United States notion of safety from terrorism
POPULARITY
Categories
239 episodes with Homeland security
112 episodes with Homeland security
220 episodes with Homeland security
87 episodes with Homeland security
69 episodes with Homeland security
73 episodes with Homeland security
47 episodes with Homeland security
76 episodes with Homeland security
39 episodes with Homeland security
53 episodes with Homeland security
123 episodes with Homeland security
26 episodes with Homeland security
29 episodes with Homeland security
30 episodes with Homeland security
27 episodes with Homeland security
47 episodes with Homeland security
39 episodes with Homeland security
19 episodes with Homeland security
16 episodes with Homeland security
49 episodes with Homeland security
31 episodes with Homeland security
14 episodes with Homeland security
30 episodes with Homeland security
24 episodes with Homeland security
28 episodes with Homeland security
15 episodes with Homeland security
17 episodes with Homeland security
20 episodes with Homeland security
18 episodes with Homeland security
31 episodes with Homeland security
29 episodes with Homeland security
24 episodes with Homeland security
21 episodes with Homeland security
29 episodes with Homeland security
11 episodes with Homeland security
19 episodes with Homeland security
46 episodes with Homeland security
72 episodes with Homeland security
11 episodes with Homeland security
19 episodes with Homeland security
24 episodes with Homeland security
18 episodes with Homeland security
47 episodes with Homeland security
16 episodes with Homeland security
19 episodes with Homeland security
9 episodes with Homeland security
14 episodes with Homeland security
11 episodes with Homeland security
21 episodes with Homeland security
25 episodes with Homeland security
10 episodes with Homeland security
16 episodes with Homeland security
11 episodes with Homeland security
15 episodes with Homeland security
President Donald Trump's administration is full of sycophants. That was made quite apparent this week (if it wasn't already) during a three-hour-long televised Cabinet meeting. The lengthy meeting allowed for department secretaries to sing their lord and savior's praises while the world watched on. The excessive fawning over the dear leader would raise more suspicions if it were taking place literally anywhere else. But it's happening in the United States. And we are in trouble. We spoke with Bill Kristol, editor at large for The Bulwark, to find out what we can do to meet the challenge of the moment.And in headlines: the Department of Homeland Security now prohibits state agencies and volunteer groups from receiving federal funds if they help undocumented immigrants, an alleged sandwich thrower dodged federal charges, and the Food and Drug Administration approved updated Covid-19 vaccines.Show Notes:Check out Bill's piece – https://tinyurl.com/2ynd2f8vWatch Favs sandwich guy interview – https://tinyurl.com/aaf4ajh3Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday
Nick Miroff, staff writer for The Atlantic who covers immigration and the Department of Homeland Security, talks about the changes at the immigration enforcement agency and how the $75 billion budget bump will be spent.=> "Fast Times at Immigration and Customs Enforcement" (The Atlantic, August 26, 2025)
On Today's Show:Nick Miroff, staff writer for The Atlantic who covers immigration and the Department of Homeland Security, talks about the changes at the immigration enforcement agency and how the $75 billion budget bump will be spent.
A gunman killed two children and wounded 17 others through the stained glass windows of Annunciation Catholic School during a church service. What we're learning this morning. Plus, the CDC director has refused to resign despite pressure from the Trump administration and Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. And the Department of Homeland Security works to clear the controversial immigrant detention facility deep in the Florida Everglades — nicknamed “Alligator Alcatraz” — after a federal judge ordered it to be dismantled. These stories and more highlight your Unbiased Updates for Thursday, Aug. 28, 2025.
The Roundtable Panel: a daily open discussion of issues in the news and beyond. Today's panelists are Dean of the College of Emergency Preparedness, Homeland Security and Cybersecurity at the University at Albany Robert Griffin, Professor Emeritus of Russian at Hofstra University and author of: Illiberal Vanguard: Populist Elitism in the United States and Russia Alexander Mihailovic, and Albany Mayor Kathy Sheehan.
Recently the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Department of State announced a series of actions being taken in response to the anticipated end of the Title 42 public health order on May 11 and increased migration throughout the Western Hemisphere. Read about the response of the U.S. Migration Chair at https://www.usccb.org/news/2023/us-bishops-migration-chairman-addresses-new-regional-migration-mitigation-efforts On May 3rd, Pope Francis asked the faithful to renew their devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary and met with a Russian Orthodox leader. Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLYsCsVFLQU&t=11s
Homeland Security marks 5,000 immigration arrests in LA this summer, and they say it's just the beginning. Your next LA home may not come with a parking space. Pasadena is cutting rebuilding fees for Eaton Fire survivors. Plus, more.Support The L.A. Report by donating at LAist.com/join and by visiting https://laist.comVisit www.preppi.com/LAist to receive a FREE Preppi Emergency Kit (with any purchase over $100) and be prepared for the next wildfire, earthquake or emergency! Support the show: https://laist.com
The Department of Homeland Security, which includes Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), was created in the aftermath of 9/11. To contextualize what's happening with immigration today under Trump 2.0, we bring you one person's story of being caught in the anti-Muslim fervor post-9/11 and how she became an organizer advocating for the immigrants' rights. We'll also hear what her story teaches us about avoiding burnout in doing social justice work. This story comes to us by way of Re:Work from the UCLA Labor Center. Featuring: Ainee Athar, immigrant rights and climate justice Making Contact Team Episode host and producer: Lucy Kang Producers: Anita Johnson, Salima Hamirani, Amy Gastelum, and Lucy Kang Executive Director: Jina Chung Engineer: Jeff Emtman Digital Media Marketing: Lissa Deonarain Music: "Documentary Piano Ambient" by BoDleasons via Pixabay Re:Work Episode "Beyond the Glass Wall" Credits: Hosted by Veena Hampapur and George Chacon Produced by Veena Hampapur, George Chacon, and Saba Waheed Sound design and editing by Veena Hampapur Mixing by Aaron Dalton Learn More: Re:Work from the UCLA Labor Center | FOC Media Making Contact is an award-winning, nationally syndicated radio show and podcast featuring narrative storytelling and thought-provoking interviews. We cover the most urgent issues of our time and the people on the ground building a more just world.
Andrew Arthur is Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center for Immigration Studies. He began his legal career as a clerk to an Administrative Law Judge at the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. Crosstalk receives daily updates from the Department of Homeland Security listing the arrests of what they call: The worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens. Jim listed a number of recent offenders originating from South Korea, Colombia, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Laos. Supporting such individuals are governors and mayors who are "digging in their heels" and who apparently would rather sacrifice the safety and security of their residents than remove those individuals who are here illegally. In addressing this issue, Jim had Andrew comment on a wide variety of concerns. For example: The legitimacy of asylum claims and whether this is overwhelming the judicial system. What we can learn from the news story of the illegal alien who made a U-turn that took the lives of 3 people while driving an 18 wheeler in Florida. How the Biden administration's border policies had border patrol agents so overwhelmed, personnel were very limited in terms of what they could do to stop illegal drugs from crossing the border. The latest on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, obstruction attempts such as those to shut down "Alligator Alcatraz," unaccompanied alien children and much more.
BrownTown talks all things immigration under Trump 2.0, June protests in Los Angeles, and how ICE ain't shit with immigration attorney and new homie Khiabett Osuna. As Trump tests the waters of his draconian federal policies, financially backed by the Big [Fucking Ugly] Bill, and using ICE as his Gestapo-like muscle, we turn our focus to community resistance in all its forms. Khiabett leans into her work in and outside of the legal field as one piece of this larger puzzle to ensure that no human is illegal on stolen land. From protestors, organizers, and healers on the front lines in Los Angeles to mutual aid and rapid-response networks in Chicago, BrownTown and Khiabett unpack our neoliberal past, technofascist present, and what will be a desperate future unless we fight back. Originally recorded July 18, 2025. GUESTKhiabett Osuna is an attorney with Kriezelman Burton & Associates, LLC. While at DePaul College of Law, Khiabett worked at a local immigration firm and was involved in the Asylum Immigration Clinic. She volunteered with the CARA Family Detention Pro Bono Project in Dilley, Texas, helping screen women and children at the South Texas Family Detention Center who had recently arrived in the United States. After law school, Khiabett was hired through the Department of Justice Honors Program as a Judicial Law Clerk, where she clerked for Immigration Judges in El Paso and Fort Worth, Texas. She then worked at immigration firms in the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex, assisting clients primarily in removal proceedings. In Chicago, Khiabett works at a full service immigration law firm, continuing to represent clients in removal proceedings, as well as individuals seeking family based and humanitarian relief. She is a member of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, the AILA Chicago Chapter Advocacy Committee, and the Federal Bar Association. Khiabett also volunteers at her local church providing consults to community members. Mentioned in the episode:Correction: WWII ended under U.S. President Harry S. Truman, not FDRSocialism Conference 2025 session on community defenseLA Tenants UnionBirthright U.S. CitizenshipICE and Homeland Security budgets over timeThird Act documentary film by Tadashi NakamuraBnB Episode 116 - America: The Last Dance?Kelly Osbourne...incorrectly calling out TrumpMigrant dies in ICE raid (1, 2)ICE Mass Arrests Spark Chaos In South Loop (Block Club Chi)ResourcesICIRR Support #: 855.435.7693Midwest Immigration Bond FundOrganized Communities Against Deportation (OCAD)Pilsen Neighborhood Watch CoalitionNew fees for asylum seekers (1, 2)SoapBox's 2020 Census projectPalestinian boy dancing with drone above (Aljazeera)Defectors by Paola RamosImmigrants in tree outlast ICE (Reddit)LA Anti-ICE protest Instagram highlights--CREDITS: Intro soundbite from Alderperson Byron Sigcho-Lopez at a STOP ICE rally on June 8, 2025 in Chicago. Outro music FUCK ICE 2 by MANNY SÁNCHEZ. Audio engineered by Kiera Battles. Production assistance by Jamie Price. Episode photo by unknown.--Bourbon 'n BrownTownFacebook | Twitter | Instagram | Site | Linktree | PatreonSoapBox Productions and Organizing, 501(c)3Facebook | Twitter | Instagram | Site | Linktree | Support
Welcome back to "Forcepoint: To the Point Cybersecurity." In this episode, hosts Rachael Lyon and Jonathan Knepher are joined by Walter Haydock, founder and CEO of Stackaware. Walter brings a unique perspective from his time in the Marine Corps and Homeland Security, and now leads the charge in AI governance and risk management. Today's conversation dives deep into the maze of AI regulation, focusing on the newly emerging ISO 42001 standard and what compliance really means for organizations. Walter unpacks the complexities facing companies as they navigate a patchwork of state, national, and international laws—highlighting the challenges and opportunities presented by Colorado's groundbreaking AI legislation and Europe's evolving approach. Tune in as they discuss how to build a solid foundation for digital transformation, the three layers of AI risk, and the importance of transparency and clear policy in responsible AI adoption. If you're a CISO, security professional, or just curious about what the future holds for AI governance and cybersecurity, this episode is packed with practical insights and thought-provoking analysis. For links and resources discussed in this episode, please visit our show notes at https://www.forcepoint.com/govpodcast/e347
Andrew Arthur is Resident Fellow in Law and Policy for the Center for Immigration Studies. He began his legal career as a clerk to an Administrative Law Judge at the United States Department of Justice, Executive Office for Immigration Review. Crosstalk receives daily updates from the Department of Homeland Security listing the arrests of what they call: The worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens. Jim listed a number of recent offenders originating from South Korea, Colombia, Mexico, the Dominican Republic, Nicaragua and Laos. Supporting such individuals are governors and mayors who are "digging in their heels" and who apparently would rather sacrifice the safety and security of their residents than remove those individuals who are here illegally. In addressing this issue, Jim had Andrew comment on a wide variety of concerns. For example: The legitimacy of asylum claims and whether this is overwhelming the judicial system. What we can learn from the news story of the illegal alien who made a U-turn that took the lives of 3 people while driving an 18 wheeler in Florida. How the Biden administration's border policies had border patrol agents so overwhelmed, personnel were very limited in terms of what they could do to stop illegal drugs from crossing the border. The latest on Kilmar Abrego Garcia, obstruction attempts such as those to shut down "Alligator Alcatraz," unaccompanied alien children and much more.
