therit, chief human capital officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, testified under oath at a congressional hearing before the House Committee on Veterans Affairs:

RANKING MEMBER TAKANO: So nobody ordered you to carry out these terminations?

You did it on your own?

MS. THERIT: There was direction from the Office of Personnel Management.


(Dkt. No. 39-1 at 13 (emphasis added)).

On February 26, members of the Civilian Personnel Policy Council at the Department of Defense stated by email: “In accordance with direction from OPM, beginning February 28, 2025, all DOD Components must terminate the employment of all individuals who are currently serving a probationary or trial period” (Dkt. No. 39-4 at 14 (emphasis added)).

In a March 6 sworn declaration filed in the District of Maryland and introduced into the record by plaintiffs, meanwhile, IRS CHCO DiMartini stated:

I attended several virtual meetings with Trevor Norris and other Human Capital Officers at Treasury agencies (which include the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the Bureau of Engraving and Printing, and the U.S. Mint) during which we discussed the directive to conduct mass terminations of probationary employees.  

. . . .

Mr. Norris informed us that Charles Ezell, the Acting Director of OPM, Amanda Scales, Mr. Ezell’s Chief of Staff, and Noah Peters, were the individuals spearheading the termination of probationary employees at OPM.  

. . . .

Mr. Norris specifically instructed me and the other Human Capital Officers at Treasury that OPM would not allow us to exempt military veterans from the probationary terminations.


(Dkt. No. 94-1 at 3–4 (emphasis added)).

Second, OPM directed agencies to fire those employees under the pretense of “performance.”

In early February, OPM disseminated a template termination letter to agency chief human capital officers (Dkt. No. 87-1). The OPM template was largely generic, with placeholder text to be filled out by each respective agency (its image reproduced here, in two excerpts):


[DATE], 2025

MEMORANDUM FOR [EMPLOYEE], [TITLE], [ORGANIZATION]

FROM: [NAME]
[TITLE]

SUBJECT: Notification of termination During Probationary Period

REFERENCES: 5 U.S.C. § 7511
[5 U.S.C. § 3321(a)]
[5 C.F.R. § 316.304]
[5 C.F.R. §§ 315.803 AND 804]
[5 C.F.R. §§ 316.304]
[INSERT AGENCY POLICY]

This is to provide notification that the Agency is removing you from your position of [TITLE] and federal service consistent with the above references.

On [INSERT DATE OF APPOINTMENT], the Agency appointed you to the position of [TITLE]. As documented on your appointment Standard Form 50 (SF-50), you appointment is subject to a probationary/trial period. The agency also informed you of this requirement in the job opportunity announcement for the position.


(ibid.).

While it did not account for the specific employee (or even agency), the OPM template did articulate a specific reason for termination:

The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest. For this reason, the Agency informs you that the Agency is removing you from your position of [TITLE] with the Agency and the federal civil service effective [insert date and time, if necessary].


(ibid. (highlighting added)).

From IRS CHCO DiMartini:

My colleagues and I asked Mr. Norris what the termination letter for affected probationary employees should consist of, and they informed me that OPM had drafted a letter, Treasury made a few modifications, and that we were instructed to send this letter out.


(Dkt. No. 94-1 at 3–4).

The IRS did not consider probationer performance:

My office did not review or consider the actual job performance or conduct of any IRS probationary employee when issuing the termination notices. I also know that Treasury did not review or consider the actual job performance or conduct of any IRS probationary employee when issuing the termination notices. I know this because this fact was discussed openly in meetings. Practically speaking, it would take weeks or months to evaluate the job performance of 6,700 probationary employees.


(id. at 4).

The Department of Agriculture used the OPM template to terminate probationers “based on [their] performance” (Dkt. No. 18-5 at 11 (emphasis added)). USDA’s deputy chief human capital officer stated OPM “directed the use of a specific template and language for the notice beginning immediately upon OPM notification” (Dkt. No. 39-6 at 6 (emphasis added)). The Department of Transportation informed probationers that “based on your performance you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the DOT FAA would be in the public interest” (Dkt. No. 18-17 (emphasis added)). The Department of Defense circulated the OPM template to its civilian personnel policy council members, “[a]s provided by OPM, and for your convenience” (Dkt. No. 39-4 at 15).

On February 13, Leandra Bailey, a Physical Science Information Specialist for the Forest Service, was terminated (Dkt. No. 71). In her most recent performance review, she received the highest mark possible in every category (id. at 11). The OPM template she received nevertheless stated: “The Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest” (id. at 13 (emphasis added)).

On February 18, Dr. Andrew Frassetto, a probationer terminated by the NSF, received the OPM template (Dkt. No 18-9 at 38). In a February 13 performance review — five days before he was terminated “based on [his] performance” — Dr. Frassetto’s supervisor reported in a performance review:

[H]is role [is] mission critical. Dr. Frassetto has been an outstanding program director, and he has taken the lead role in overseeing this important and complicated portfolio for the division. Dr. Frassetto came to NSF with a unique skill set in interdisciplinary scientific research . . . . He has already demonstrated an outstanding ability to balance the various aspects of his job responsibilities and is highly effective at organizing and completing all his work in an accurate and timely manner.

. . . .

Dr. Frassetto’s work on this portfolio has been outstanding and he has brought important experience to the role and has demonstrated highly competent project management and oversight. He is a program director who has needed minimal supervision and eagerly seeks special assignments at higher levels of difficulty. He has been an outstanding contributor to the division, directorate, and agency.


(id. at 7–8).

NSF said: “The cause comes from boilerplate we received from OPM. The cause says that the agency finds based on your performance that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the agency would be in the public interest” (id. at 30 (emphasis added)).