Doc Ock goes full Evil Genius (it says so on his coffee mug) as he tries to infiltrate Homeland Security and take over the world's computers! And on New Year's Eve, no less. We're talking about the end of the Engineering arc, which includes a tense espionage story for George Stacy, a classic comic book moment for Spider-Man, a big kiss from Liz Allen, and mixed bag of a story for unconscious-kidnapping-victim-but-also-heroic Gwen Stacy. Oh, and one very devastating ending.We're watching The Spectacular Spider-Man: Season 1, Episode 4: “Shear Strength”.Website | Patreon | DiscordPart of The Glitterjaw Queer Podcast CollectiveContact us: @WallopingWebPod on Bluesky and InstagramEmail: wallopingwebsnapperspodcast@gmail.comTheme song features: “Resonance (Cyan & Ladybot Remix)” by HOME | License (CC BY 3.0)
Barry Loudermilk is a Constitutional Conservative who represents northwest Georgia's 11th Congressional District.Prior to being elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in 2014, Congressman Loudermilk served in the Georgia General Assembly in both the State House and State Senate.During his time in Congress, Rep. Loudermilk has served on the Committees of Science, Space and Technology, Homeland Security, the Joint Committee on the Library, Committee on House Administration, and Financial Services Committee. In his first year in Congress, he was appointed Chairman of the Oversight Subcommittee on Science, Space and Technology and served on the Homeland Security Committee's Special Task Force for Countering Terrorism and Terrorist Travel.In the 119th Congress, Congressman Loudermilk serves as a member of the Financial Services Committee, where he is the Vice Chair of the Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and is a member of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The Subcommittee on Financial Institutions oversees banks, bank regulators, and lending, and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations ensures that federal financial regulators are held accountable for their use of taxpayer funds. He also serves as a member of the Committee on House Administration and is a member of the Subcommittee on Elections.Congressman Loudermilk is also a member of the conservative Republican Study Committee and is the Republican Co-Chair of the Bipartisan FinTech and Payments Caucus.In the 118th Congress, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy tasked Congressman Loudermilk to lead the Committee on House Administration's Subcommittee on Oversight investigation into the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, the security failures of the U.S. Capitol Police, and the flawed investigation of House Select Committee on January 6.His father served as an Army medic in World War II and saw action during the D-Day invasion, Battle of the Bulge, and the Occupation of Germany. In 2019, Rep. Loudermilk was selected as one of the official delegates to represent the United States at the 75th anniversary of the D-Day invasion in Normandy.He is native of Georgia and veteran of the U.S. Air Force. Rep. Loudermilk is a student of the Constitution and the Christian heritage of America. Barry resides in northwest Georgia with his wife, Desiree. They have three grown children, and seven grandchildren. https://www.barryloudermilk.com/ https://www.andthentheyprayed.com/
Today's West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy Podcast for our especially special daily special, Tarrytown Chowder Tuesday is now available on the Spreaker Player!Starting off in the Bistro Cafe, Stephen Miller melted down on live television over Trump's latest scandal as Newsom mocked him mercilessly.Then, on the rest of the menu, Trump threatened retaliation for countries that tax or regulate US tech companies; the leading license plate camera company has halted cooperation with the Department of Homeland Security over concern how its investigations are used; and, in its efforts to ethnically cleanse America, the Trump MAGA administration charged George Mason University's efforts to diversify its workforce violates a civil rights law intended to end segregation.After the break, we move to the Chef's Table where Indonesia launched a measles vaccination campaign in response to an outbreak that has killed seventeen; and, Australia accused Iran of organizing antisemitic attacks across the country and has expelled its ambassador.All that and more, on West Coast Cookbook & Speakeasy with Chef de Cuisine Justice Putnam.Bon Appétit!The Netroots Radio Live PlayerKeep Your Resistance Radio Beaming 24/7/365!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/west-coast-cookbook-speakeasy--2802999/support.
Monday, August 25th, 2025Today, the DOJ has released the audio and transcripts of the witness tampering meeting between Todd Blanche and Ghislaine Maxwell; the government has threatened to deport Kilmar Abrego to Uganda if he doesn't plead guilty to the two charges against him; John Bolton's house has been raided in search of classified emails sent on a private server; a federal judge orders the dismantling of the Florida concentration camp; Fort Bliss - where the Japanese were interned during WWII - is operating as an internment camp again; the White House lists Smithsonian exhibits it wants to erase from history; the Justice Department's release of the Epstein files to House Oversight is a joke; the Pentagon plans to deploy the military to Chicago; Homeland Security is violating the law by refusing to retain text messages; Illinois announces a first of its kind legal hotline for the LGBTQ community; residents keep repainting the Pulse nightclub rainbow sidewalk after the city keeps removing it; and Allison and Dana deliver your Good News.Thank You, HomeChefFor a limited time, get 50% off and free shipping for your first box PLUS free dessert for life! HomeChef.com/DAILYBEANS. Must be an active subscriber to receive free dessert.Thank You, Naked Winesnakedwines.com/DAILYBEANS and use code DAILYBEANS for both the code and password.Guest: Joyce VancePreorder Giving Up Is Unforgivable by Joyce Vance - 10/21/2025 Civil Discourse with Joyce Vance | Substack#SistersInLaw - Podcast - Apple Podcasts, The Insider Podcast - CAFE@joycewhitevance.bsky.social on BlueskyLive with Allison Gill and Joyce Vance | Joyce Vance SubstackLive with Allison Gill and Joyce Vance | MuellerSheWrote SubstackYou Can Nominate Dana Goldberg for this year's Out100!2025 Out100 Readers' ChoiceNational Security Counselors - DonateNPHC & FBF stand united w/ CDC, NIH, & other HHS agencies in formal dissent of HHS Sec Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. & his political rhetoric that led to the Aug 8 attack on CDC & his response. Help ensure safety of public servants. Hold RFK Jr accountable by signing the letter: savehhs.orghttps://bsky.app/profile/firedbutfighting.bsky.social/post/3lwtfq56klc2gStoriesJustice Dept. Sent Congress Epstein Files That Were Already Public, Democrats Say | The New York TimesNational Security Counselors - DonatePentagon plans military deployment in Chicago as Trump eyes crackdown | The Washington PostHomeland Security Tells Watchdog It Hasn't Kept Text Message Data Since April | The New York TimesJapanese American groups blast use of Fort Bliss, former internment camp site, as ICE detention center | NBC NewsWhite House Lists Smithsonian Exhibits It Finds Objectionable | The New York TimesFlorida ordered to dismantle Alligator Alcatraz over environmental impact | The Washington PostPritzker announces 'first of its kind' legal hotline for LGBTQ+ Illinoisans | Chicago Sun-TimesRainbow crosswalk repainted outside Pulse; Florida troopers seen standing by | News 6 Orlando Good Trouble IRS asks for public input on free tax filing options to inform congressional report | Internal Revenue Service From The Good NewsApplication of the Fair Labor Standards Act to Domestic Service - Comments open until September 2Joy SaxtonThe Art of Arpilleras under Augusto Pinochet's Authoritarian Rule – Retrospect JournalReminder - you can see the pod pics if you become a Patron. The good news pics are at the bottom of the show notes of each Patreon episode! That's just one of the perks of subscribing! patreon.com/muellershewrote Our Donation LinksNational Security Counselors - DonateMSW Media, Blue Wave California Victory Fund | ActBlueWhistleblowerAid.org/beansFederal workers - feel free to email AG at fedoath@pm.me and let me know what you're going to do, or just vent. I'm always here to listen. Find Upcoming Actions 50501 Movement, No Kings.org, Indivisible.orgDr. Allison Gill - Substack, BlueSky , TikTok, IG, TwitterDana Goldberg - BlueSky, Twitter, IG, facebook, danagoldberg.comCheck out more from MSW Media - Shows - MSW Media, Cleanup On Aisle 45 pod, The Breakdown | SubstackShare your Good News or Good TroubleMSW Good News and Good TroubleHave some good news; a confession; or a correction to share?Good News & Confessions - The Daily Beanshttps://www.dailybeanspod.com/confessional/ Listener Survey:http://survey.podtrac.com/start-survey.aspx?pubid=BffJOlI7qQcF&ver=shortFollow the Podcast on Apple:The Daily Beans on Apple PodcastsWant to support the show and get it ad-free and early?The Daily Beans | SupercastThe Daily Beans & Mueller, She Wrote | PatreonThe Daily Beans | Apple Podcasts
Miccosukee Tribe of Florida scored at least a temporary legal victory when a federal judge halted construction and ordered parts of the facility dubbed "Alligator Alcatraz" removed. The decision comes in the lawsuit by the tribe and environmental groups claiming work on the abandoned airport turned emergency immigrant detention center in Florida violates environmental and national preservation laws. The facility is on traditional Miccosukee land. The Department of Homeland Security and Immigrations and Customs Enforcement along with the state of Florida see the compound as part of ramped-up immigrant deportation efforts. We'll speak with Chairman Talbert Cypress (Miccosukee). We'll also hear from Lakota artist Danielle SeeWalker, who settled a lawsuit with the city of Vail, Colo. after officials cancelled a summer artist residency. The cancellation came after she posted a picture of a work criticizing Israel's actions against the citizens of Gaza.
【聊了什么】 在特朗普2.0时代，高院6比3的保守派多数已成定局。面对特朗普政府在行政权上的不断扩张和对司法独立底线的不断试探，高院是如何回应的？最高法院是美国民主的最后一道防线，还是行政权力的橡皮图章？ 本期节目中，我们与两位嘉宾复盘最高法院近期的关键判决，剖析其对美国政治与社会的深远影响。 播客文字稿（付费会员专享）：https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【支持我们】 如果喜欢这期节目并希望支持我们将节目继续做下去： 也欢迎加入我们的会员计划： https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ 会员可以收到每周2-5封newsletter，可以加入会员社群，参加会员活动，并享受更多福利。 合作投稿邮箱：american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【时间轴】 03:05 高院年度盘点背景介绍：特朗普第二任期与6比3的保守派多数 05:26 批判“3-3-3”法院的说法 11:10 首席大法官罗伯茨的个人议程与困境 15:05 宪法、政策与司法审查：法院角色的理论探讨 21:27 Trump v. CASA 与出生公民权 41:01 “影子卷宗”(Shadow Docket)的兴起及其影响 46:41 影子卷宗案例：移民与行政权力案件 53:01 从高院判决看总统制与议会制的差异 64:43 LGBTQ权益与父母权利的冲突 72:48 阿里托的愤怒与杰克逊的“末日预言” 83:24 高院的未来：合法性危机与下任期展望 95:34 重新审视法院角色 【我们是谁】 美轮美换是一档深入探讨当今美国政治的中文播客。 我们的主播和嘉宾： Lokin：美国法学院毕业生，即将成为一名纽约诉讼律师 王浩岚：美国政治爱好者，岚目公众号主笔兼消息二道贩子 Nancy：普林斯顿大学政治学博士生，耶鲁法学院法律博士 品达：美国政治观察人士 【 What We Talked About】 In the era of Trump 2.0, a 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court is a settled reality. How has the Court responded to the Trump administration's continuous expansion of executive power and its constant testing of the boundaries of judicial independence? Is the Supreme Court the last line of defense for American democracy, or a mere rubber stamp for executive authority? In this episode, we are joined by two guests to review the Supreme Court's recent key decisions and analyze their profound impact on American politics and society. Podcast Transcript (Paid Subscribers Only): https://theamericanroulette.com/scotus-rulings-2025-transcript 【Support Us】 If you like our show and want to support us, please consider the following: Join our membership program: https://theamericanroulette.com/paid-membership/ Support us on Patreon: www.patreon.com/americanroulette Business Inquiries and fan mail: american.roulette.pod@gmail.com 【Timeline】 03:05 Background for the Supreme Court's Year in Review: Trump's Second Term and the 6-3 Conservative Majority 05:26 Critiquing the "3-3-3" Court Theory 11:10 Chief Justice Roberts's Personal Agenda and Dilemmas 15:05 Constitution, Policy, and Judicial Review: A Theoretical Exploration of the Court's Role 21:27 Trump v. CASA and Birthright Citizenship 41:01 The Rise of the "Shadow Docket" and Its Impact 46:41 Shadow Docket Cases: Immigration and Executive Power 53:01 Presidential vs. Parliamentary Systems as Seen Through Supreme Court Rulings 64:43 The Conflict Between LGBTQ Rights and Parental Rights 72:48 Justice Alito's Anger and Justice Jackson's "Doomsday Prophecy" 83:24 The Future of the Supreme Court: Legitimacy Crisis and a Look Ahead to the Next Term 95:34 Reexamining the Role of the Court 【Who We Are】 The American Roulette is a podcast dedicated to helping the Chinese-speaking community understand fast-changing U.S. politics. Our Hosts and Guests: Lokin: U.S. law school student, incoming NY litigation lawyer 王浩岚 (Haolan Wang): American political enthusiast, chief writer at Lán Mù WeChat Official Account, and peddler of information Nancy：Princeton Politics PhD student, Yale Law School graduate Pinda：American political enthusiast 【The Links】 Trump v. CASA, Inc. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a884_8n59.pdf Department of Homeland Security v. D.V.D. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1153_2co3.pdf Mahmoud v. Taylor https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24-297_4f14.pdf A. A. R. P. v. Trump https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a1007_g2bh.pdf Skrmetti v. United States https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/23-477_2cp3.pdf Trump v. Wilcox https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/24pdf/24a966_1b8e.pdf KBJ's footnote 12 in Stanley v. City of Sanford, Florida https://abovethelaw.com/2025/06/neil-gorsuch-starts-some-supreme-court-drama-ketanji-brown-jackson-ends-it/ How the Transgender Rights Movement Bet on the Supreme Court and Lost https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/19/magazine/scotus-transgender-care-tennessee-skrmetti.html Sarah McBride on Why the Left Lost on Trans Rights https://www.nytimes.com/2025/06/17/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-sarah-mcbride.html Lawless https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Lawless/Leah-Litman/9781668054628
Created by One Chicago and FBI Executive Producer Derek Haas, Countdown is the explosive new action series starring Jensen Ackles, Eric Dane, Jessica Camacho, Violett Beane, Elliot Knight, and Uli Latukefu. When an officer with the Department of Homeland Security is murdered in broad daylight, LAPD detective Mark Meachum, portrayed by Ackles, is recruited to a secret task force, alongside undercover agents from all branches of law enforcement, to investigate. But the hunt for the killer soon uncovers a plot far more sinister than anyone could have imagined, kicking off a race against time to save a city of millions.Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/arroe-collins-unplugged-totally-uncut--994165/support.