Other agencies made slight tweaks to OPM’s language — but maintained the central pretense. For example, the Department of Health and Human Services reworded the OPM template’s “performance” language — “based on your performance, [] you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest” — to “fitness”: “Unfortunately, the Agency finds that you are not fit for continued employment because your ability, knowledge, and skills do not fit the Agency’s current needs . . . .” (Dkt. No. 18-10 (emphasis added)). They otherwise stayed true to the OPM template, down to the footnotes (ibid.).

OPM directed agencies to fire their probationers under the pretense of “performance” to, at least in part, circumvent statutory and regulatory reduction in force procedures and foreclose appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board. In defendant Ezell’s words: “Employees on probationary periods can be terminated during that period without triggering appeal rights to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB)” (Dkt. No. 37 at 1).

Virtually all the foregoing facts were uncovered by counsel for plaintiffs. Defendants have provided virtually no transparency.

* * *

Plaintiffs filed their complaint on February 19, 2025 (Dkt. No. 1). Four days later, they amended that complaint and moved for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. Nos. 17, 18). The undersigned ordered expedited briefing and held a hearing on February 27, during which a temporary restraining order was granted. A memorandum opinion and an amended TRO followed the next day (Dkt. No. 28). As part of that order, the undersigned required that defendant Ezell, who had volunteered his own declaration in support of defendants’ opposition to a TRO, be cross-examined during a forthcoming evidentiary hearing on preliminary injunction. Plaintiffs, meanwhile, subpoenaed several agency employees to testify. Defendants were afforded the opportunity to request the production of any number of plaintiffs’ declarants but did not. On March 10, three days before the evidentiary hearing, defendants moved to vacate that hearing, quash all subpoenas, and be relieved from having to produce defendant Ezell and other witnesses for deposition (Dkt. No. 75-1). The Court denied the motion to vacate, granted in part the motion to quash the subpoenas to appear, but denied relief as to defendant Ezell, who uniquely was a party and had volunteered his own testimony (Dkt. No. 89 at 2). Defendants ultimately withdrew Ezell’s declaration and he did not appear. Finally, also on March 11, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint that added several federal agencies (and their heads) as relief defendants, bringing them within this Court’s ability to grant relief.

The March 13 hearing went ahead, and the undersigned issued a preliminary injunction from the bench, on the record to date and counsels’ argument. As stated at the hearing, the preliminary injunction flows only from claims made by organizational plaintiffs.

ANALYSIS

“A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that [1] he is likely to succeed on the merits, that [2] he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that [3] the balance of equities tips in his favor, and [4] that an injunction is in the public interest.” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008).

First, OPM’s directive constituted an ultra vires act that violated its and all impacted agencies’ statutory authority.

“The ability to sue to enjoin unconstitutional actions by state and federal officers is the creation of courts of equity, and reflects a long history of judicial review of illegal executive action, tracing back to England.” Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 575 U.S. 320, 327 (2015). “Equitable actions to enjoin ultra vires official conduct do not depend upon the availability of a statutory cause of action; instead, they seek a ‘judge-made remedy’ for injuries stemming from unauthorized government conduct, and they rest on the historic availability of equitable review.” Sierra Club v. Trump, 963 F.3d 874, 890–91 (9th Cir. 2020) (citing Armstrong, 575 U.S. at 327), vacated and remanded on other grounds (mootness), 142 S. Ct. 46 (2021).

No statute — anywhere, ever — has granted OPM the authority to direct the termination of employees in other agencies. “Administrative agencies [like OPM] are creatures of statute. They accordingly possess only the authority that Congress has provided.” Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Bus. v. Dep’t of Lab., 595 U.S. 109, 117 (2022).

Instead, Congress’s statutory scheme grants to each agency head the authority to manage its own affairs, including the hiring and firing of employees. 5 U.S.C. § 3101 (“Each Executive agency, military department, and the government of the District of Columbia may employ such number of employees of the various classes recognized by chapter 51 of this title as Congress may appropriate for from year to year.”); 5 U.S.C. § 301 (“The head of an Executive department or military department may prescribe regulations for the government of his department, the conduct of its employees . . . .”); see also, e.g., 42 U.S.C. § 7231 (DOE) (re employees); id. § 7253 (re reorgs.); 38 U.S.C. §§ 303, 510 (VA); 10 U.S.C. § 113 (DOD).

The same is true of OPM. Congress has vested its director with the authority to “secur[e] accuracy, uniformity, and justice in the functions of the Office,” “appoint[] individuals to be employed by the Office,” and “direct[] and supervis[e] employees of the Office.” 5 U.S.C. § 1103(a)(1)–(3). But that’s it. OPM did not have the authority to direct the firing of employees, probationary or otherwise, in any other federal agency.

Defendants concede as much. Their opposition to relief rests instead on the factual contention that OPM did not issue a directive. The sanitized record provided in supportpress releases and a feeble start to a yet-to-come “administrative record” (Dkt. Nos. 110, 111) — is unpersuasive.

For example, defendants point to a February 14 OPM memo where OPM “asked” the agencies to select for termination only those probationers they did “not identif[y] as mission-critical no later than end of the day Monday, 2/17” (Dkt. No. 111-2 at 1 (emphasis added)). But the balance of the record shows the actual situation was not as this memo would make it seem. First, even the fig leaf of agency discretion allowed for in the letter was illusory. As the NSF officials implementing the OPM directive stated: “Up until Friday [February 14]. Yes. We were told by OPM it was the agency’s discretion whether to remove probations or not. We were told by OPM it was the agency’s discretion whether to remove probations or not. We chose to retain them all” (Dkt. No. 18-9 at 26). But “late, late Friday night,” “[t]hey told us that they directed us to remove probationers” (ibid. (emphasis added)). “[T]here was no limited discretion. This is not a decision the agency made. This is a direction we received” (id. at 21) (emphasis added). An “ask,” followed by a directive, is a directive. Second, even if the agency discretion were real (it wasn’t), the February 14 OPM memo directed that discretion towards evaluating who was “mission-critical,” not who was high-performing (Dkt. No. 111-2 at 1). The OPM template letter used to effectuate those terminations — “[t]he Agency finds, based on your performance, that you have not demonstrated that your further employment at the Agency would be in the public interest” (Dkt. No. 87-1 at 1 (emphasis added)) — was an obvious pretext intended to obstruct appeal and avoid statutory and regulatory reduction-in-force procedures (for example, the honoring of veteran preferences in the order of retention) (Dkt. No. 94-1 at 3–5).

The declaration of OPM senior advisor Noah Peters fares no better (Dkt. No. 77). First, Peters does not claim personal knowledge as to anything in his declaration. Second, Peters does not state that he participated in any of the calls he describes. Defense counsel argued, as to Acting Director Ezell’s declaration, that agency heads “lack[ ] specific knowledge of disputed issues of fact,” and “such declarations are based on information obtained by the official in course of performing his or her official duties and provide background information and summarize agency decision making reflected in other, sometimes lengthy or complex official documents” (Dkt. No. 75 at 8). Peters is not an agency head, he is a “senior advisor” who joined OPM two months ago. Peters’ concluding paragraph — “At no point on these calls did OPM direct or require any agencies to terminate probationary employees. At all times, the tone was friendly, cordial, and cooperative.” is hearsay within hearsay (Dkt. No. 77 at 3 (emphasis added)). Defendants concede that someone from OPM was present on each of the calls described but have refused to provide the Court with declarations from any such employee with direct knowledge of the facts. Finally, Peters’ assertion that there was no directive is cabined to “these calls.” Nowhere does he state that OPM did not issue a directive at all (ibid.).

DECLARATION OF NOAH PETERS IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO VACATE MARCH 13, 2025, EVIDENTIARY HEARING; PRECLUDE TESTIMONY OF ACTING DIRECTOR CHARLES EZELL; QUASH SUBPOENAS COMMANDING TESTIMONY AT THE EVIDENTIARY HEARING; AND FOR A PROTECTIVE ORDER PROVIDING IMMEDIATE RELIEF FROM MARCH 11, 2025, DEPOSITIONS

I, Noah Peters, declare, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, as follows:

1. I am Senior Advisor to the Director of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (“OPM”), headquartered in Washington, D.C. I have served in this position since January 20, 2025.

2. Via a guidance memorandum issued on January 20, 2025, OPM asked agencies to review which probationary employees they wished to keep and which employees they wished to terminate.

3. On February 7, 2025, I learned that the Small Business Administration (SBA) had decided to remove its probationary employees. OPM convened a small call with Chiefs of Staff to learn where agencies were with respect to the process of deciding which probationary employees to keep and which to separate from. OPM convened another small call on February 10, 2025 with Chiefs of Staff for an update as to where they stood in the process.

4. At these two calls on February 7 or 10, OPM asked what the agencies were planning to do with respect to probationary employees, their timelines, what processes they were following for determining which probationary employees they wished to keep and which to terminate, and their plans regarding probationary employees who had opted into the Deferred Resignation Program (DRP). At the time, the deadline for the DRP was still open. At no time during these calls did OPM direct agencies to terminate probationary employees.

5. On February 13, 2025, OPM held another meeting with Chiefs of Staff. At this call, a script was read to the Chiefs of Staff that was identical to an email that had been sent to the Chiefs of Staff the day prior.

6. Afterwards, Chiefs of Staff shared their experiences with respect to separating from probationary employees, since this process was already underway at several agencies. The Chief of Staff at the Department of Agriculture (USDA) shared what she had learned as USDA had already removed many probationary employees, as did a staffer at Interior.

7. OPM Acting Administrator Charles Ezell was not on this February 13, 2025 call.

8. On February 14, 2025, OPM conducted another call with Chief Human Capital Officers (CHCOs) to further discuss OPM’s guidance regarding probationary employees, along with multiple other topics. Mr. Ezell was only present for the start of this call and therefore has limited direct knowledge of the remainder of that call.

9. At no point on these calls did OPM direct or require any agencies to terminate probationary employees. At all times, the tone was friendly, cordial, and cooperative.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: March 10, 2025
/s/ Noah Peters
NOAH PETERS


Plaintiffs have nourished the record with a mountain of countervailing evidence (agency memos, termination letters, congressional testimony, meeting transcripts, emails, and more) including, for example: “In accordance with direction from OPM . . . all DOD Components must terminate the employment of all individuals who are currently serving a probationary or trial period” (DOD), “[t]here was direction from the Office of Personnel Management” (VA), “agencies were directed to begin providing termination notices . . . immediately upon OPM notification” (USDA), “that was something that was directed from OPM” (IRS), “[t]hey told us that they directed us to remove probationers” (NSF), “OPM directed agencies to separate Probationary employees starting 2/13/25” (Forest Service) (emphases added).

Also on the merits, plaintiffs’ APA claims are likely to succeed for much the same reason. OPM’s ultra vires directive is likely to constitute an unlawful final agency action that is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law,” “in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” and “without observance of procedure required by law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C), (D).

Based on the full record at the time of injunction, some of it excerpted here, defendants’ opposition is rejected (except to the extent addressed next on jurisdiction and standing).