We need to talk about the memes your tax dollars paid for. What is the federal government trying to communicate with them?The social media accounts of the White House and the Department of Homeland Security have been chock-full of memes: memes that mock people being deported, memes that are aimed at recruiting new ICE agents, even a meme that seemingly references a book by a white supremacist. To get into who these memes are speaking to and what story they're trying to tell, Brittany sits down with NPR correspondent Shannon Bond and Joan Donovan, assistant professor of journalism and emerging media studies at Boston University and founder of the Critical Internet Studies Institute.For handpicked podcast recommendations every week, subscribe to NPR's Pod Club newsletter at npr.org/podclub.Learn more about sponsor message choices: podcastchoices.com/adchoicesNPR Privacy Policy
This Day in Legal History: Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation ActOn August 22, 1996, President Bill Clinton signed the Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act into law, reshaping the American welfare system in ways that continue to spark debate. Billed as a way to "end welfare as we know it," the law imposed strict work requirements on recipients and introduced a five-year lifetime limit on federal benefits, regardless of economic conditions. The legislation replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) with Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), transforming a federal entitlement into a state-administered block grant system.Supporters of the reform hailed it as a bipartisan success, encouraging employment and reducing long-term dependency. But critics argue that the law eroded the social safety net and punished the poor, particularly single mothers and children, by prioritizing ideological goals over economic realities. States were given broad discretion in how to allocate funds, leading to uneven access and accountability. Many used their new flexibility not to expand support systems but to restrict eligibility and reduce caseloads, often with little evidence of improved outcomes.The law also failed to account for structural barriers to employment—such as childcare shortages, low wages, and racial discrimination—leaving many without support when they failed to meet work requirements. Moreover, the block grant's fixed funding has not kept pace with inflation or need, effectively shrinking welfare over time. While welfare rolls dropped sharply in the years following the reform, poverty did not—suggesting that many were simply pushed out of the system rather than lifted out of hardship. The 1996 law codified a narrative of moral failing over structural inequality, framing poverty as a matter of personal irresponsibility rather than systemic dysfunction.A federal judge ordered an immediate halt to new construction at the controversial "Alligator Alcatraz" migrant detention center in Florida's Everglades. The facility, championed by Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis, was barred from accepting new detainees and required to dismantle supporting infrastructure—including generators, waste systems, fencing, and lighting—within 60 days. The ruling, issued by U.S. District Judge Kathleen Williams, sided with environmental groups who argued the project violated federal, state, and local environmental laws.The detention center, estimated to cost $450 million annually and house up to 5,000 detainees, had drawn backlash for its location in a fragile wetland ecosystem populated by endangered species. Environmental advocates and some local leaders had long criticized the plan, noting it conflicted with decades of political pledges to protect and restore the Everglades. The Department of Homeland Security had tapped FEMA funds to support the project, raising additional controversy over funding priorities.In her ruling, Judge Williams emphasized that the project ran counter to longstanding legislative commitments to environmental protection. Florida has already filed an appeal, but environmental groups hailed the decision as a critical victory. Despite mounting opposition, Trump dismissed ecological concerns and reaffirmed his intent to replicate the model nationally as part of his broader immigration crackdown.Judge orders halt to new construction at 'Alligator Alcatraz' detention center | ReutersAlligator Alcatraz Expansion Blocked for Harm to Environment (1)California Governor Gavin Newsom signed a pair of redistricting bills designed to redraw congressional districts in favor of Democrats—part of an aggressive political response to a newly passed gerrymandered map in Texas. Both states are now embroiled in legal and constitutional battles, as Republicans and Democrats seek to lock in partisan advantages ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Newsom also set a special statewide election for November 4, asking voters to approve the new map. If passed, it could flip up to five Republican-held House seats and secure four Democratic-leaning swing districts.California's strategy sidesteps its voter-created independent redistricting commission, which has been enshrined in the state constitution since 2010 to prevent political interference. Because of that, lawmakers are now required to get voter approval to implement their plan—creating a high-stakes ballot measure, Proposition 50. Republicans and good-government advocates, including Arnold Schwarzenegger and Charles Munger Jr., have vowed to fight the plan in court and on the ballot. A pending GOP lawsuit argues the legislature violated the state's 30-day waiting period for new bills, pushing through the redistricting effort without proper transparency.In Texas, the Republican-controlled legislature approved a new congressional map at the urging of President Trump, hoping to maintain a narrow House majority. Voting rights groups immediately challenged the plan, claiming it violates Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act by racially diluting Black and Latino voting power. The case will be heard by a federal three-judge panel in El Paso, with a likely fast track to the U.S. Supreme Court. Texas Republicans, including Governor Greg Abbott, deny any racial bias and argue the map reflects demographic shifts and Republican gains among minority voters.This escalating redistricting clash highlights the legal vulnerability of U.S. voting systems when partisan manipulation goes unchecked. Though the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that federal courts cannot weigh in on partisan gerrymandering, racial gerrymandering remains justiciable under the Voting Rights Act. Meanwhile, California Democrats are relying on voter sentiment—and Trump's unpopularity in the state—to justify a temporary abandonment of anti-gerrymandering principles.Explainer: The legal battles over redistricting in Texas and California | ReutersNewsom Signs California Redistricting Plan to Counter Texas Republicans - The New York TimesA federal judge ruled that Alina Habba, President Trump's controversial appointee as interim U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, had no legal authority to hold the office after her temporary term expired. U.S. District Judge Matthew Brann found that the Trump administration violated federal law by firing Habba's court-selected successor, Desiree Grace, and then using a series of procedural maneuvers to reinstall Habba. These included appointing her as “special attorney,” then naming her first assistant U.S. attorney to invoke the Federal Vacancies Reform Act.Brann concluded that Habba was unlawfully performing the duties of U.S. Attorney as of July 1 and that her actions from that point forward “may be declared void.” The ruling blocks her from overseeing or participating in criminal cases, and it extends to prosecutors operating under her supervision. The judge criticized the administration's strategy as an attempt to bypass Senate confirmation entirely by exploiting loopholes in temporary appointment rules, warning that this interpretation could let the executive branch install preferred prosecutors indefinitely.The Trump-appointed Attorney General, Pam Bondi, vowed to appeal, and Brann stayed his ruling pending the outcome. Still, the decision casts a shadow over prosecutions under Habba's leadership, and some courts in New Jersey have already paused proceedings. Brann also rejected the idea that firing interim appointees before their terms expire could justify continual reappointments without oversight.Defense attorneys in the case that triggered the ruling argued that the executive branch cannot sidestep a process designed to check prosecutorial power through judicial or Senate involvement. Though the judge refused to throw out defendant Cesar Pina's indictment—since the investigation began before Habba's unlawful tenure—the ruling reinforces that prosecutorial authority must be rooted in lawful appointment.Alina Habba Blocked From Handling Cases in Rebuke to Trump (3)This week's closing theme is by Claude Debussy.This week's closing theme comes from Debussy, born on August 22, 1862—an apt choice as we mark the anniversary of his birth. Debussy was a revolutionary figure in Western music, often associated with Impressionism, though he rejected the label. He sought to break from the rigid structures of the Germanic tradition, instead favoring color, atmosphere, and suggestion over clear-cut form and resolution. His music evokes shifting light, fluid motion, and emotional ambiguity—more akin to poetry or painting than to classical architecture.One of his early works, Rêverie, composed in the 1890s, offers a glimpse into the world he would come to define. The title means “daydream,” and the piece unfolds with a gentle, unhurried lyricism that floats outside of time. Though simple in construction, it is harmonically rich and emotionally resonant—hinting at the innovations to come in Clair de Lune, Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune, and Pelléas et Mélisande.Rêverie was one of Debussy's first pieces to gain public attention, though he later dismissed it as “a piece for salon use.” Listeners have disagreed ever since. Its introspective tone and delicate touch make it a lasting favorite among pianists and audiences alike. It feels like a whisper—never urgent, never insistent, always inviting. In that sense, it's a fitting farewell for the week: contemplative, unresolved, and open to interpretation.Without further ado, Claude Debussy's Rêverie enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
Today I'm talking to economic historian Judge Glock, Director of Research at the Manhattan Institute. Judge works on a lot of topics: if you enjoy this episode, I'd encourage you to read some of his work on housing markets and the Environmental Protection Agency. But I cornered him today to talk about civil service reform.Since the 1990s, over 20 red and blue states have made radical changes to how they hire and fire government employees — changes that would be completely outside the Overton window at the federal level. A paper by Judge and Renu Mukherjee lists four reforms made by states like Texas, Florida, and Georgia: * At-will employment for state workers* The elimination of collective bargaining agreements* Giving managers much more discretion to hire* Giving managers much more discretion in how they pay employeesJudge finds decent evidence that the reforms have improved the effectiveness of state governments, and little evidence of the politicization that federal reformers fear. Meanwhile, in Washington, managers can't see applicants' resumes, keyword searches determine who gets hired, and firing a bad performer can take years. But almost none of these ideas are on the table in Washington.Thanks to Harry Fletcher-Wood for his judicious transcript edits and fact-checking, and to Katerina Barton for audio edits.Judge, you have a paper out about lessons for civil service reform from the states. Since the ‘90s, red and blue states have made big changes to how they hire and fire people. Walk through those changes for me.I was born and grew up in Washington DC, heard a lot about civil service throughout my childhood, and began to research it as an adult. But I knew almost nothing about the state civil service systems. When I began working in the states — mainly across the Sunbelt, including in Texas, Kansas, Arizona — I was surprised to learn that their civil service systems were reformed to an absolutely radical extent relative to anything proposed at the federal level, let alone implemented.Starting in the 1990s, several states went to complete at-will employment. That means there were no official civil service protections for any state employees. Some managers were authorized to hire people off the street, just like you could in the private sector. A manager meets someone in a coffee shop, they say, "I'm looking for exactly your role. Why don't you come on board?" At the federal level, with its stultified hiring process, it seemed absurd to even suggest something like that.You had states that got rid of any collective bargaining agreements with their public employee unions. You also had states that did a lot more broadbanding [creating wider pay bands] for employee pay: a lot more discretion for managers to reward or penalize their employees depending on their performance.These major reforms in these states were, from the perspective of DC, incredibly radical. Literally nobody at the federal level proposes anything approximating what has been in place for decades in the states. That should be more commonly known, and should infiltrate the debate on civil service reform in DC.Even though the evidence is not absolutely airtight, on the whole these reforms have been positive. A lot of the evidence is surveys asking managers and operators in these states how they think it works. They've generally been positive. We know these states operate pretty well: Places like Texas, Florida, and Arizona rank well on state capacity metrics in terms of cost of government, time for permitting, and other issues.Finally, to me the most surprising thing is the dog that didn't bark. The argument in the federal government against civil service reform is, “If you do this, we will open up the gates of hell and return to the 19th-century patronage system, where spoilsmen come and go depending on elected officials, and the government is overrun with political appointees who don't care about the civil service.” That has simply not happened. We have very few reports of any concrete examples of politicization at the state level. In surveys, state employees and managers can almost never remember any example of political preferences influencing hiring or firing.One of the surveys you cited asked, “Can you think of a time someone said that they thought that the political preferences were a factor in civil service hiring?” and it was something like 5%.It was in that 5-10% range. I don't think you'd find a dissimilar number of people who would say that even in an official civil service system. Politics is not completely excluded even from a formal civil service system.A few weeks ago, you and I talked to our mutual friend, Don Moynihan, who's a scholar of public administration. He's more skeptical about the evidence that civil service reform would be positive at the federal level.One of your points is, “We don't have strong negative evidence from the states. Productivity didn't crater in states that moved to an at-will employment system.” We do have strong evidence that collective bargaining in the public sector is bad for productivity.What I think you and Don would agree on is that we could use more evidence on the hiring and firing side than the surveys that we have. Is that a fair assessment?Yes, I think that's correct. As you mentioned, the evidence on collective bargaining is pretty close to universal: it raises costs, reduces the efficiency of government, and has few to no positive upsides.On hiring and firing, I mentioned a few studies. There's a 2013 study that looks at HR managers in six states and finds very little evidence of politicization, and managers generally prefer the new system. There was a dissertation that surveyed several employees and managers in civil service reform and non-reform states. Across the board, the at-will employment states said they had better hiring retention, productivity, and so forth. And there's a 2002 study that looked specifically at Texas, Florida, and Georgia after their reforms, and found almost universal approbation inside the civil service itself for these reforms.These are not randomized control trials. But I think that generally positive evidence should point us directionally where we should go on civil service reform. If we loosen restrictions on discipline and firing, decentralize hiring and so forth — we probably get some productivity benefits from it. We can also know, with some amount of confidence, that the sky is not going to fall, which I think is a very important baseline assumption. The civil service system will continue on and probably be fairly close to what it is today, in terms of its political influence, if you have decentralized hiring and at-will employment.As you point out, a lot of these reforms that have happened in 20-odd states since the ‘90s would be totally outside the Overton window at the federal level. Why is it so easy for Georgia to make a bipartisan move in the ‘90s to at-will employment, when you couldn't raise the topic at the federal level?It's a good question. I think in the 1990s, a lot of people thought a combination of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act — which was the Carter-era act that somewhat attempted to do what these states hoped to do in the 1990s — and the Clinton-era Reinventing Government Initiative, would accomplish the same ends. That didn't happen.That was an era when civil service reform was much more bipartisan. In Georgia, it was a Democratic governor, Zell Miller, who pushed it. In a lot of these other states, they got buy-in from both sides. The recent era of state reform took place after the 2010 Republican wave in the states. Since that wave, the reform impetus for civil service has been much more Republican. That has meant it's been a lot harder to get buy-in from both sides at the federal level, which will be necessary to overcome a filibuster.I think people know it has to be very bipartisan. We're just past the point, at least at the moment, where it can be bipartisan at the federal level. But there are areas where there's a fair amount of overlap between the two sides on what needs to happen, at least in the upper reaches of the civil service.It was interesting to me just how bipartisan civil service reform has been at various times. You talked about the Civil Service Reform Act, which passed Congress in 1978. President Carter tells Congress that the civil service system:“Has become a bureaucratic maze which neglects merit, tolerates poor performance, permits abuse of legitimate employee rights, and mires every personnel action in red tape, delay, and confusion.”That's a Democratic president saying that. It's striking to me that the civil service was not the polarized topic that it is today.Absolutely. Carter was a big civil service reformer in Georgia before those even larger 1990s reforms. He campaigned on civil service reform and thought it was essential to the success of his presidency. But I think you are seeing little sprouts of potential bipartisanship today, like the Chance to Compete Act at the end of 2024, and some of the reforms Obama did to the hiring process. There's options for bipartisanship at the federal level, even if it can't approach what the states have done.I want to walk through the federal hiring process. Let's say you're looking to hire in some federal agency — you pick the agency — and I graduated college recently, and I want to go into the civil service. Tell me about trying to hire somebody like me. What's your first step?It's interesting you bring up the college graduate, because that is one recent reform: President Trump put out an executive order trying to counsel agencies to remove the college degree requirement for job postings. This happened in a lot of states first, like Maryland, and that's also been bipartisan. This requirement for a college degree — which was used as a very unfortunate proxy for ability at a lot of these jobs — is now being removed. It's not across the whole federal government. There's still job postings that require higher education degrees, but that's something that's changed.To your question, let's say the Department of Transportation. That's one of the more bipartisan ones, when you look at surveys of federal civil servants. Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, they tend to be a little more Republican. Health and Human Services and some other agencies tend to be pretty Democrat. Transportation is somewhere in the middle.As a manager, you try to craft a job description and posting to go up on the USA Jobs website, which is where all federal job postings go. When they created it back in 1996, that was supposedly a massive reform to federal hiring: this website where people could submit their resumes. Then, people submit their resumes and answer questions about their qualifications for the job.One of the slightly different aspects from the private sector is that those applications usually go to an HR specialist first. The specialist reviews everything and starts to rank people into different categories, based on a lot of weird things. It's supposed to be “knowledge, skills, and abilities” — your KSAs, or competencies. To some extent, this is a big step up from historical practice. You had, frankly, an absurd civil service exam, where people had to fill out questions about, say, General Grant or about US Code Title 42, or whatever it was, and then submit it. Someone rated the civil service exam, and then the top three test-takers were eligible for the job.We have this newer, better system, where we rank on knowledge, skills, and abilities, and HR puts put people into different categories. One of the awkward ways they do this is by merely scanning the resumes and applications for keywords. If it's a computer job, make sure you say the word “computer” somewhere in your resume. Make sure you say “manager” if it's a managerial job.Just to be clear, this is entirely literal. There's a keyword search, and folks who don't pass that search are dinged.Yes. I've always wondered, how common is this? It's sometimes hard to know what happens in the black box in these federal HR departments. I saw an HR official recently say, "If I'm not allowed to do keyword searches, I'm going to take 15 years to overlook all the applications, so I've got to do keyword searches." If they don't have the keywords, into the circular file it goes, as they used to say: into the garbage can.Then they start ranking people on their abilities into, often, three different categories. That is also very literal. If you put in the little word bubble, "I am an exceptional manager," you get pushed on into the next level of the competition. If you say, "I'm pretty good, but I'm not the best," into the circular file you go.I've gotten jaded about this, but it really is shocking. We ask candidates for a self-assessment, and if they just rank themselves 10/10 on everything, no matter how ludicrous, that improves their odds of being hired.That's going to immensely improve your odds. Similar to the keyword search, there's been pushback on this in recent years, and I'm definitely not going to say it's universal anymore. It's rarer than it used to be. But it's still a very common process.The historical civil service system used to operate on a rule of three. In places like New York, it still operates like that. The top three candidates on the evaluation system get presented to the manager, and the manager has to approve one of them for the position.Thanks partially to reforms by the Obama administration in 2010, they have this category rating system where the best qualified or the very qualified get put into a big bucket together [instead of only including the top three]. Those are the people that the person doing the hiring gets to see, evaluate, and decide who he wants to hire.There are some restrictions on that. If a veteran outranks everybody else, you've got to pick the veteran [typically known as Veterans' Preference]. That was an issue in some of the state civil service reforms, too. The states said, “We're just going to encourage a veterans' preference. We don't need a formalized system to say they get X number of points and have to be in Y category. We're just going to say, ‘Try to hire veterans.'” That's possible without the formal system, despite what some opponents of reform may claim.One of the particular problems here is just the nature of the people doing the hiring. Sometimes you just need good managers to encourage HR departments to look at a broader set of qualifications. But one of the bigger problems is that they keep the HR evaluation system divorced from the manager who is doing the hiring. David Shulkin, who was the head of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), wrote a great book, It Shouldn't Be This Hard to Serve Your Country. He was a healthcare exec, and the VA is mainly a healthcare agency. He would tell people, "You should work for me," they would send their applications into the HR void, and he'd never see them again. They would get blocked at some point in this HR evaluation process, and he'd be sent people with no healthcare experience, because for whatever reason they did well in the ranking.One of the very base-level reforms should be, “How can we more clearly integrate the hiring manager with the evaluation process?” To some extent, the bipartisan Chance to Compete Act tries to do this. They said, “You should have subject matter experts who are part of crafting the description of the job, are part of evaluating, and so forth.” But there's still a long road to go.Does that firewall — where the person who wants to hire doesn't get to look at the process until the end — exist originally because of concerns about cronyism?One of the interesting things about the civil service is its raison d'être — its reason for being — was supposedly a single, clear purpose: to prevent politicized hiring and patronage. That goes back to the Pendleton Civil Service Act of 1883. But it's always been a little strange that you have all of these very complex rules about every step of the process — from hiring to firing to promotion, and everything in between — to prevent political influence. We could just focus on preventing political influence, and not regulate every step of the process on the off-chance that without a clear regulation, political influence could creep in. This division [between hiring manager and applicants] is part of that general concern. There are areas where I've heard HR specialists say, "We declare that a manager is a subject matter expert, and we bring them into the process early on, we can do that." But still the division is pretty stark, and it's based on this excessive concern about patronage.One point you flag is that the Office of Personnel Management (OPM), which is the body that thinks about personnel in the federal government, has a 300-page regulatory document for agencies on how you have to hire. There's a remarkable amount of process.Yes, but even that is a big change from the Federal Personnel Manual, which was the 10,000-page document that we shredded in the 1990s. In the ‘90s, OPM gave the agencies what's called “delegated examining authorities.” This says, “You, agency, have power to decide who to hire, we're not going to do the central supervision anymore. But, but, but: here's the 300-page document that dictates exactly how you have to carry out that hiring.”So we have some decentralization, allowing managers more authority to control their own departments. But this two-level oversight — a local HR department that's ultimately being overseen by the OPM — also leads to a lot of slip ‘twixt cup and lip, in terms of how something gets implemented. If you're in the agency and you're concerned about the OPM overseeing your process, you're likely to be much more careful than you would like to be. “Yes, it's delegated to me, but ultimately, I know I have to answer to OPM about this process. I'm just going to color within the lines.”I often cite Texas, which has no central HR office. Each agency decides how it wants to hire. In a lot of these reform states, if there is a central personnel office, it's an information clearinghouse or reservoir of models. “You can use us, the central HR office, as a resource if you want us to help you post the job, evaluate it, or help manage your processes, but you don't have to.” That's the goal we should be striving for in a lot of the federal reforms. Just make OPM a resource for the managers in the individual departments to do their thing or go independent.Let's say I somehow get through the hiring process. You offer me a job at the Department of Transportation. What are you paying me?This is one of the more stultified aspects of the federal civil service system. OPM has another multi-hundred-page handbook called the Handbook of Occupational Groups and Families. Inside that, you've got 49 different “groups and families,” like “Clerical occupations.” Inside those 49 groups are a series of jobs, sometimes dozens, like “Computer Operator.” Inside those, they have independent documents — often themselves dozens of pages long — detailing classes of positions. Then you as a manager have to evaluate these nine factors, which can each give points to each position, which decides how you get slotted into this weird Government Schedule (GS) system [the federal payscale].Again, this is actually an improvement. Before, you used to have the Civil Service Commission, which went around staring very closely at someone over their typewriter and saying, "No, I think you should be a GS-12, not a GS-11, because someone over in the Department of Defense who does your same job is a GS-12." Now this is delegated to agencies, but again, the agencies have to listen to the OPM on how to classify and set their jobs into this 15-stage GS-classification system, each stage of which has 10 steps which determine your pay, and those steps are determined mainly by your seniority. It's a formalized step-by-step system, overwhelmingly based on just how long you've sat at your desk.Let's be optimistic about my performance as a civil servant. Say that over my first three years, I'm just hitting it out of the park. Can you give me a raise? What can you do to keep me in my role?Not too much. For most people, the within-step increases — those 10 steps inside each GS-level — is just set by seniority. Now there are all these quality step increases you can get, but they're very rare and they have to be documented. So you could hypothetically pay someone more, but it's going to be tough. In general, the managers just prefer to stick to seniority, because not sticking to it garners a lot of complaints. Like so much else, the goal is, "We don't want someone rewarding an official because they happen to share their political preferences." The result of that concern is basically nobody can get rewarded at all, which is very unfortunate.We do have examples in state and federal government of what's known as broadbanding, where you have very broad pay scales, and the manager can decide where to slot someone. Say you're a computer operator, which can mean someone who knows what an Excel spreadsheet is, or someone who's programming the most advanced AI systems. As a manager in South Carolina or Florida, you have a lot of discretion to say, "I can set you 50% above the market rate of what this job technically would go for, if I think you're doing a great job."That's very rare at the federal level. They've done broadbanding at the Government Accountability Office, the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The China Lake Experiment out in California gave managers a lot more discretion to reward scientists. But that's definitely the exception. In general, it's a step-wise, seniority-based system.What if you want to bring me into the Senior Executive Service (SES)? Theoretically, that sits at the top of the General Service scale. Can't you bump me up in there and pay me what you owe me?I could hypothetically bring you in as a senior executive servant. The SES was created in the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act. The idea was, “We're going to have this elite cadre of about 8,000 individuals at the top of the federal government, whose employment will be higher-risk and higher-reward. They might be fired, and we're going to give them higher pay to compensate for that.”Almost immediately, that did not work out. Congress was outraged at the higher pay given to the top officials and capped it. Ever since, how much the SES can get paid has been tightly controlled. As in most of the rest of the federal government, where they establish these performance pay incentives or bonuses — which do exist — they spread them like peanut butter over the whole service. To forestall complaints, everyone gets a little bit every two or three years.That's basically what happened to the SES. Their annual pay is capped at the vice president's salary, which is a cap for a lot of people in the federal government. For most of your GS and other executive scales, the cap is Congress's salary. [NB: This is no longer exactly true, since Congress froze its own salaries in 2009. The cap for GS (currently about $195k) is now above congressional salaries ($174k).]One of the big problems with pay in the federal government is pay compression. Across civil service systems, the highest-skilled people tend to be paid much less than the private sector, and the lowest-skilled people tend to get paid much more. The political science reason for that is pretty simple: the median voter in America still decides what seems reasonable. To the median voter, the average salary of a janitor looks low, and the average salary of a scientist looks way too high. Hence this tendency to pay compression. Your average federal employee is probably overpaid relative to the private sector, because the lowest-skilled employees are paid up to 40% higher than the private sector equivalent. The highest-paid employees, the post-graduate skilled professionals, are paid less. That makes it hard to recruit the top performers, but it also swells the wage budget in a way that makes it difficult to talk about reform.There's a lot of interest in this administration in making it easier to recruit talent and get rid of under-performers. There have been aggressive pushes to limit collective bargaining in the public sector. That should theoretically make it easier to recruit, but it also increases the precariousness of civil service roles. We've seen huge firings in the civil service over the last six months.Classically, the explicit trade-off of working in the federal government was, “Your pay is going to be capped, but you have this job for life. It's impossible to get rid of you.” You trade some lifetime earnings for stability. In a world where the stability is gone, but pay is still capped, isn't the net effect to drive talent away from the civil service?I think it's a concern now. On one level it should be ameliorated, because those who are most concerned with stability of employment do tend to be lower performers. If you have people who are leaving the federal service because all they want is stability, and they're not getting that anymore, that may not be a net loss. As someone who came out of academia and knows the wonder of effective lifetime annuities, there can be very high performers who like that stability who therefore take a lower salary. Without the ability to bump that pay up more, it's going to be an issue.I do know that, internally, the Trump administration has made some signs they're open to reforms in the top tiers of the SES and other parts of the federal government. They would be willing to have people get paid more at that level to compensate for the increased risks since the Trump administration came in. But when you look at the reductions in force (RIFs) that have happened under Trump, they are overwhelmingly among probationary employees, the lower-level employees.With some exceptions. If you've been promoted recently, you can get reclassified as probationary, so some high-performers got lumped in.Absolutely. The issue has been exacerbated precisely because the RIF regulations that are in place have made the firings particularly damaging. If you had a more streamlined RIF system — which they do have in many states, where seniority is not the main determinant of who gets laid off — these RIFs could be removing the lower-performing civil servants and keeping the higher-performing ones, and giving them some amount of confidence in their tenure.Unfortunately, the combination of large-scale removals with the existing RIF regs, which are very stringent, has demoralized some of the upper levels of the federal government. I share that concern. But I might add, it is interesting, if you look at the federal government's own figures on the total civil service workforce, they have gone down significantly since Trump came in office, but I think less than 100,000 still, in the most recent numbers that I've seen. I'm not sure how much to trust those, versus some of these other numbers where people have said 150,000, 200,000.Whether the Trump administration or a future administration can remove large numbers of people from the civil service should be somewhat divorced from the general conversation on civil service reform. The main debate about whether or not Trump can do this centers around how much power the appropriators in Congress have to determine the total amount of spending in particular agencies on their workforce. It does not depend necessarily on, "If we're going to remove people — whether for general layoffs, or reductions in force, or because of particular performance issues — how can we go about doing that?" My last-ditch hope to maintain a bipartisan possibility of civil service reform is to bracket, “How much power does the president have to remove or limit the workforce in general?” from “How can he go about hiring and firing, et cetera?”I think making it easier for the president to identify and remove poor performers is a tool that any future administration would like to have.We had this