As to jurisdiction, the conclusions in the February 28 memorandum stand (for now). Facts not before the court during the TRO hearing suggest that the FLRA and MSPB may be alternative channels in theory alone (if at all). The undersigned ordered further briefing on that point and will not yet disturb the prior conclusion, which is incorporated here.

Standing was also set out in the February 28 memorandum, with that legal analysis also incorporated here. To be clear, no employees bring claims in this action, and unions’ claims on their behalf have not yet been determined to be the sort that can be heard in district court (as above). But the organizational plaintiffs themselves face concrete harms. These flow from the way the unlawfully directed terminations disable the federal agency services on which they or their members depend, or otherwise imperil their organizational mission or membership — such as by requiring the organizations to steal resources from their existing work to solve new problems entirely of OPM’s making. For example, Vote Vets Action Fund Inc., has diverted resources from its complementing array of veterans’ services to cover primary needs newly unmet by VA services with slashed staffing, like the short-staffed Veterans Crisis Line (see Dkt. No. 45 at 20–23). Nearly all the plaintiffs that the TRO found likely to have standing (id. at 13–22) have added support to our record since (Coalition to Protect America’s National Parks (Dkt. No. 70-19), Common Defense Civic Engagement (Dkt. No. 70-17), Main Street Alliance (Dkt. No. 70-20), and Western Watersheds Project (Dkt. No. 70-18)). Plus, other organizational plaintiffs have shown likely harms at OPM’s hand (relevantly, Point Blue Conservation Science (Dkt. No. 70-15), and American Geophysical Union (Dkt. No. 70-16)).

Second, irreparable harms are imminent for these plaintiffs if not enjoined. Fresh record evidence shows that the harms outlined in the TRO go on despite the TRO. And, the record shows those harms come by more paths than previously understood. For example, we already knew that slashes to staffing at the USDA’s Forest Service were wreaking havoc on Western Watershed Project. That harm continues, with problems mounting from the Los Padres National Forest to the Sawtooth Valley National Recreation Area (Dkt. No. 70-18 ¶¶ 7–8, 10). But now, plaintiffs tell us about more problems from USDA staffing cuts, this time at the Natural Resources Conservation Service. Because staff was cut in grants administration, nonprofit Point Blue Conservation Science has not been paid for work; and, because future project approvals are likewise stalling, Point Blue will likely be frustrated in its ability to improve forestry, agriculture, and wildlife management with the USDA (Dkt. No. 70-15 ¶¶ 4–6). The American Geophysical Union points to other problems also emanating from terminations at the USDA, and to still others emanating from the Department of Energy (Dkt. No. 70-16). Similarly, we already knew about the imminent harms to VoteVets and Common Defense (and to those whom they serve) by way of OPM-directed terminations at the DOD and VA. Now, through a statement made against interest, we see that the Department of Treasury sought to retain its veterans who were probationers — only to be rebuffed by OPM (Dkt. No. 94-1 ¶ 12). Because stiffer evidence did not shore up the irreparable harms flowing from the unlawful directive to the other proposed agencies, the preliminary injunction did not extend to them.

Each agency had (and still has) discretion to hire and fire its own employees. Here, the agencies were directed by OPM to fire all probationary employees, and they executed that directive. To staunch the irreparable harms to organizational plaintiffs caused by OPM unlawfully slashing other agency’s staff required immediately reinstating those employees.

Finally, the balance of the equities and the public interest (which merge when the government is the defendant) plainly favor the organizational plaintiffs. “The preservation of the rights in the Constitution and the legality of the process by which government agencies function certainly weighs heavily in the public interest.” Nat’l Treasury Emps. Union v. U.S. Dep’t of Treasury, 838 F. Supp. 631, 640 (D.D.C. 1993) (Judge Harold Greene); see Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).

Each Winter factor favored the granting of the injunction.

The Court found security — which defendant did not request — to be proper in the amount of $0.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated from the bench, and further explained above, the Court granted the injunction.

Dated: March 14, 2025.

WILLIAM ALSUP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

Re: Anti-Anti-Nazi Barbarian Hordes are Knocking Down the Ga

Postby admin » Mon Mar 17, 2025 8:25 pm

Trump SINKS to NEW LOW and Rejects ORDER on WAR POWERS
by Michael Popok
MeidasTouch
Mar 17, 2025 Legal AF Podcast

A new constitutional crisis has broken out with the Trump Administration refusing to comply, again, with a Federal judge’s orders. In a new filing, The Trump Administration just confessed to violating a Court Order to stop Trump’s unconstitutional exercise of war powers to deport hundreds of people to El Salvador and Honduras in violation of a DC Chief Judge’s order blocking that action, and the ACLU representing Plaintiffs have filed this morning their Notice to the Court outlining that the ways in which Trump has violated the Court’s order, and demanding that the Court intervene and take action. Michael Popok breaks down what has happened in the last 48 hours, and what will happen next in court.



Transcript

we got breaking news with the Trump
Administration lurching towards a
constitutional crisis arising out of
their deportation plan ignoring a
federal judge's order not only ignoring
it calling it out and saying the federal
judge has no power over a president who
has unlawfully and unconstitutionally
exercise War Powers to deport people
including as young as 14 years old from
American soil despite a temporary
restraining order a court hearing an
order from the bench requiring them to
do exactly that to stop deporting people
pursuant to the aliens uh enemies act
until the briefing schedule and hearing
was Set uh and is completed this week by
the judge Donald Trump's position which
has been expressed by his press
secretary and others is that until an
appellant Court tells him otherwise he's
going to completely ignore a federal
judge's orders they have this new
phraseology that you hear over and over
again a single judge in a single
District can't make a ruling against the
president of the United states that is a
lie I'll break it down for you here on
the mest touch Network in legal AF we've
got two competing filings one late
yesterday one this morning um one from
the Trump Administration explaining why
they uh basically why they violated the
Court's order not to deport people with
200 or more uh Venezuelan and other
undocumented and people who are alleged
to be part of a gang um delivered to the
quote unquote philosopher king dictator
of el Sal Vador um uh president Buel uh
belli and and so all of that was going
on during the hearing and after the
court had already ruled right before the
court had already ruled that that these
people should not be deported especially
to El Salvador they were already on
their way to El Salvador including a
number of planes according to reporting
that went out after the judge had
already made his order meaning when the
judge said turn the planes around the
planes hadn't even launched yet they
launched after. This is a constitutional
crisis of Epic Proportion, let me tell
you.


First what the notice to the court
was uh that was filed late yesterday by
the Trump Administration and then I'm
going to read to you from the American
civil liberties Union and the plaintiffs
in the case and what they have told the
judge there are so many holes in this
notice so many confessions and
admissions of violations of the court
order that that the response by the ACLU
was re relatively straightforward here's
the Trump Administration notice signed
by Pam band Pam bandi the attorney
general and um Emil or Amil B and Todd
blanch and all the other former criminal
defense lawyers for Donald Trump now in
the Department of Justice um for the
reasons this is from the Trump filing
for the reasons explained on the record
Federal defendants object to this
Court's assertion of jurisdiction
including over the president's exercise
of powers vested in him by article two I
mean that's what federal courts do for a
living in the checks and balance system
they often check the power um
unconstitutional exercise of Power by a
president pursuant to article two so
that is a nonsense start to this notice
but it continues the the Trump
Administration says subject to that
objection president the federal
defendants were promptly notified of the
Court's temporary restraining order
issued in the morning and the 720 2 6
p.m. minute order that temporarily
enjoined any removals pursuant to the
presidential Proclamation let me unpack
that Friday we got word that Donald
Trump was going to make a presidential
proclamation to invoke the alien enemies
Act of 1798 from the Adams
Administration which has never been
invoked in peace time requires that
there be an invocation of War Powers
after a declaration of war by Congress
that has not happened and that got
signed and issued on Saturday
the judge had already in a prior
temporary restraining order stopped the
deportation of at least five or six
Venezuelans then when they ran into
court on Saturday they had a hearing on
Saturday at 5:00 Eastern time in
Washington yes the courts are open on
Saturday by then the ACLU representing
the plaintiffs had new information
because we now have the actual
proclamation of attempting to exercise
that particular um war power so the
judge expanded handed his
injunction considerably to include no
one he certified a class everyone
subject to that particular war power
exercise or attempted war power exercise
and enjoined or blocked it and ordered
during a hearing that the flights if
they're in air if the birds are in the
air turn them back around he also
acknowledged during the hearing the
judge judge
bosberg that if planes had already
landed he may have lost his jurisdiction
so he's trying hard to make sure that
the Trump Administration isn't purposely
trying to deny a federal judge
jurisdiction by uh taking these people
stitious to a foreign country like El
Salvador and dropping them off in their
notoriously um notoriously abusive uh
jail system you know and Detention
Center so when they say well we didn't
get word until 7:26 of the minute order
that's a lie the the lawyers were in
court the judge issued From the Bench
his order as in the 6:00 range and it
looks like planes went out after the
order that's the point and they sort of
fudge that wallpaper over that in their
filing the the the Trump Administration
continues in its notice going forward
and in the absence of app pellet relief
Federal defendants will continue to
protect the United States using
authorities other than the
proclamation that's interesting so
they're saying that until we're just
going to continue to act lawlessness uh
in a lawless fashion in an
unconstitutional fashion unless we're
stopped by an appell court and we're
going to ignore a federal judge see the
Constitutional crisis that we are
heading for and we are already
in federal defendants further report
based on information from the Department
of Homeland Security that's Christy
gnome that some gang members subject to
removal under the proclamation had
already been removed from the United
States Territory before the issuance of
the of the Court's second order that's a
lie apparently based on media reports
first of all it's over 200 people um
including as young as 14 years old was
turned over to the El Salvadorian regime
and it's uh and its Black Ops uh
Detention Center um and that was not
after the second order it was they were
sent uh in violation of the second order
Let me read to you for what the
ACLU has had to say just this morning in
response in a in a 317 March 17th
filing
um the go is on page one the
government's own notice raises serious
questions plaintiffs therefore
respectfully request that the court seek
immediate clarification from defendants
in one or more sworn declarations under
oath about their conduct regarding this
Court's order the government's letter
stated that the Court's order was issued
at 7:26 p.m. on Saturday March 15th but
that was the time the written order was
issued during the Saturday hearing
between 645 and 648 this court orally
and unambiguously directed the
government to turn around planes
carrying individuals being removed
pursuant to the proclamation this one
about the alien enemies act and then
they quote from the
judge and they also remind on page two
everybody that the oral order of the
court is binding doesn't have to be in
writing second on page two plaintiffs
remain extremely concerned that
regardless of which time is used the
government may have violated the Court's
command the government states that some
gang members sought a subject to removal
have already been removed from United
States Territory under the proclamation
before the issuance of the Court's
second order that phrasing from the
Trump Administration according to this
filing by the ACLU strongly suggests
that the government has chosen to treat
this Court's order as applying only to
individuals still on us soil or on
flights that had yet to clear us
airspace at 726 if that is how the
government proceeded it was a blatant
violation of the Court's order um and
that and they then object to the fact
that they were turned over to foreign
governments to try to attempt to have
the court lose jurisdiction on page
three uh the filing of be on behalf of
the plaintiff says based on publicly U
available information it appears there
were at least two flights that took off
during the hearing but landed after this
Court's written order meaning that
defendants could have turned the plane
around without handing over individuals
subject to the proclamation in this
Court's temporary restraining order and
then they list a couple of flights
Global X Flight 6143 and Global xflight
6145 one that landed in Honduras the
other one that landed in El Salvador
third uh the plaintiffs continue if only
the written order is relevant and even
if the court had only meant to order
defendants to turn the planes around if
they were still on US Territory plain if
still have serious concerns about the
government's actions according to at
least one media report one of the planes
Departed the US after the written order
was
issued then they then on page four they
talk about the role of the White House
Deputy Chief of Staff Steven Miller also
a White House counselor and the
Department of Homeland Security Christy
gome chose not to turn the planes around
although they had the opportunity to do
that meaning they're willfully violating
the Court's order they then quote from
an axios article um and statements by
who else the White House Press Secretary
Carolyn levette and this is what Carolyn
levette had to say although she also
misidentified the use of she said an
aircraft carrier was used I think she
meant an airplane but in any event
here's what carollyn levette said the
administration did not refuse to comply
with a court order the order which had
no lawful basis oh now we're just going
to on our own use self-help and ignore
federal court orders uh the written
order and the administration's actions
do not conflict moreover as the Supreme
Court has repeatedly made clear here's
the great legal scholar Carolyn levette
federal courts generally have no
jurisdiction over the president's
conduct of Foreign Affairs his
authorities under the alien enemies act
and his core article two powers to
remove foreign alien terrorists from us
soil that's not how the Constitution
works that's not how Supreme Court and
federal courts work in trying to check
the um unconstitutional assertion of
Power by a president how does how does
she think all the cases related to PR
all the precedent cases about
Presidential Power where does Carolyn
levette and the administration think
they came from from federal courts
making rulings about whether the by the
Constitution has been violated or not
that is their job um she continues on
page five uh the the secretary uh the
press secretary continues a single judge
in a single City cannot direct the
movements of an aircraft carrier full of
foreign alien terrorists who were
physically expelled from us soil you're
wrong on so many counts Caroline
including the facts first of all it
wasn't an aircraft carrier it was a
plane or several planes secondly um I
don't I they say it was full of foreign
alien terrorists it was certainly filled
with 230 or 240 primarily men who were
turned over
to the El Salvadorian government and it
looks like the Honduran government and a
single judge can do that having
certified the class and having issued an
injunction or issued a nationwide
injunction that's what federal judges do
um we believe according to the this
White House official we believe this is
a baseless legal ruling no matter when
the flights took
off finally some of the public comments
made by the defendants and the president
of El Salvador reinforced the
plaintiff's concerns um I mean even the
Phil the self-proclaimed philosopher
king of El Salvador naive belli tweeted
a New York Post headline reading fed
judge orders deportation flights
carrying alleged Venezuelan gangsters to
return to the US blocks Trump from
invoking Alien enemies act and added the
comment oopsy too late secret Secretary
of State Marco Rubio retweeted this post
from his personal ex account in some
given the a careful phrasing of the
government's letter the ACLU continues
the publicly available data the
government's own statements and the num
numerous media reports that the
government may have chosen not to abide
by the Court's order plaintiffs request
that the court immediately direct the
government to submit one or more sworn
declarations from individuals about the
flights and about their timing and about
the knowledge of the order and the
directions of the judge to tell
everybody in the government about the
order signed by a whole series of people
with the ACLU what's going to happen
next judge is going to either take them
up and ask for declarations or he's
going to call for a court hearing I
expect that to happen sometime later
today um at which
time uh at the same time that the Trump
Administration is due to file a brief
we'll see if they're going to just flout
the rules and not file their brief and
be in default or they're going to file
the brief that was ordered by judge uh
bosberg he set a briefing schedule very
quickly this week Monday with a filing
by Donald Trump Wednesday by a filing by
the ACLU in a hearing on Friday while
Donald Trump took his appeal to the DC
court of appeals he has not gotten a
stay he's subject to the temporary
restraining orders and he as it's been
outlined in this new filing by the ACLU
is in violation of them next step the
ball is in the judge's court and we're
going to continue to follow it right
here on the meidast touch network and on
legal AF I'm Michael popok and I'm
reporting.