conversation sparked again with the firing of the Bureau of Labor Statistics commissioner. But that was a position Congress set up to be appointed by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and removable by the President. It's a separate issue from civil service at large. Everyone said, “We want the president to be able to hire and fire the commissioner.” Maybe firing the commissioner was a bad decision, but that's the situation today.Attentive listeners to Statecraft know I'm pretty critical, like you are, of the regulations that say you have to go in order of seniority. In mass layoffs, you're required to fire a lot of the young, talented people.But let's talk about individual firings. I've been a terrible civil servant, a nightmarish employee from day one. You want to discipline, remove, suspend, or fire me. What are your options?Anybody who has worked in the civil service knows it's hard to fire bad performers. Whatever their political valence, whatever they feel about the civil service system, they have horror stories about a person who just couldn't be removed.In the early 2010s, a spate of stories came out about air traffic controllers sleeping on the job. Then-transportation secretary, Ray LaHood, made a big public announcement: "I'm going to fire these three guys." After these big announcements, it turned out he was only able to remove one of them. One retired, and another had their firing reduced to a suspension.You had another horrific story where a man was joking on the phone with friends when a plane crashed into a helicopter and killed nine people over the Hudson River. National outcry. They said, "We're going to fire this guy." In the end, after going through the process, he only got a suspension. Everyone agrees it's too hard.The basic story is, you have two ways to fire someone. Chapter 75, the old way, is often considered the realm of misconduct: You've stolen something from the office, punched your colleague in the face during a dispute about the coffee, something illegal or just straight-out wrong. We get you under Chapter 75.The 1978 Civil Service Reform Act added Chapter 43, which is supposed to be the performance-based system to remove someone. As with so much of that Civil Service Reform Act, the people who passed it thought this might be the beginning of an entirely different system.In the end, lots of federal managers say there's not a huge difference between the two. Some use 75, some use 43. If you use 43, you have to document very clearly what the person did wrong. You have to put them on a performance improvement plan. If they failed a performance improvement plan after a certain amount of time, they can respond to any claims about what they did wrong. Then, they can take that process up to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) and claim that they were incorrectly fired, or that the processes weren't carried out appropriately. Then, if they want to, they can say, “Nah, I don't like the order I got,” and take it up to federal courts and complain there. Right now, the MSPB doesn't have a full quorum, which is complicating some of the recent removal disputes.You have this incredibly difficult process, unlike the private sector, where your boss looks at you and says, "I don't like how you're giving me the stink-eye today. Out you go." One could say that's good or bad, but, on the whole, I think the model should be closer to the private sector. We should trust managers to do their job without excessive oversight and process. That's clearly about as far from the realm of possibility as the current system, under which the estimate is 6-12 months to fire a very bad performer. The number of people who win at the Merit Systems Protection Board is still 20-30%.This goes into another issue, which is unionization. If you're part of a collective bargaining agreement — most of the regular federal civil service is — first, you have to go with this independent, union-based arbitration and grievance procedure. You're about 50/50 to win on those if your boss tries to remove you.So if I'm in the union, we go through that arbitration grievance system. If you win and I'm fired, I can take it to the Merit Systems Protection Board. If you win again, I can still take it to the federal courts.You can file different sorts of claims at each part. On Chapter 43, the MSPB is supposed to be about the process, not the evidence, and you just have to show it was followed. On 75, the manager has to show by preponderance of the evidence that the employee is harming the agency. Then there are different standards for what you take to the courts, and different standards according to each collective bargaining agreement for the grievance procedure when someone is disciplined. It's a very complicated, abstruse, and procedure-heavy process that makes it very difficult to remove people, which is why the involuntary separation rate at the federal government and most state governments is many multiples lower than the private sector.So, you would love to get me off your team because I'm abysmal. But you have no stomach for going through this whole process and I'm going to fight it. I'm ornery and contrarian and will drag this fight out. In practice, what do managers in the federal government do with their poor performers?I always heard about this growing up. There's the windowless office in the basement without a phone, or now an internet connection. You place someone down there, hope they get the message, and sooner or later they leave. But for plenty of people in America, that's the dream job. You just get to sit and nobody bothers you for eight hours. You punch in at 9 and punch out at 5, and that's your day. "Great. I'll collect that salary for another 10 years." But generally you just try to make life unpleasant for that person.Public sector collective bargaining in the US is new. I tend to think of it as just how the civil service works. But until about 50 years ago, there was no collective bargaining in the public sector.At the state level, it started with Wisconsin at the end of the 1950s. There were famous local government reforms beginning with the Little Wagner Act [signed in 1958] in New York City. Senator Robert Wagner had created the National Labor Relations Board. His son Robert F. Wagner Jr., mayor of New York, created the first US collective bargaining system at the local level in the ‘60s. In ‘62, John F. Kennedy issued an executive order which said, "We're going to deal officially with public sector unions,” but it was all informal and non-statutory.It wasn't until Title VII of the 1978 Civil Service Reform Act that unions had a formal, statutory role in our federal service system. This is shockingly new. To some extent, that was the great loss to many civil service reformers in ‘78. They wanted to get through a lot of these other big reforms about hiring and firing, but they gave up on the unions to try to get those. Some people think that exception swallowed the rest of the rules. The union power that was garnered in ‘78 overcame the other reforms people hoped to accomplish. Soon, you had the majority of the federal workforce subject to collective bargaining.But that's changing now too. Part of that Civil Service Reform Act said, “If your position is in a national security-related position, the president can determine it's not subject to collective bargaining.” Trump and the OPM have basically said, “Most positions in the federal government are national security-related, and therefore we're going to declare them off-limits to collective bargaining.” Some people say that sounds absurd. But 60% of the civilian civil service workforce is the Department of Defense, Veterans Affairs, and the Department of Homeland Security. I am not someone who tries to go too easy on this crowd. I think there's a heck of a lot that needs to be reformed. But it's also worth remembering that the majority of the civil service workforce are in these three agencies that Republicans tend to like a lot.Now, whether people like Veterans Affairs is more of an open question. We have some particular laws there about opening up processes after the scandals in the 2010s about waiting lists and hospitals. You had veterans hospitals saying, "We're meeting these standards for getting veterans in the door for these waiting lists." But they were straight-up lying about those standards. Many people who were on these lists waiting for months to see a doctor died in the interim, some from causes that could have been treated had they seen a VA doctor. That led to Congress doing big reforms in the VA in 2014 and 2017, precisely because everyone realized this is a problem.So, Trump has put out these executive orders stopping collective bargaining in all of these agencies that touch national security. Some of those, like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), seem like a tough sell. I guess that, if you want to dig a mine and the Chinese are trying to dig their own mine and we want the mine to go quickly without the EPA pettifogging it, maybe. But the core ones are pretty solid. So far the courts have upheld the executive order to go in place. So collective bargaining there could be reformed.But in the rest of the government, there are these very extreme, long collective bargaining agreements between agencies and their unions. I've hit on the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) as one that's had pretty extensive bargaining with its union. When we created the TSA to supervise airport security, a lot of people said, "We need a crème de la crème to supervise airports after 9/11. We want to keep this out of union hands, because we know unions are going to make it difficult to move people around." The Obama administration said, "Nope, we're going to negotiate with the union." Now you have these huge negotiations with the unions about parking spots, hours of employment, uniforms, and everything under the sun. That makes it hard for managers in the TSA to decide when people should go where or what they should do.One thing we've talked about on Statecraft in past episodes — for instance, with John Kamensky, who was a pivotal figure in the Clinton-Gore reforms — was this relationship between government employees and “Beltway Bandits”: the contractors who do jobs you might think of as civil service jobs. One critique of that ‘90s Clinton-Gore push, “Reinventing Government,” was that although they shrank the size of the civil service on paper, the number of contractors employed by the federal government ballooned to fill that void. They did not meaningfully reduce the total number of people being paid by the federal government. Talk to me about the relationship between the civil service reform that you'd like to see and this army of folks who are not formally employees.Every government service is a combination of public employees and inputs, and private employees and inputs. There's never a single thing the government does — federal, state, or local — that doesn't involve inputs from the private sector. That could be as simple as the uniforms for the janitors. Even if you have a publicly employed janitor, who buys the mop? You're not manufacturing the mops.I understand the critique that the excessive focus on full-time employees in the 1990s led to contracting out some positions that could be done directly by the government. But I think that misses how much of the government can and should be contracted out. The basic Office of Management and Budget (OMB) statute [OMB Circular No. A-76] defining what is an essential government duty should still be the dividing line. What does the government have to do, because that is the public overseeing a process? Versus, what can the private sector just do itself?I always cite Stephen Goldsmith, the old mayor of Indianapolis. He proposed what he called the Yellow Pages test. If you open the Yellow Pages [phone directory] and three businesses do that business, the government should not be in that business. There's three garbage haulers out there. Instead of having a formal government garbage-hauling department, just contract out the garbage.With the internet, you should have a lot more opportunities to contract stuff out. I think that is generally good, and we should not have the federal government going about a lot of the day-to-day procedural things that don't require public input. What a lot of people didn't recognize is how much pressure that's going to put on government contracting officers at the federal level. Last time I checked there were 40,000 contracting officers. They have a lot of power. In the most recent year for which we have data, there were $750 billion in federal contracts. This is a substantial part of our economy. If you total state and local, we're talking almost 10% of our whole economy goes through government contracts. This is mind-boggling. In the public policy world, we should all be spending about 10% of our time thinking about contracting.One of the things I think everyone recognized is that contractors should have more authority. Some of the reform that happened with people like [Steven] Kelman — who was the Office of Federal Procurement Policy head in the ‘90s under Clinton — was, "We need to give these people more authority to just take a credit card and go buy a sheaf of paper if that's what they need. And we need more authority to get contract bids out appropriately.”The same message that animates civil service reform should animate these contracting discussions. The goal should be setting clear goals that you want — for either a civil servant or a contractor — and then giving that person the discretion to meet them. If you make the civil service more stultified, or make pay compression more extreme, you're going to have to contract more stuff out.People talk about the General Schedule [pay scale], but we haven't talked about the Federal Wage Schedule system at all, which is the blue-collar system that encompasses about 200,000 federal employees. Pay compression means those guys get paid really well. That means some managers rightfully think, "I'd like to have full-time supervision over some role, but I would rather contract it out, because I can get it a heck of a lot cheaper."There's a continuous relationship: If we make the civil service more stultified, we're going to push contracting out into more areas where maybe it wouldn't be appropriate. But a lot of things are always going to be appropriate to contract out. That means we need to give contracting officers and the people overseeing contracts a lot of discretion to carry out their missions, and not a lot of oversight from the Government Accountability Office or the courts about their bids, just like we shouldn't give OPM excess input into the civil service hiring process.This is a theme I keep harping on, on Statecraft. It's counterintuitive from a reformer's perspective, but it's true: if you want these processes to function better, you're going to have to stop nitpicking. You're going to have to ease up on the throttle and let people make their own decisions, even when sometimes you're not going to agree with them.This is a tension that's obviously happening in this administration. You've seen some clear interest in decentralization, and you've seen some centralization. In both the contract and the civil service sphere, the goal for the central agencies should be giving as many options as possible to the local managers, making sure they don't go extremely off the rails, but then giving those local managers and contracting officials the ability to make their own choices. The General Services Administration (GSA) under this administration is doing a lot of government-wide acquisition contracts. “We establish a contract for the whole government in the GSA. Usually you, the local manager, are not required to use that contract if you want computer services or whatever, but it's an option for you.”OPM should take a similar role. "Here's the system we have set up. You can take that and use it as you want. It's here for you, but it doesn't have to be used, because you might have some very particular hiring decisions to make.” Just like there shouldn't be one contracting decision that decides how we buy both a sheaf of computer paper and an aircraft carrier, there shouldn't be one hiring and firing process for a janitor and a nuclear physicist. That can't be a centralized process, because the very nature of human life is that there's an infinitude of possibilities that you need to allow for, and that means some amount of decentralization.I had an argument online recently about New York City's “buy local” requirement for certain procurement contracts. When they want to build these big public toilets in New York City, they have to source all the toilet parts from within the state, even if they're $200,000 cheaper in Portland, Oregon.I think it's crazy to ask procurement and contracting to solve all your policy problems. Procurement can't be about keeping a healthy local toilet parts industry. You just need to procure the toilet.This is another area where you see similar overlap in some of the civil service and contracting issues. A lot of cities have residency requirements for many of their positions. If you work for the city, you have to live inside the city. In New York, that means you've got a lot of police officers living on Staten Island, or right on the line of the north side of the Bronx, where they're inches away from Westchester. That drives up costs, and limits your population of potential employees.One of the most amazing things to me about the Biden Bipartisan Infrastructure Law was that it encouraged contracting officers to use residency requirements: “You should try to localize your hiring and contracting into certain areas.” On a national level, that cancels out. If both Wyoming and Wisconsin use residency requirements, the net effect is not more people hired from one of those states! So often, people expect the civil service and contracting to solve all of our ills and to point the way forward for the rest of the economy on discrimination, hiring, pay, et cetera. That just leads to, by definition, government being a lot more expensive than the private sector.Over the next three and a half years, what would you like to see the administration do on civil service reform that they haven't already taken up?I think some of the broad-scale layoffs, which seem to be slowing down, were counterproductive. I do think that their ability to achieve their ends was limited by the nature of the reduction-in-force regulations, which made them more counterproductive than they had to be. That's the situation they inherited. But that didn't mean you had to lay off a lot of people without considering the particular jobs they were doing now.And hiring quite a few of them back.Yeah. There are also debates obviously, within the administration, between DOGE and Russ Vought [director of the OMB] and some others on this. Some things, like the Schedule Policy/Career — which is the revival of Schedule F in the first Trump administration — are largely a step in the right direction. Counter to some of the critics, it says, “You can remove someone if they're in a policymaking position, just like if they were completely at-will. But you still have to hire from the typical civil service system.” So, for those concerned about politicization, that doesn't undermine that, because they can't just pick someone from the party system to put in there. I think that's good.They recently had a suitability requirement rule that I think moved in the right direction. That says, “If someone's not suitable for the workforce, there are other ways to remove them besides the typical procedures.” The ideal system is going to require some congressional input: it's to have a decentralization of hiring authority to individual managers. Which means the OPM — now under Scott Kupor, who has finally been confirmed — saying, "The OPM is here to assist you, federal managers. Make sure you stay within the broad lanes of what the administration's trying to accomplish. But once we give you your general goals, we're going to trust you to do that, including hiring.”I've mentioned it a few times, but part of the Chance to Compete Act — which was mentioned in one of Trump's Day One executive orders, people forget about this — was saying, “Implement the Chance to Compete Act to the maximum extent of the law.” Bring more subject-matter expertise into the hiring process, allow more discretion for managers and input into the hiring process. I think carrying that bipartisan reform out is going to be a big step, but it's going to take a lot more work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.statecraft.pub