**************************

How the White House ignored a judge's order to turn back deportation flights
by Marc Caputo
axios.com
March 16, 2025
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/trump- ... enezuelans

Image
Stephen Miller in the Oval Office. Photo: Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/AFP via Getty

The Trump administration says it ignored a Saturday court order to turn around two planeloads of alleged Venezuelan gang members because the flights were over international waters and therefore the ruling didn't apply, two senior officials tell Axios.

Why it matters: The administration's decision to defy a federal judge's order is exceedingly rare and highly controversial.

"Court order defied. First of many as I've been warning and start of true constitutional crisis," national security attorney Mark S. Zaid, a Trump critic, wrote on X, adding that Trump could ultimately get impeached.
The White House welcomes that fight. "This is headed to the Supreme Court. And we're going to win," a senior White House official told Axios.
A second administration official said Trump was not defying the judge whose ruling came too late for the planes to change course: "Very important that people understand we are not actively defying court orders."

State of play: Trump's advisers contend U.S. District Judge James Boasberg overstepped his authority by issuing an order that blocked the president from deporting about 250 alleged Tren de Aragua gang members under the Alien Enemies Act of 1789.

• The war-time law gives the executive extreme immense power to deport noncitizens without a judicial hearing. But it has been little-used, particularly in peacetime.
• "It's the showdown that was always going to happen between the two branches of government," a senior White House official said. "And it seemed that this was pretty clean. You have Venezuelan gang members ... These are bad guys, as the president would say."

How it happened: White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller "orchestrated" the process in the West Wing in tandem with Homeland Security Secretary Kristy Noem. Few outside their teams knew what was happening.

• They didn't actually set out to defy a court order. "We wanted them on the ground first, before a judge could get the case, but this is how it worked out," said the official.

The timeline: The president signed the executive order invoking the Alien Enemies Act on Friday night, but intentionally did not advertise it. On Saturday morning, word of the order leaked, officials said, prompting a mad scramble to get planes in the air.

• At 2:31 p.m. Saturday, an immigration activist who tracks deportation flights, posted on X that "TWO HIGHLY UNUSUAL ICE flights" were departing from Texas to El Salvador, which had agreed to accept Venezuelan gang members deported from the U.S.
Hours later, during a court hearing filed by the ACLU., Boasberg ordered a halt to the deportations and said any flights should be turned around mid-air.
"This is something that you need to make sure is complied with immediately," he told the Justice Department
, according to the Washington Post.
At that point, about 6:51 p.m., both flights were off the Yucatan Peninsula, according to flight paths posted on X.

Inside the White House, officials discussed whether to order the planes to turn around. On advice from a team of administration lawyers, the administration pressed ahead.

• "There was a discussion about how far the judge's ruling can go under the circumstances and over international waters and, on advice of counsel, we proceeded with deporting these thugs,"[!] the senior official said.
• "They were already outside of US airspace. We believe the order is not applicable," a second senior administration official told Axios.

Yes, but: The Trump administration was already spoiling for a fight over the Alien Enemies Act — one of several fronts on which they believe legal challenges to the president's authority will only end up strengthening it when the Supreme Court rules in his favor.

Between the lines: Officially, the Trump White House is not denying it ignored the judge's order, and instead wants to shift the argument to whether it was right [!!!] to expel alleged members of Tren de Aragua.

"If the Democrats want to argue in favor of turning a plane full of rapists, murderers, and gangsters back to the United States, that's a fight we are more than happy to take," [!] White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told Axios when asked about the case.
• It's unclear how many of the roughly 250 Venezuelans were deported under the Alien Enemies Act and how many were kicked out of the U.S. due to other immigration laws.
It's also not clear whether all of them were actually gang members.

What they are saying: On Sunday morning, El Salvador President Nayib Bukele posted a video on X hailing the arrival of the Venezuelans in his country. Bukele also mockingly featured an image of a New York Post story about the judge's order halting the flights.

"Oopsie ... too late," Bukele wrote on X with a crying-laughing emoji
• U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio retweeted the post.


Update: After publication, Leavitt issued a statement: "The Administration did not 'refuse to comply' with a court order. The order, which had no lawful basis, was issued after terrorist TdA aliens had already been removed [!] from U.S. territory."

• "The written order and the Administration's actions do not conflict. Moreover, as the Supreme Court has repeatedly made clear — federal courts generally have no jurisdiction over the President's conduct of foreign affairs, his authorities under the Alien Enemies Act, and his core Article II powers to remove foreign alien terrorists from U.S. soil and repel a declared invasion," she wrote.
• "A single judge in a single city cannot direct the movements of an aircraft carrier full of foreign alien terrorists who were physically expelled from U.S. soil."

Editor's note: This story was updated with the White House official's claim that the administration had ignored the ruling but not defied it, because it came too late, and with Leavitt's updated statement.

*******************

Trump's border czar: "I don't care what the judges think"

[x]
Trump border czar Tom Homan on March 12 in Albany, New York. Photo: Will Waldron/Albany Times Union via Getty Images

President Trump's border czar Tom Homan on Monday doubled down on the decision to defy a court order that barred the deportation of alleged Venezuelan gang members.

Why it matters: The White House's decision to disregard a federal judge's order has set up a legal battle that could make its way to the Supreme Court and define the limits of Trump's deportation powers.

**************************

What to know about the wartime authority Trump invoked for mass deportations
by Ivana Saric
Updated Mar 16, 2025
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/14/trump- ... portations

Image
Donald Trump in the Oval Office on March 12. Photo: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

President Trump invoked a centuries-old wartime authority Saturday to accelerate mass deportations of Venezuelan migrants suspected of being being gang members with little to no due process.

Why it matters: Shortly after the White House released a proclamation triggering the Alien Enemies Act, a federal judge temporarily blocked the government from deporting any immigrants under the law and ordered planes that had already departed to return.

**********************

Trump admin says it deported Lebanese doctor before being notified of judge's order
by Avery Lotz
Updated Mar 17, 2025
https://www.axios.com/2025/03/16/judge- ... pite-order

Image
Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem looks at the scans of a truck that passed through a machine during a briefing with Guadalupe H. Ramirez (R), director of field operations for the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Tucson field office on March 15. Photo: Alex Brandon/POOL/AFP via Getty Images

The Trump administration denied allegations that U.S. immigration enforcement "willfully disobeyed" an order halting the deportation of a Rhode Island doctor, according to a federal judge's Monday order.

The big picture: Dr. Rasha Alawieh, who according to court documents is a citizen of Lebanon who holds an H-1B visa, was detained last week upon her arrival at a Boston airport.

The latest: Federal Judge Leo T. Sorokin said in a Monday order that the government filed an explanation, as directed, stating that the Customs and Border Protection officers at Boston Logan International Airport did not received notice of Sorokin's order until after Alawieh "had already departed the United States."

• Sorokin canceled the hearing in the case set for Monday, noting Alawieh is now in Lebanon.

How it happened: In an order on Friday evening in response to a petition from Alawieh's cousin, Sorokin mandated 48 hours' notice before Alawieh could be deported.