This Day in Legal History: ABA FormedOn August 21, 1878, 75 lawyers convened in Saratoga Springs, New York, and formally established the American Bar Association (ABA). Their shared aim was to advance the “science of jurisprudence,” promote uniform legislation, strengthen justice administration, uphold the profession's honor, and encourage collegial interaction among lawyers. Their organizing document—the original constitution—still shapes the ABA's mission today.Over time, the ABA became the premier professional association for attorneys in the U.S., influencing national legal education, ethics, and law reform. It introduced the first national ethics code in 1908 (the Canons of Professional Ethics), which eventually evolved into today's Model Rules of Professional Conduct.While the ABA once counted about 400,000 dues-paying members, by the low‑point of 2019, it had lost approximately 56,000 members—a symptom of shifting professional norms and changing perceptions of organizational value. Membership has continued to decline, with figures dropping as low as 227,000 by 2024. In response, the ABA has implemented membership reforms and reduced dues tiers to attract and re-engage lawyers, especially those early in their careers.The American Bar Association's recent actions reflect a mixed record in the face of escalating political pressure—particularly from the Trump administration and its allies. On one hand, the ABA has forcefully resisted efforts to erode legal independence: in 2025, it filed a federal lawsuit accusing the administration of intimidating law firms engaged in politically sensitive representation, and it criticized the DOJ's move to exclude the ABA from vetting judicial nominees as a blow to transparency and professionalism. It also defended its longstanding role in law school accreditation amid efforts to strip that authority.On the other hand, the ABA's decision in August 2025 to eliminate five Board of Governors seats historically reserved for women, LGBTQ+ individuals, people with disabilities, and racial minorities marks a notable concession under pressure. The newly adopted policy opens these seats to anyone with a demonstrated commitment to diversity, regardless of their own demographic identity. While proponents framed the shift as a legal safeguard against lawsuits, critics viewed it as a capitulation—especially given the broader political context, including targeted attacks on ABA diversity programs and threats to its accreditation authority. The organization has also paused enforcement of its law school diversity standards until at least 2026.The Justice Department under the Trump administration has dramatically escalated its investigation into gender-affirming care, targeting the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia with a sweeping subpoena demanding detailed records—including names and Social Security numbers—of patients who received such treatments. This move is part of a broader campaign to prosecute medical providers offering care to transgender youth, following a directive from Attorney General Pam Bondi to aggressively pursue these cases.The hospital pushed back against the subpoena, calling it an invasive overreach into a vulnerable population's privacy. In response, DOJ took the unusual step of asking the court to unseal the litigation, a departure from standard practice in sensitive investigations where proceedings are typically kept sealed to protect investigatory integrity. The judge sided with the DOJ, opening the docket earlier this month.The subpoena was signed by Brett Shumate, the newly confirmed head of DOJ's civil division, bypassing career officials who had refused to sign similar subpoenas due to ethical and legal concerns. Internal dissent had already emerged, with former officials warning that collecting such data lacked a strong legal basis, especially since off-label prescriptions like puberty blockers are not illegal under federal law.Critics say the investigation appears more performative than prosecutorial, designed to chill gender-affirming care through public pressure rather than build viable legal cases. The Trump administration has also directed other agencies, including HHS and the FTC, to scrutinize these practices, while states like Pennsylvania have filed lawsuits challenging the administration's actions. The outcome of the Philadelphia case, now in front of a federal judge, could shape how far the administration can go in turning gender-related health care into a legal battleground.Justice Department Expands Gender Care Probe as Hospital FightsA recent ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case has sparked growing concern among corporate legal teams that the boundaries of attorney-client privilege—especially for in-house counsel—are being narrowed in ways that could harm innovation and compliance. The district court found Apple had improperly claimed privilege over documents that mixed legal advice with business guidance, drawing a sharp rebuke that “adding a lawyer's name to a document does not create a privilege.”That finding is now being appealed, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) warning that upholding the decision could upend how legal departments operate—particularly in fast-moving sectors like AI and cybersecurity, where legal and business decisions are tightly intertwined. In-house counsel argue they need the flexibility to weigh legal risks within the real-world context of product development, market pressures, and regulatory uncertainty.At issue is the standard used to define privilege. The Ninth Circuit has previously backed the “primary purpose” test, which protects dual-purpose communications if a significant purpose was legal. But the district court's approach appeared more rigid, raising fears that companies will be discouraged from seeking or documenting legal guidance unless they rely on expensive outside counsel.Legal leaders say this shift would disproportionately impact smaller firms and startups already stretched thin. They also point to a broader ambiguity across federal circuits regarding dual-purpose communications, and argue that only a Supreme Court ruling can definitively resolve the inconsistencies.Oral arguments in the appeal are set for October 21.Apple Ruling Raises Business Fear of Legal Privileges ErodingA federal appeals court has allowed the Trump administration to move forward with ending deportation protections and work permits for over 60,000 immigrants from Honduras, Nicaragua, and Nepal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued an unsigned order permitting the termination of Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for these groups while legal challenges continue. No legal reasoning was provided in the brief order.The decision lifts an earlier block by a federal district judge, who had ruled that the move was likely driven by racial animus, violating constitutional protections. The new ruling immediately ends protections for Nepali nationals, with protections for Honduran and Nicaraguan immigrants set to expire by September 8.The Department of Homeland Security praised the ruling as a step toward restoring the immigration system's integrity, arguing TPS has been misused as a backdoor form of asylum. Immigrant advocates, meanwhile, condemned the lack of explanation from the court and warned of serious humanitarian consequences for those now facing deportation to unstable regions.The case remains ongoing, but for now, thousands of individuals who have lived and worked legally in the U.S. for years are left in legal limbo.Trump can end deportation protections for 60,000 immigrants, appeals court says | ReutersElon Musk must face a lawsuit alleging he and his political action committee, America PAC, ran an illegal election-year lottery disguised as a $1 million-a-day giveaway. A federal judge in Texas ruled that plaintiff Jacqueline McAferty plausibly claimed Musk misled voters—particularly in battleground states—into signing a petition supporting the U.S. Constitution by offering what appeared to be a random chance at a $1 million prize.McAferty alleges that, in exchange for signing, voters were required to provide personal data—names, addresses, phone numbers, and emails—which she claims was exploited for political targeting. Musk argued that the program was not a lottery because recipients were chosen to “earn” the funds and serve as America PAC spokespeople. But the judge pointed to conflicting language used in promotional materials suggesting the money could be “won,” making it reasonable for voters to think it was a sweepstakes-style contest.Judge Robert Pitman, an Obama appointee, also rejected Musk's argument that voters suffered no harm, noting that expert testimony could establish the market value of political data collected during the promotion.The lawsuit, filed on Election Day 2024, underscores growing concerns over the use of high-dollar giveaways in political campaigning and how voter data is gathered and deployed in swing states. Musk and his PAC have not yet commented on the ruling.Elon Musk must face lawsuit claiming he ran illegal $1 million election lottery | ReutersAnd in a piece I wrote for Forbes earlier this week: the new One Big Beautiful Bill Act revives full expensing for U.S.-based research and development, a policy designed to encourage domestic innovation and hiring. At first glance, it seems like a major win for the tech sector and high-skilled job creation. But the labor market response reveals a deeper issue: you can't stimulate demand for talent without also addressing supply. With immigration pathways constrained and no meaningful expansion of domestic training infrastructure, the policy has triggered a spike in labor costs rather than a boom in innovation.In the absence of new talent pipelines, startups and tech firms are now paying steep premiums to hire U.S.-based engineers, effectively converting the R&D tax break into a subsidy for a tight labor market. Meanwhile, immigration policy remains restrictive, and education-focused workforce solutions aren't being scaled fast enough to meet the moment. The result is a bottleneck: jobs going unfilled, innovation slowing, and companies forced to reconsider hiring or delay projects altogether.The piece argues that while R&D expensing is smart fiscal policy, it only works as part of a broader strategy that includes visa reform, immigration support for high-skilled workers, and real investments in talent development. Without those pieces in place, we're left with a politically appealing tax tweak that, in practice, fails to deliver the innovation surge it promises.Turns Out Research Tax Breaks Alone Can't Conjure Developers This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe
In this Big Ideas for Smaller Government episode of American Potential, host David From is joined by Jeremiah Mosteller, Policy Director at Americans for Prosperity, to expose the wasteful spending and inefficiencies at the General Services Administration (GSA)—the federal agency responsible for managing office buildings, procurement, and travel across the U.S. government. They revisit the infamous $800,000 Las Vegas conference scandal, complete with a $30,000 pool party and a 2,400 sq. ft. hotel suite—paid for by taxpayers. They also uncover the GSA's multi-billion-dollar mismanagement of a long-delayed Department of Homeland Security headquarters and reveal that the federal government is using just 25% of the office space it occupies. David and Jeremiah lay out a plan to save $1.88 billion over the next decade by selling underused federal buildings—many of which are sitting empty—and call on Congress to step up and demand accountability. This episode is a revealing look at how cutting GSA waste is one more step toward saving taxpayers trillions.
In the third hour of the show, Melynda & Kenny talk about Ken Paxton's opinion of Texas Democrats, how the Texas House is voting, and the Department of Homeland Security wanting to operate their own planes to deport illegals.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
438. How to Protect Kids from ICE Right now in America, children are standing alone in immigration court—no lawyer, no advocate, no protection—forced to represent themselves against government attorneys from Homeland Security. Glennon joins immigration justice leaders Lillian Aponte Miranda of the Florence Project and Shaina Aber of the Acacia Center for Justice to reveal what's happening to immigrant families—and how we can meet this moment with care and action to protect children from ICE. To donate to the entire network of legal service providers serving unaccompanied immigrant children or to find an organization near you, visit protectimmigrantkids.org. To volunteer as a Witness for Justice: VOMO To uplift on your social media platforms: #ProtectKids Toolkit - Google Docs The Florence Project provides free legal services, social services, and advocacy to immigrants facing detention and potential deportation. To learn more about the Florence Project's work, visit: www.firrp.org and follow them on social media: Instagram: @The_FlorenceProject Facebook: Florence Immigrant & Refugee Rights Project The Acacia Center for Justice builds, strengthens, and expands immigrant legal defense programs for adults and children across the country. To learn more about the Acacia Center for Justice's work, visit: https://acaciajustice.org/ and follow them on social media: Instagram: @acaciajustice Facebook: Acacia Center for Justice To learn more about listener data and our privacy practices visit: https://www.audacyinc.com/privacy-policy Learn more about your ad choices. Visit https://podcastchoices.com/adchoices
Immigrants being detained by ICE at a facility in Manhattan had been complaining for weeks about unsanitary and inhumane conditions. A spokeswoman for Trump's Department of Homeland Security said those complaints were lies. But once a video of the conditions inside that facility was published by The New York Times, it turns out the confinement conditions were, indeed, inhumane, with detainees sleeping on dirty concrete floors for days or weeks without a mattress or even a thin mat of any kind.A federal judge in New York has issued an order directing ICE to, in substance, stop treating detainees inhumanely.Glenn reviews this legal development and discusses Judge Kaplan's new court order.For link to video: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/ny...For nightly live Law Talks, please join Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
Immigrants being detained by ICE at a facility in Manhattan had been complaining for weeks about unsanitary and inhumane conditions. A spokeswoman for Trump's Department of Homeland Security said those complaints were lies. But once a video of the conditions inside that facility was published by The New York Times, it turns out the confinement conditions were, indeed, inhumane, with detainees sleeping on dirty concrete floors for days or weeks without a mattress or even a thin mat of any kind.A federal judge in New York has issued an order directing ICE to, in substance, stop treating detainees inhumanely.Glenn reviews this legal development and discusses Judge Kaplan's new court order.For link to video: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/07/22/ny...For nightly live Law Talks, please join Glenn on Substack: glennkirschner.substack.comIf you're interested in supporting our all-volunteer efforts, you can become a Team Justice patron at: / glennkirschner If you'd like to support Glenn and buy Team Justice and Justice Matters merchandise visit:https://shop.spreadshirt.com/glennkir...Check out Glenn's website at https://glennkirschner.com/Follow Glenn on:Threads: https://www.threads.net/glennkirschner2Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/glennkirschner2Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/glennkirsch...Bluesky: https://bsky.app/profile/glennkirschn...TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/glennkirschner2See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.
In 2023, Chelsea Grimm vanished on a road trip through northern Arizona. Strange sightings, abandoned belongings, and cryptic messages hint at a story no one fully understands. Where was she heading—and what really happened along the way?Support us on Patreon for as little as $1 a month, with benefits starting at the $3 tier!Follow us on Instagram at offthetrailspodcastFollow us on Facebook at Off the Trails PodcastIf you have your own outdoor misadventure (or adventure) story that you'd like us to include in a listener episode, send it to us at offthetrailspodcast@gmail.com Please take a moment to rate and review our show, and a big thanks if you already have!Episode Sources:Investigation Discovery, AZ Family, YouTube - Truth Be Found, YouTube - Missing Enigma, Dept. of Homeland Security, YouTube - Bodycam Footage**We do our own research and try our best to cross-reference reliable sources to present the most accurate information we can. Please reach out to us if you believe we have mispresented any information during this episode, and we will be happy to correct ourselves in a future episode.Support us on Patreon for as little as $1 a month, with benefits starting at the $3 tier!Follow us on Instagram at offthetrailspodcastFollow us on Facebook at Off the Trails PodcastIf you have your own outdoor misadventure (or adventure) story that you'd like us to include in a listener episode, send it to us at offthetrailspodcast@gmail.com Please take a moment to rate and review our show, and a big thanks if you already have!**We do our own research and try our best to cross-reference reliable sources to present the most accurate information we can. Please reach out to us if you believe we have mispresented any information during this episode, and we will be happy to correct ourselves in a future episode.
Student directories may seem harmless, but Department of Homeland Security agents began using them to target students for ‘welfare checks' in the Treasure Valley. Host Lindsay Van Allen is joined by Investigate West reporter Rachel Spacek to break down how this raising questions about whether schools can truly be safe for all students. Want some more Boise news? Head over to our Hey Boise newsletter where you'll get a cheatsheet to the city every weekday morning. We're doing our annual survey to learn more about our listeners. We'd be grateful if you took the survey at citycast.fm/survey — it's only 7 minutes long. You'll be doing us a big favor. Plus, anyone who takes the survey will be eligible to win a $250 Visa gift card–and City Cast Boise swag. Learn more about the sponsor of this August 18th episode: Visit Walla Walla Interested in advertising with City Cast Boise? Find more info HERE. Reach us at boise@citycast.fm.
August 17, 2025; 7am: Saturday, the Democratic National Committee organized hundreds of “Fight the Trump Takeover” protests in 43 states, according to the event website. Protesters took to the streets to oppose what they see as a sweeping power grab by Texas Republicans: a gerrymandering plan designed to lock in Republican control of the House of Representatives in the midterms. Protestors also took to the streets in Washington, DC, to rally against President Trump's federal police takeover as more Republican-led states plan to deploy National Guard troops to the city. Miles Taylor, former Department of Homeland Security chief of staff during Donald Trump's first term, joins “The Weekend” to discuss.For more, follow us on social media:Bluesky: @theweekendmsnbc.bsky.socialInstagram: @theweekendmsnbcTikTok: @theweekendmsnbcTo listen to this show and other MSNBC podcasts without ads, sign up for MSNBC Premium on Apple Podcasts.
The Department of Homeland Security is responding after San Diego parents and educators voiced concern over an immigration arrest at a Linda Vista elementary school. House Speaker Mike Johnson is accused of illegally using campaign money to pay rent to East County representative Darrell Issa. The city of Chula Vista is asking people living near Rohr Park to provide feedback on improvements they would like to see to the facilities. What You Need To Know To Start Your Sunday.
Tell us whatcha' think! Send a text to us, here! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on our podcast. Colleen O'Neal, a candidate for state representative in Maine, discusses her motivation for running for office and her focus on parents' rights in education. She highlights the lack of access and input for parents in school board decisions and the need to address issues such as trans students playing on women's teams and the sexualization of children in schools. Colleen emphasizes the importance of returning to a focus on core education subjects and allowing parents to make decisions for their children's education.Colleen O'Neal spent 30 years in public service before retiring in 2022. She has been married to her husband Steve for 32 years and has two children and four grandchildren. She holds a bachelor's in Intelligence and Securities and a Master's in Homeland Security. Colleen is a staunch believer in the Constitution and a lover of Liberty.Top 3 Priorities:1. Remove powers of the school boards and return the power to parents.2. Remove children's access to porn - Pornography isn't for children3. No Secrets!PreScore: 100% Email: coneal2024@gmail.comSupport the showIf you need assistance with a situation in your area, please fill out our free consultation form.DONATE TODAY!www.ParentsRightsInEducation.com
Ralph devotes the entire program to challenging the “official” count of 60 thousand fatalities reported so far in the genocide Israel, aided and abetted by the United States, has perpetrated on the Palestinians in Gaza. First, Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, who volunteered twice in Gaza hospitals, presents the various studies that revise estimates into the hundreds of thousands. Then weapons expert, Professor Theodore Postol, backs that up with his knowledge of the destructive power of the weapons being used and the photographic evidence of the rubble.Dr. Feroze Sidhwa is a trauma, general, and critical care surgeon. He has volunteered twice in Gaza since 2024 and three times in Ukraine since 2022. He has published on humanitarian surgical work in the New York Times, Politico, and the Journal of the American College of Surgeons.I've made my point clear month after month that I believe the death toll is now well over 500,000. And it's important to have an accurate death toll to respect the Palestinian dead and to intensify diplomatic, political, and civic pressures from around the world (and particularly from the White House and Congress) to cease fire, to let the humanitarian trucks that are already at the border in (with food, medicine, water, hospital supplies), and to make sure that this conflict is resolved safely.Ralph NaderIt certainly seems that every single international expert on the topic does think that this is a genocidal attack, so I don't see any reason to disbelieve what they're saying. But that doesn't have to do with how many people are killed. So what I'm just trying to point out is that even if the numbers of people that we talk about here today are (like Ralph said) half a million, or whatever number of people have been killed, nobody disputes that huge numbers of mass killings have taken place. And it doesn't seem that anybody who knows what they're talking about disputes that it's genocidal at this point.Dr. Feroze SidhwaIt's been very widely understood by lots and lots of people, of a huge variety of political leanings, a huge variety of life experiences, of professions, et cetera, that this is the image that springs to mind when they go to the Gaza Strip—it's something like a gigantic concentration camp.Dr. Feroze SidhwaIf the U.S. or Israel cared at all about how many people (including, remember, this is a territory that is half children) —if we cared how many people, including children, we have starved to death, have shot dead, have blown up, et cetera, we could figure it out in two weeks and with 10 grand. The Israelis wouldn't even have to stop their assault. They could keep doing it. They could just agree to de-conflict this group of a few people. But they won't do it for obvious reasons. And I shouldn't say “they” —we won't do it for obvious reasons.Dr. Feroze SidhwaTheodore Postol is Professor of Science, Technology and National Security Policy Emeritus in the Program in Science, Technology, and Society at MIT. His expertise is in nuclear weapon systems, including submarine warfare, applications of nuclear weapons, ballistic missile defense, and ballistic missiles more generally.When you have a large building collapse, everyone is going to be dead unless they're out of the building. It's just that simple. And even when you have large buildings collapse and you have people coming in to search for people, you typically only find a few people who happen to have been lucky enough to be trapped in a cavity that's near a surface area of the rubble heap. If you're deep in the rubble heap, your chances of surviving are near zero.Professor Theodore PostolNews 8/15/25* New Bureau of Labor Statistics Consumer Price Index data shows Trump's new tariff regime has resulted in significant increases in tariff-sensitive staple consumer goods. Some startling price spikes include a 38.9% rise in the price of vegetables, 14.5% increase in the price of coffee and an 11.3% increase in the price of beef and veal. Beyond food, electricity is up 5.5%, rent and shelter is up 3.6%, and health insurance is up 4.4%. These increases are sure to be politically unpopular, as Trump campaigned on bringing down inflation and the price of groceries. The reporting of this data also raises questions about Trump's response, given his response to the recent negative BLS data reporting on new job creation.* Speaking of job creation data, while the U.S. only reported the creation of 73,000 new jobs in July, Mexico, under left-wing economic nationalist president and AMLO successor Claudia Scheinbaum, created over 1.26 million new jobs in the same month, according to Mexico News Daily. Furious about the jobs report, Trump forced out the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics and is now seeking to install right-wing economist EJ Antoni. According to the BBC, economists have said his “economic commentary [is] rife with basic mistakes.” Antoni, kowtowing to Trump, has proposed ending the monthly jobs report. Antoni would need to be confirmed by Senate Republicans, who have expressed some trepidation about his appointment, but whether that will be enough for them to stand up to Trump on this appointment seems unlikely.* In more domestic economic news, Jacobin reports corporations are experimenting with a new method of worker exploitation – so-called “stay-or-pay” contracts. According to this article, millions of employees – from nurses to pilots to fast food workers – are, often unwittingly, being “inserted into…restrictive labor covenants [which] turn employer-sponsored job training and education programs into conditional loans that must be paid back — sometimes at a premium — if employees leave before a set date.” These contracts, known as Training Repayment Agreement Provisions, or their acronym TRAPs, have become a major new battleground between corporate interests and groups fighting for labor rights, including unions and regulators. However, with Trump administration efforts to rollback even the modest labor protections promulgated under the Biden administration, the possibility of any federal intervention on behalf of workers seems remote.* In more Trump-related news, the occupation of Washington, D.C. has commenced. Trump has deployed federal agents, including officers with the Department of Homeland Security and Drug Enforcement Administration, as well as National Guard troops, to patrol the streets of the capital. Some of these deployments seem to be mostly for media spectacle; feds have been seen patrolling tourist areas like the National Mall, Union Station and Georgetown, but others have been going into District neighborhoods and harassing District residents for smoking on their own property. Moreover, while Trump has said "Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people," the Justice Department has in fact announced that this year violent crime in Washington has hit a 30-year low, per NPR. Trump is restricted to a 30 day takeover of the District by law, but is seeking to extend this window through Congress.* As usual, even as Trump claims to be cracking down on crime, his administration treats corporate crime with kid gloves. Despite major news of corporate misconduct this week – including the reopening of a Boar's Head facility shut down earlier this year due to a listeria outbreak despite ongoing sanitation issues and an explosion at the Clairton Coke Works in Pittsburgh that left at least two dead and ten injured – a new Public Citizen report shows the extent of the administration's soft-on-corporate-crime approach. According to this report, “the Trump administration has already withdrawn or halted enforcement actions against 165 corporations of all types – and one in four of the corporations benefiting from halted or dropped enforcement is from the technology sector, which has spent $1.2 billion on political influence during and since the 2024 elections.”* Turning to Gaza, the Financial Times reports, “Israel has killed…prominent Al Jazeera correspondent [Anas Al-Sharif] in Gaza and four of his colleagues…in an air strike targeting them in a media tent.” This report notes the Israeli military “took credit” for the strike after “months of threats and unproven allegations that [the journalist] was the head of a Hamas cell.” The Committee to Protect Journalists called these claims an attempt to “manufacture consent for his killing.” The network called this move a “desperate attempt to silence voices in anticipation of the occupation of Gaza.” Anas Al-Sharif was a prominent journalist in the Arab world and was part of a Reuters photo team who won a Pulitzer Prize in 2024. Israel has already killed six Al Jazeera reporters in Gaza prior to this strike.* Meanwhile, in Egypt, President Abdel Fattah El-Sisi last Tuesday issued his harshest criticism of Israel thus far, accusing the nation of prosecuting “a war for starvation, genocide, and the liquidation of the Palestinian cause.” Yet, according to Drop Site News, Sisi's comments came just days before an announcement that an Israeli company will begin supplying Egypt with vast amounts of gas. This $35 billion deal between Egypt, neighbor to Israel and Palestine and the largest Arab nation, and Israeli energy company NewMed is the largest export agreement in Israel's history. This deal adds a new dimension to other comments Sisi made in those same remarks, wherein he defended Egypt against criticism for “not opening the Egyptian side of the Rafah border crossing to allow in aid.” It remains to be seen whether the genocide comments represent a new chapter of Egypt-Israel relations, or whether they are just a smokescreen to cover Egypt and Israel's increasing economic interdependence.* In Palestine news from the homefront, Semafor reports the Democratic National Committee will consider two dueling resolutions on Gaza at their meeting this month. According to Dave Weigel, one, introduced by DNC Chair Ken Martin would “[urge] a ceasefire and a return of hostages held by Hamas,” along with a reaffirmation of the increasingly far-fetched two-state solution. The other, introduced by a DNC member on the progressive flank of the party, calls for “suspension of military aid to Israel” and recognition of a Palestinian state. The latter resolution has drawn the ire of Democratic Majority for Israel, a political organization that aims to keep the Democratic Party firmly in the pro-Israel camp. DMFI's president, Brian Romick, is quoted saying that resolution would be a “gift to Republicans” and would “embolden Israel's adversaries.”* In more positive foreign affairs news, Jeremy Corbyn's new party in the United Kingdom appears to be gaining steam. A string of polls indicate the party could win the seats currently held by several high-profile Labour Party MPs, including Health Secretary Wes Streeting and now-resigned Homelessness Secretary Rushanara Ali. Most shockingly, it seems they could even win Holborn and St. Pancras, the seat currently held by Labour Party Prime Minister Keir Starmer. If this Corbynite wave does ultimately crest, it would be a stunning reversal of fortune after the Starmerite Labour Party expelled the former Labour leader in 2023.* Finally, AOL announced this week that they will end their Dial-up internet service in September, Ars Technica reports. AOL launched their Dial-up service in 1991, helping to usher in the era of widespread internet adoption. While this may seem like a natural step in terms of technological advancement, US Census data from 2022 shows that approximately 175,000 American households still connect to the Internet through dial-up services. As this article notes, “These users typically live in rural areas where broadband infrastructure doesn't exist or remains prohibitively expensive to install.” In effect, this move could leave these rural communities completely without internet, a problem compounded by the Trump administration's decision earlier this year to “abandon key elements of a $42.45bn Biden-era plan to connect rural communities to high-speed internet,” per the Guardian. It should be considered a national disgrace if both the private sector and the government leave these rural communities behind.This has been Francesco DeSantis, with In Case You Haven't Heard. Get full access to Ralph Nader Radio Hour at www.ralphnaderradiohour.com/subscribe
Did you hear the tantrums being thrown in Southern California yesterday by LA Mayor Karen Bass and Gov. Gavin Newsome. They wanted to have a big media event to call attention to Texas redistricting, and Trump's Homeland Security crashed the party. It was epic! Are you familiar with Sharia Law? You ought to be. It's no joke and the desire for it to become the law of every country is real. A true threat and theocracy. Brad Brandon of AcrossNigeria.org is here to explain. Will we see actual prosecutions in Obamagate? More big news continues to break almost daily in the case and our legal beagle Mark Weaver - attorney and former DOJ spokesman predicts who from the Obama era could face criminal charges. Plus, Christian Toto from HollywoodInToto.com on the stunning money Paramount is paying for some programming while gutting shows like Late Show with Colbert. And calls from around the country on Open Line Friday.-For more info visit the official website: https://chrisstigall.comInstagram: https://www.instagram.com/chrisstigallshow/Twitter: https://twitter.com/ChrisStigallFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/chris.stigall/Listen on Spotify: https://tinyurl.com/StigallPodListen on Apple Podcasts: https://bit.ly/StigallShow-Help protect your wealth with real, physical gold and silver. Texas Bullion Exchange helps everyday Americans diversify with tailored portfolios, IRA rollovers, and expert support every step of the way.
Join Jim and Greg for the Friday 3 Martini Lunch. Today, it's all good martinis, as they focus on a serious collision of Chinese military vessels as they harassed a ship from the Philippines, California voters making it clear they want no part of California Gov. Gavin Newsom's gerrymandering scheme, and the Department of Homeland Security reporting many illegal aliens have self-deported.First, after commenting on Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov appearing in Alaska wearing a CCCP sweater, they react to reports that two Chinese military ships collided at high speed as they tried to intimidate a much smaller military vessel from the Philippines. Jim says Beijing should use this as a chance to back off its territorial ambitions in the region but probably won't. They also discuss the mood in Taiwan amid recent rumors of a Chinese invasion.Next, they lampoon Gov. Newsom's bid to troll President Trump and Texas Republicans by proposing a ballot measure to undo California's constitutional requirement for an independent redistricting commission. But polling shows voters overwhelmingly oppose the scheme. Jim also underscores how brazen it is for Democrats to push such a move in one of the most heavily gerrymandered states in America.Finally, they welcome the DHS report that 1.6 million illegal aliens have voluntarily left the U.S. since Trump became president. This is additional proof that Trump's immigration policies are working. And they also explain how the left and its media allies are taking truly radical approaches to oppose the enforcement of immigration laws.Please visit our great sponsors:Sleep on an award-winning mattress from Brooklyn Bedding. Get 30% off sitewide at https://BrooklynBedding.com with promo code 3ML, and don't forget to mention our show after checkout!No missed calls, no missed customers with OpenPhone. Get 20% off your first 6 months at https://Openphone.com/3mlIf your business can't adapt in real-time, you're in a world of hurt. Get the free e-book “Navigating Global Trade: 3 Insights for Leaders” from NetSuite by Oracle. Download today at https://NetSuite.com/MARTINI
A discussion on a confrontational event where ICE agents conducted arrests outside a press conference held by California Governor Gavin Newsom. The host argues that this was a deliberate act by the Trump administration to challenge the "dual justice system" and Democratic ideology that believes laws do not apply to them or to the illegal immigrants they support. The segment includes reactions from Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass, who criticize the arrests as a "provocative act," while a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security confirms the arrests were pre-planned and targeted individuals with serious criminal offenses, including child pornography and gang affiliation. The host also touches on other cities, such as Washington D.C., ending their sanctuary status and the general push by the administration to enforce federal law nationwide. The segment concludes with a critique of the "enamored" Democratic party and an endorsement of a fringe Democratic candidate for governor.
Episode 578 - Chad Boudreaux - From Homeland Security and US Justice Department to Thriller AuthorCHAD BOUDREAUX has a broad range of government, legal and corporate experience. Prior to serving as the Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of the nation's largest military shipbuilder, he served as Deputy Chief of Staff for the U.S. Department of Homeland Security, where he advised Secretary Michael Chertoff on almost all significant matters facing the newly established department.Before working for Homeland Security, Boudreaux served in several high-ranking positions at the U.S. Justice Department, where he was hired the night before the September 11, 2001, attacks. During his time at the Justice Department, Boudreaux focused most of his time on matters relating to terrorism and homeland security.His career in the government led him to write his debut novel, Scavenger Hunt.https://www.chadboudreaux.com/Support the show___https://livingthenextchapter.com/podcast produced by: https://truemediasolutions.ca/Coffee Refills are always appreciated, refill Dave's cup here, and thanks!https://buymeacoffee.com/truemediaca
The Trump administration’s federal takeover of Washington, D.C. is escalating with arrests at high-profile locations and homeless encampments torn down. Protests also erupted in the streets after the White House said federal agents would patrol around the clock. Amna Nawaz discussed more with Juliette Kayyem, a former Homeland Security official now at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. PBS News is supported by - https://www.pbs.org/newshour/about/funders. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy
This week, the Trump administration took over command of the D.C. police department, and surged federal law enforcement officers and National Guard units into the city. While the United States has a long tradition of leaving most policing to state and local agencies, federal law enforcement has specific powers, and there are well-established limits on the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement, but the rules for DC are particular.In this episode, host David Aaron is joined by Carrie Cordero, General Counsel at the Center for a New American Security and former Counsel to the Assistant Attorney General for National Security and Senior Associate General Counsel at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and Donell Harvin, Visiting Fellow at the National Security Institute at George Mason University and former Chief of Homeland Security and Intelligence for the District of Columbia. Together, they unpack significant legal and policy considerations concerning the Executive Branch's recent actions and the open questions still in play.Show Notes:Center for a New American Security, The 21st Century National Guard: Expanding Missions, Modernizing AuthoritiesJust Security's Law Enforcement and National Security Archives"How to Truly Keep Washington, DC Safe: President Trump's militarized approach undercuts what's been working" by Donell Harvin
“What Gives Him the Right?” President Trump has temporarily federalized the Washington DC police and sent in ICE agents and National Guard troops to “pursue and arrest every violent criminal in the district who breaks the law, undermines public safety and endangers law-abiding Americans,” according to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt. The move was welcomed by the DC police union chief who said that the union “supports the President's announcement this morning to assume temporary control of the MPD in response to the escalating crime crisis in Washington, DC.” However, Mayor Muriel Bowser made this cryptic statement: "unsettling and unprecedented." "My message to residents is this: We know that access to our democracy is tenuous," The Daily Signal spoke with former Deputy Secretary of Homeland Security and Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli about the President's actions and the repercussions. Keep Up With The Daily Signal Sign up for our email newsletters: https://www.dailysignal.com/email Subscribe to our other shows: The Tony Kinnett Cast: https://open.spotify.com/show/7AFk8xjiOOBEynVg3JiN6g The Signal Sitdown: https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL2026390376 Problematic Women: https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL7765680741 Victor Davis Hanson: https://megaphone.link/THEDAILYSIGNAL9809784327 Follow The Daily Signal: X: https://x.com/intent/user?screen_name=DailySignal Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/thedailysignal/ Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/TheDailySignalNews/ Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@DailySignal YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/dailysignal?sub_confirmation=1 Subscribe on your favorite podcast platform and never miss an episode. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
This week's PR Breakdown isn't about a corporate crisis or a press release gone wrong. It's about satire — and the way it forces a reaction.In the latest season of South Park, Matt Stone and Trey Parker have turned their aim on the Trump administration, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and the culture of punditry. It's not subtle. It's not sanitized. And it's definitely not for the thin-skinned.The second episode, “Got a Nut,” skewers both sides of the aisle while delivering a masterclass in what happens when satire hits a nerve. The White House called the show “irrelevant” — a statement that instantly proved the opposite. Noem leaned into the joke publicly, then undercut herself in interviews. And Charlie Kirk tried to be in on the humor while still nursing the sting.Here's what I cover in this episode:Why this season of South Park is landing harder than most political commentaryThe specific targets in Episode 2, and the satirical tactics behind themHow public figures misplay their responses to being parodiedWhy defensiveness is the loudest admission of relevanceThe crisis takeaway: When satire calls you out, your response matters more than the jokeSatire works because it holds up a mirror. In PR, what you do next decides whether people see the reflection as truth or just a caricature.Want More Behind the Breakdown? Follow The PR Breakdown with Molly McPherson on Substack for early access to podcast episodes, exclusive member chats, weekly lives, and monthly workshops that go deeper than the mic. It's the insider's hub for communicators who want strategy with spine—and a little side-eye where it counts.Follow Molly → @MollyMcPherson Subscribe to PR Breakdown on Substack → prbreakdown.mediaClick here to subscribe to Molly's live events. Need a Keynote Speaker? Drawing from real-world PR battles, Molly delivers the same engaging stories and hard-won crisis insights from the podcast to your live audience. Click here to book Molly for your next meeting. This podcast is supported by Muck Rack, the PR management platform I use to monitor media coverage, track journalist activity, and inform high-stakes strategy with real-time data. Click here to try Muck Rack for yourself. Follow & Connect with Molly: https://www.youtube.com/mollymcpherson ...
A federal judge in St. Paul is set to hear the case of a 25-year-old Salvadoran mother who has been in ICE detention for more than two weeks. Antonia Aguilar Maldonado, who lives in Lake Elmo with her husband and two U.S. citizen children, was detained by Homeland Security agents in July while heading to work. An immigration judge granted her release on a $10,000 bond, but ICE blocked it using a policy aimed at restricting bond for individuals who entered the U.S. without inspection. Her attorneys argue the policy shouldn't apply to her, given her age at entry and full compliance with immigration proceedings.MPR News senior reporter Sarah Thamer has been following the story and joined MPR News host Nina Moini with the latest on the case.Read more: Minnesota mother remains in ICE custody despite judge's release order
In this episode, Word&Way President Brian Kaylor talks with Mara Richards Bim about a weekly interfaith prayer vigil being held outside an ICE office in Dallas, Texas. She talks about how denominations are fighting back in court and the how Department of Homeland Security is co-opting Bible verses to justify ICE actions. She also discusses efforts to challenge Christian Nationalism in Texas, including a bill pushing the posting of a highly edited version of the Ten Commandments in public schools. You can watch a video version of this conversation on YouTube. Note: Don't forget to subscribe to our award-winning e-newsletter A Public Witness that helps you make sense of faith, culture, and politics. And preorder the forthcoming book by Brian Kaylor, The Bible According to Christian Nationalists: Exploiting Scripture for Political Power.
In this conversation, Brian Karem and Miles Taylor discuss the current state of American politics, focusing on the Trump administration's impact on governance, immigration policy, and the implications of tribalism. They explore the challenges of maintaining free speech in a climate of self-censorship and the potential consequences of political pressure on investigations. The discussion also touches on the future of American foreign policy and the cultural shifts in society.Follow us on Twitter: https://twitter.com/JATQPodcastFollow us on BlueSky: https://bsky.app/profile/jatqpodcast.bsky.socialIntragram: https://www.instagram.com/jatqpodcastYoutube:https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCET7k2_Y9P9Fz0MZRARGqVwThis Show is Available Ad-Free And Early For Patreon supporters here:https://www.patreon.com/justaskthequestionpodcastPurchase Brian's book "Free The Press"
On today's program: Ken Cuccinelli, Senior Fellow for Homeland Security and Immigration for the Center for Renewing America, reacts to the president's plans to deploy the National Guard in Washington, D.C., to combat crime. Pat Harrigan, U.S.
On today's episode, Andy & DJ discuss President Trump once again claiming that the Epstein case is a Democrat hoax, the Department of Homeland Security dropping the age requirement for ICE agents, and South Park depicting Donald Trump and JD Vance.
Candace Owens goes scorched-earth on Trump—and AG Hamilton fires back. Meanwhile, Marjorie Taylor Greene shocks conservatives by breaking with Israel. We break down what's going on, what's at stake, and who's burning flags (literally).Also in this episode:-Nancy Pelosi's mental state draws Biden comparisons-Jasmine Crockett's own staff calls her a diva-Rep. Cory Mills lawyering up amid sexual extortion allegations-Ghislaine Maxwell denied a prison dog?-“Green dildo” memes go viral after WNBA stunt-JD Vance, Charlie Kirk, and South Park steal the show-Pro-Hamas rallies hit Australia-Muslim students say democracy is a “cancer”?-American Girl tells kids to burn the flag-Trump's peace summit, Sydney Sweeney's Sphere ad, and Chefman drama-Homeland Security drops a South Park reference (yes, really)SUPPORT OUR SPONSORS TO SUPPORT OUR SHOW!Try the new OneSkin Scalp Serum and get 15% off with code CHICKS for younger, healthier-looking skin! Visit https://OneSkin.co During the Chefman FLASH SALE, get your SLUSH-EASE SLUSHY MAKER up to 30% OFF! Visit https://Chefman.com/CHICKS and use promo code CHICKS30 to save!!!Get your summer glow with HealthyCell—vibrant hair, radiant skin, and strong nails await! Use promo code CHICKS at https://HealthyCell.com/CHICKS for 20% off your first order.Don't wait to take control of your financial future! Schedule your FREE Know Your Risk Portfolio Review today at https://KnowYourRiskPodcast.com—your peace of mind is just a click away.
During President Trump's first term, the intentional separation of migrant child from their parents shocked the country and persuaded Mr. Trump to say he would end the practice for good.Hamed Aleaziz, who covers immigration policy for The Times, has found that in Mr. Trump's second term, the practice has returned.Guest: Hamed Aleaziz, who covers the Department of Homeland Security and immigration policy in the United States for The New York Times.Background reading: Inside President Trump's new tactic to separate immigrant families.For more information on today's episode, visit nytimes.com/thedaily. Transcripts of each episode will be made available by the next workday. Photo: Victor J. Blue for The New York Times Unlock full access to New York Times podcasts and explore everything from politics to pop culture. Subscribe today at nytimes.com/podcasts or on Apple Podcasts and Spotify.
We're starting to hear the horror stories from some of the Venezuelan men who the Trump Administration deported to the Salvadoran super-max prison known as CECOT. Many of the migrants, who were abruptly released and sent back to Venezuela last month as part of a prisoner exchange with the U.S., allege they suffered physical, psychological and sexual abuse during their detention. At least one man is trying to sue the U.S. government over his time in CECOT. And then there's Andry José Hernández Romero, the gay makeup artist whose story garnered national attention after his arrest. He says he faced constant harassment in the prison because of his sexual orientation. Melissa Shepard, director of legal services at the Immigrant Defenders Law Center and one of Romero's legal representatives, joins us to talk his story and others who were detained at CECOT.And in headlines: President Donald Trump suggested he may soon meet in person with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Texas Democrats were forced to evacuate their Illinois hotel because of a fake bomb threat, and the Department of Homeland Security lifted age limits on Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers.Show Notes:Check out Immigrant Defenders Law Center – www.immdef.org/Call Congress – 202-224-3121Subscribe to the What A Day Newsletter – https://tinyurl.com/3kk4nyz8What A Day – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/@whatadaypodcastFollow us on Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/crookedmedia/For a transcript of this episode, please visit crooked.com/whataday
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