• But Alawieh was nonetheless placed on a flight to Paris, where she was detained as of Saturday.
• It's unclear how much time elapsed between the order coming down and that flight departing, but attorneys representing Alawieh's cousin, Yara Chehab, alleged in a court filing that the government had received "actual notice" and "willfully disobeyed" the court's order — a claim the government denied, per Sorokin's Monday order.

Driving the news: In a Sunday court entry, Sorokin ordered the government to respond by Monday morning to the "serious allegations" that it intentionally breached a court order.

• In his previous order, Sorokin had said that in order to give more time to consider the case, Alawieh must not be moved outside of Massachusetts without 48 hours' advanced notice and an accompanying explanation.
• In his Sunday order, Sorokin said he followed "common practice in this district as it has been for years."

Catch up quick: Brown University sponsored Alawieh's visa after offering her an assistant professorship, according to a complaint filed Friday.

• Her petition was approved in June, but she wasn't able to obtain her visa until March 11, per the filing.
• While she was completing programs at the University of Washington, Ohio State University and Yale in years prior, she was on a J-1 visa, according to the complaint.

What they're saying: The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) called on the Trump administration in a Sunday statement to "immediately readmit" Alawieh.

• "As a U.S. resident for six years and a doctor working for the Division of Kidney Disease & Hypertension at Brown Medicine, Dr. Alawieh played a critical role in treating countless patients who needed treatment by a specialist," CAIR's statement read.

Zoom out: This would not be the first time the Trump administration moved to deport someone who was in the U.S. legally.

• It comes just one week after federal authorities arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate and protest leader, despite him being a legal permanent resident in the U.S.

Go deeper: Trump's immigration factor

*********************

Trump's immigration factor
by Courtenay Brown
Mar 14, 2025

Volatile trade policy is getting all the media attention lately. But another risk to the growth outlook is also playing out — an end to the high immigration rates that were a feature of the U.S. economy in recent years.

Why it matters: Most economic policymakers say immigration helped loosen the tightest labor market in decades and eased inflation. Whatever your views on the policy, plummeting border crossings — paired with White House deportation plans — mean economic adjustment ahead.

• It is a key element of President Trump's economic shock therapy, with uncertainty about what the mix of policies — lower immigration, higher tariffs and more — will ultimately mean for businesses and consumers.

What they're saying: "For US economic growth, immigration policy deserves more attention," Seth Carpenter, chief global economist at Morgan Stanley, wrote in a recent note.

• "Immigration has been a fundamental part of the US growth story in the post-Covid phase," Carpenter wrote. A slowdown will affect growth, "boost inflation and present a thorny choice for the Fed."

By the numbers: Morgan Stanley expects net immigration of about 1 million this year and 500,000 in 2026, both notably lower compared to their estimated 2.7 million in 2024.

• Signs of a crackdown have been enough to slow immigration flows at the U.S. southern border. In February, there were about 8,300 border apprehensions, Axios reported earlier this month — the fewest on record in data that goes back to 2000.
• Deportation threats of "millions and millions" of immigrants have yet to fully materialize: Deportations are, so far, on par with that of former President Biden's final weeks in office.

The big picture: Some fear that the worker boost seen in 2022 and 2023 will play out in reverse.

• Morgan Stanley economists note that their estimate of 1 million in net immigration could trim the GDP level by as much as 0.6 percentage point this year and next.

What to watch: Large-scale deportations would be a labor market supply shock that coincides with another tariff-related supply hit. The worst-case scenario is an inflation double whammy.

• The construction sector might be among the most at risk. It depends heavily on immigrant workers. It also depends heavily on supplies — lumber, copper and more — that are prime tariff targets.

What they're saying: "The irony is that the tariffs' impacts on construction costs might just price some manufacturers out of their decision to expand or add plants in the U.S.," said Jeffrey Shoaf, CEO of the Associated General Contractors of America.

*********************

Fed says Trump trade, immigration stance might "hinder" lower inflation
by Courtenay Brown
Feb 19, 2025 -Business

[x]
Fed chair Jerome Powell speaks during a news conference last month. Photo: Al Drago/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Federal Reserve officials said shifts in trade and immigration policy are among the factors that could derail inflation progress, according to minutes from the central bank's latest policy meeting released on Wednesday.

Why it matters: After two years fighting inflation, progress on cooling prices has stalled. The policies at the heart of President Trump's economic agenda — high tariffs and a crackdown on undocumented immigration — could risk a more bleak inflation outlook.

**************************

Business groups quietly push back on Trump's immigration raids
by Brittany Gibson and Marc Caputo
Mar 2, 2025

[x]
Photo illustration: Allie Carl/Axios. Photo:Brian van der Brug/Getty Images

Business groups are quietly urging the Trump administration to ease up on its plans for immigration raids in workplaces, but the White House is resisting.

Why it matters: So far, the pace of workplace raids doesn't appear to have increased under President Trump compared to the Biden administration's efforts. But aggressive shows of enforcement are key to Trump's plans to crackdown on illegal immigration.

************************

Inside the trade-fueled economic growth scare
by Courtenay Brown and Neil Irwin
Mar 5, 2025

Businesses are adjusting to a volatile new policy era, especially around trade. Some early evidence out Wednesday morning indicated policy is making them slower to hire.

Why it matters: Big-picture measures of economic activity remain solid, but fast-developing White House policy — like on-again, off-again tariffs — is rattling business.

• As tariffs and spending cuts ripple through the economy, it's still unclear whether softer data will remain limited to surveys of business and consumer sentiment or lead to a more meaningful slowdown.
admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 37580
Joined: Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:21 am

PreviousNext

Return to United States Government Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests