Liquefied natural gas developers have expansion plans that could release 10 additional metric gigatons of climate pollution by 2030, and major banks and investors are enabling them to the tune of nearly $500 billion.

A new report published by Reclaim Finance on Thursday calculates that, between 2021 and 2023, 400 banks put $213 billion toward LNG expansion and 400 investors funded the buildout with $252 billion as of May 2024.

"Oil and gas companies are betting their future on LNG projects, but every single one of their planned projects puts the future of the Paris agreement in danger," Reclaim Finance campaigner Justine Duclos-Gonda said in a statement. "Banks and investors claim to be supporting oil and gas companies in the transition, but instead they are investing billions of dollars in future climate bombs."

"While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back."

The International Energy Agency has concluded since 2022 that no new LNG export developments are required to meet energy demand while limiting global temperatures to 1.5°C above preindustrial levels. Despite this, LNG developers have upped export capacity by 7% and import capacity by 19% in the last two years alone, according to Reclaim Finance. By the end of the decade, they are planning an additional 156 terminals: 93 for imports and 63 for exports.

Those 63 export terminals, if built, could alone release 10 metric gigatons of greenhouse gas emissions—nearly as much as all currently operating coal plants release in a year. What's more, building more LNG infrastructure undermines the green transition.

"Each new LNG project is a stumbling block to the Paris agreement and will lock in long-term dependence on fossil fuels, hampering the shift toward low-carbon economies," the report authors explained.

Many large banks have pledged to reach net-zero emissions, yet they are still financing the LNG boom. U.S. banks are especially responsible, Reclaim Finance found, funding nearly a quarter of the buildout, followed by Japanese banks at around 14%.

The top 10 banks funding LNG expansion are:

1. Mitsubishi UFG Financial Group (Japan)
2. JP Morgan Chase (U.S.)
3. Mizuho (Japan)
4. Gazprombank (Russia)
5. SMBC Group (Japan)
6. Bank of America (U.S.)
7. Citigroup (U.S.)
8. Goldman Sachs (U.S.)
9. Morgan Stanley (U.S.)
10. RBC (Canada)

While 26 of the banks on the report's list of top 30 LNG financiers have made 2050 net-zero commitments, none of them have adopted a policy to stop funding LNG projects. None of top 10 banks have any LNG policy at all, despite the fact that Bank of America and Morgan Stanley helped found the Net Zero Banking Alliance. Instead of winding down financing, these banks are winding it up, as LNG funding increased by 25% from 2021 to 2023. In 2023 alone, 1,453 transactions were made between banks and LNG developers.

All of this funding comes despite not only climate risks, but also the local dangers posed by LNG export terminals to frontline communities. Venture Global's Calcasieu Pass LNG, for example, has harmed health through excessive air pollution while dredging and tanker traffic has disturbed ecosystems and the livelihoods of fishers.

"Banks still financing LNG export terminals and companies are focused on short-term profits and cashing in on the situation before global LNG oversupply kicks in. On the demand side, financing LNG import terminals delays the much-needed just transition," said Rieke Butijn, a climate campaigner and researcher at BankTrack. "While banks will secure their profits, it's at the expense of frontline communities who often will not be able to get their livelihoods, health, or loved ones back. People from the U.S. Gulf South to Mozambique and the Philippines are rising up against LNG, and banks need to listen."

The report also looked at major investors in the LNG boom. Here too, the U.S. led the way, contributing 71% of the total backing.

The top 10 LNG investors are:

1. BlackRock
2. Vanguard
3. State Street
4. Fidelity Investments
5. Capital Group
6. GPFG
7. JP Morgan Chase
8. Brookfield Asset Management
9. Blackstone
10. MSBI

Just three of these entities—BlackRock, Vanguard, and State Street—contributed 24% of all investments.

Reclaim Finance noted that it is not too late to defuse the LNG carbon bomb.

"Nearly three-quarters of future LNG export and import capacity has yet to be constructed," the report authors wrote. "This means that banks and investors can still act to put an end to the unrestrained support they offer to the companies responsible for LNG expansion."

To this end, Reclaim Finance recommended that banks establish policies to end all financial services to new or expanding LNG facilities and to end corporate financing to companies that develop new LNG export infrastructure. Investors, meanwhile, should set an expectation that any developers in their portfolios stop expansion plans and should not make new investments in companies that continue to develop LNG export facilities. Both banks and investors should make clear to LNG import developers that they must have a plan to transition away from fossil fuels consistent with the 1.5°C goal.

"LNG is a fossil fuel, and new projects have no part to play in a sustainable transition," Duclos-Gonda said. "Banks and investors must take responsibility and stop supporting LNG developers and new terminals immediately."

Environmental advocates this week responded with concern to Meta looking for nuclear power developers to help the tech giant add 1-4 gigawatts of generation capacity in the United States starting in the early 2030s.

Meta—the parent company of Instagram, Facebook, WhatsApp, and more—released a request for proposals to identify developers, citing its artificial intelligence (AI) innovation and sustainability objectives. It is "seeking developers with strong community engagement, development, ...permitting, and execution expertise that have development opportunities for new nuclear energy resources—either small modular reactors (SMR) or larger nuclear reactors."

The company isn't alone. As TechCrunchreported: "Microsoft is hoping to restart a reactor at Three Mile Island by 2028. Google is betting that SMR technology can help it deliver on its AI and sustainability goals, signing a deal with startup Kairos Power for 500 megawatts of electricity. Amazon has thrown its weight behind SMR startup X-Energy, investing in the company and inking two development agreements for around 300 megawatts of generating capacity."

In response to Meta's announcement, Johanna Neumann, Environment America Research & Policy Center's senior director of the Campaign for 100% Renewable Energy, said: "The long history of overhyped nuclear promises reveals that nuclear energy is expensive and slow to build all while still being inherently dangerous. America already has 90,000 metric tons of nuclear waste that we don’t have a storage solution for."

"Do we really want to create more radioactive waste to power the often dubious and questionable uses of AI?" Neumann asked. "In the blind sprint to win on AI, Meta and the other tech giants have lost their way. Big Tech should recommit to solutions that not only work but pose less risk to our environment and health."

"Data centers should be as energy and water efficient as possible and powered solely with new renewable energy," she added. "Without those guardrails, the tech industry's insatiable thirst for energy risks derailing America's efforts to get off polluting forms of power, including nuclear."

In a May study, the Electric Power Research Institute found that "data centers could consume up to 9% of U.S. electricity generation by 2030—more than double the amount currently used." The group noted that "AI queries require approximately 10 times the electricity of traditional internet searches and the generation of original music, photos, and videos requires much more."

Meta is aiming to get the process started quickly: The intake form is due by January 3 and initial proposals are due February 7. It comes after a rare bee species thwarted Meta's plans to build a data center powered by an existing nuclear plant.

Following the nuclear announcement, Meta and renewable energy firm Invenergy on Thursday announced a deal for 760 megawatts of solar power capacity. Operations for that four-state project are expected to begin no later than 2027.

Billionaire Amazon founder Jeff Bezos on Wednesday expressed his optimism about U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's next term and suggested he would "help" the Republican gut regulations.

"If we're talking about Trump, I think it's very interesting, I'm actually very optimistic this time around... I'm very hopeful about this—he seems to have a lot of energy around reducing regulation," Bezos told The New York Times' Andrew Ross Sorkin during the newspaper's DealBook Summit.

"And my point of view, if I can help him do that, I'm gonna help him, because we do have too much regulation in this country. This country is so set up to grow," he continued, suggesting that regulatory cuts would solve the nation's economic problems.

After complaining about the burden of regulations, Bezos added, "I'm very optimistic that President Trump is serious about this regulatory agenda and I think he has a good chance of succeeding."

The comments came during a discussion about Bezos' ownership of The Washington Post, which also addressed the billionaire's recent controversial decisions to block the newspaper's drafted endorsement of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris and have it stop endorsing presidential candidates.

Bezos said Wednesday that he is "very proud" of the move, that the Post "is going to continue to cover all presidents very aggressively," and the decision did not result from fears about Trump targeting his companies.

As Inc.reported Thursday: "Trump had railed against Bezos and his companies, including Amazon and The Washington Post, during his first term. In 2019, Amazon argued in a court case that Trump's bias against the company harmed its chances of winning a $10 billion Pentagon contract. The Biden administration later pursued a contract with both Amazon and Microsoft."

Bezos owns Blue Origin, an aerospace company and a competitor to Elon Musk's SpaceX. Musk—the world's richest person, followed by Bezos, according to the Bloomberg and Forbes trackers—has been appointed to lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

Bezos' remarks at the Times summit led Fortune's Brooke Seipel to suggest that he may be the next billionaire to join DOGE.

Musk and Ramaswamy headed to Capitol Hill on Thursday to speak with GOP lawmakers about their plans for the government.

"Despite its name, the Department of Government Efficiency is neither a department nor part of the government, which frees Musk and Ramaswamy from having to go through the typical ethics and background checks required for federal employment," The Associated Pressnoted. "They said they will not be paid for their work."

The Congressional Progressive Caucus on Thursday elected its leaders for the next term, including Rep. Greg Casar as chair.

"The members of the Progressive Caucus know how to fight billionaires, grifters, and Republican frauds in Congress. Our caucus will make sure the Democratic Party stands up to corporate interests for working people," said Casar (D-Texas), who will replace term-limited Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.).

"I'm honored to build on the legacy of Chair Jayapal," Casar continued. "I've fought back against extremist, egocentric autocrats in Texas for my entire adult life. The Democratic Party must directly take on Trump, and it'll be CPC members boldly leading the way and putting working people first."

Casar, who is currently the CPC whip and ran unopposed, will be joined for the 119th Congress by Reps. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) as deputy chair and Jesús "Chuy" García (D-Ill.) as whip.

"The Congressional Progressive Caucus has always served as an incredible vehicle for transformative change, justice, and movement building," noted Omar. "I am honored to have the support of my colleagues to serve another term as the deputy chair of the Progressive Caucus. Over the next term, we are going to fight to build an inclusive movement that meets the moment."

García said that "I am proud to join incoming Chair Casar, Deputy Chair Omar, and all members of the newly elected executive board as we prepare for the 119th Congress—in which I believe the role the CPC plays will be more critical than ever."

"We are a caucus that gives platform to ideas deeply popular across the political spectrum, and a caucus that builds diverse coalitions to get things done," he continued. "I look forward to working with my colleagues in Congress and partners across the country who believe in people-centered policies rooted in equity and justice for all."

The CPC, first led by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) in 1991, when he was still in the U.S. House of Representatives, has nearly 100 members. The new caucus leaders are set to begin their terms on January 3 and will face not only a Republican-controlled House and Senate, but also U.S. President-elect Donald Trump, who is set to be sworn in on January 20.

"It is my great honor to pass the torch to the next class of elected leadership of the Progressive Caucus: My dear friends and trusted colleagues Reps. Greg Casar, Ilhan Omar, and Chuy García," said Jayapal.

"I was proud to establish term limits when I became chair in 2018, and have full confidence in the abilities of our new class to lead this caucus in the fight against the worst of the incoming Trump administration while rebuilding our party with a focus on economic justice for working people," she added. "I will be cheering these three new leaders and our new vice chairs at every turn as chair emerita come next year, and my heart is very full knowing we will have them at the helm of the CPC."

Speaking with NBC News on Wednesday, 35-year-old Casar said that "the progressive movement needs to change. We need to re-emphasize core economic issues every time some of these cultural war issues are brought up."

"So when we hear Republicans attacking queer Americans again, I think the progressive response needs to be that a trans person didn't deny your health insurance claim, a big corporation did—with Republican help," he explained. "We need to connect the dots for people that the Republican Party obsession with these culture war issues is driven by Republicans' desire to distract voters and have them look away while Republicans pick their pocket."

According to NBC:

That means the Democratic Party needs to "shed off some of its more corporate elements," to sharpen the economic-populist contrast with Republicans and not let voters equate the two parties, he said. He predicted Trump and the Republican-led Congress will offer plenty of opportunities to drive that distinction, including when it pursues an extension of tax cuts for upper earners."The core of the Republican Party is about helping Wall Street and billionaires. And I think we have to call out the game," Casar said. "The Democratic Party, at its best, can hold people or can have inside of its tent people across geography, across race and across ideology. Because we're all in the same boat when it comes to making sure that you can retire with dignity, that your kids can go to school, that you can buy a house."

Others—including Sanders, who sought the Democratic nomination for president in 2016 and 2020—have issued similar calls since Democrats lost the White House and Senate in last month's elections.

"In the recent elections, just 150 billionaire families spent nearly $2 billion to get their candidates elected," Sanders said Saturday. "Our job in the coming months and years is clear. We must defeat the oligarchs and create an economy and government that works for all, not just the few."

On Thursday, both Sanders and Jayapal, who have led the congressional fight for Medicare for All, reiterated calls for a single-payer healthcare program in response to a social media post by Elon Musk, who is set to co-lead Trump's forthcoming Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire Vivek Ramaswamy.

Republican lawmakers on Thursday signaled a willingness to target Social Security and other mandatory programs after meeting with Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy, the billionaire pair President-elect Donald Trump chose to lead a new commission tasked with slashing federal spending and regulations.

Though the GOP's 2024 platform pledged to shield Social Security, the party has reverted to its long-held position in the weeks since Trump's election victory, with some lawmakers openly attacking the program while others suggest cuts more subtly by stressing the supposed need for "hard decisions" to shore up its finances. (Progressives argue Social Security's solvency can be guaranteed for decades to come by requiring the rich to contribute more to the program, a proposal Republicans oppose.)

On Thursday, Rep. Ralph Norman (R-S.C.) emerged from a meeting with Musk and Ramaswamy with the message that "nothing is sacrosanct."

"They're going to put everything on the table," said Norman, one of the wealthiest members of Congress.

After airing Norman's remarks, Fox Business reported that Musk and Ramaswamy told lawmakers that no federal program is safe from cuts, "and that includes Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid."

NBC News congressional correspondent Julie Tsirkin said Thursday that after meeting with Musk, Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.)—who was recently elected Senate majority leader for the upcoming Congress—told her that "perhaps mandatory programs are areas that they're looking to make cuts in, like Social Security, for example."

"But again, no specifics were laid out there," Tsirkin added.

Thune has previously voiced support for raising Social Security's retirement age, a change that would cut benefits across the board.

In the days leading up to their Capitol Hill visit, both Musk and Ramaswamy took swipes at Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid and made clear the programs would be in the crosshairs of their advisory commission, which is examining ways to slash federal spending without congressional approval.

Earlier this week, Musk amplified a series of social media posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to "get rid of" Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Defenders of Social Security saw Lee's thread, and Musk's apparent endorsement of it, as a declaration of war on the New Deal program.

Days later, Ramaswamy said in an interview with CNBC that "there are hundreds of billions of dollars of savings to extract" from Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, claiming the programs are rife with waste, fraud, and abuse.

"People love to have lazy armchair discussions about, oh, are you going to make cuts to entitlements or not, when, in fact, the dirty little secret is that many of those entitlement dollars aren't even going to people who they were supposed to be going to in the first place," said Ramaswamy, advancing a narrative that observers warned could be used to justify additional bureaucratic barriers making it harder for eligible people to receive benefits.

Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said Thursday that the Trump-GOP agenda is "so predictable."

"Tax cuts for billionaire donors; benefit cuts for people on Social Security—how the billionaires loot our country (what, not rich enough already, fellas?)," Whitehouse wrote on social media.

In a column on Thursday, MSNBC's Ryan Teague Beckwith wrote that "Republicans somehow keep coming back to the idea of cutting Social Security" despite widespread opposition to such cuts among the American public.

"Would Trump try to cut Social Security? It's hard to say. Over the years, he has staked out every possible position on Social Security—sometimes within hours of each other," wrote Beckwith, noting that Trump previously called the program a "huge Ponzi scheme" and backed calls to raise the retirement age.

"So if Republicans—or Musk—decide to propose changes to Social Security benefits," Beckwith added, "it's possible that he might go along with it."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to run the Internal Revenue Service, former Rep. Billy Long, didn't serve on the House committee tasked with writing tax policy during his six terms in office, and his lack of relevant experience is likely "exactly what Trump was looking for," according to one economic justice advocate.

Progressive lawmakers joined advocates on Wednesday in denouncing Trump's selection of Long, who since leaving office in 2023 has promoted a tax credit that's been riddled with fraud and who spent his time in the House pushing to abolish the very agency he's been chosen to run.

As a Republican congressman from Missouri, Long repeatedly sponsored legislation to dismantle the IRS, which under President Joe Biden has recovered at least $1 billion from wealthy people who previously evaded taxes.

He also co-sponsored legislation to repeal all estate taxes, which are overwhelmingly paid by the wealthiest households, but "said almost nothing on the floor regarding taxes, the IRS, and taxation during his 12 years in Congress," said John Bresnahan of Punchbowl News.

Long's limited experience with tax policy "ought to set off alarm bells," said Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who pointed to "vastly improved taxpayer service" under the leadership of IRS Commissioner Danny Werfel, who Biden chose to replace Trump's nominee from his first term, Charles Rettig, after Rettig served his full term.

Werfel has "set up a tremendous direct-file system, and begun badly needed crackdowns on ultra-wealthy tax cheats who rip off law-abiding Americans," said Wyden. "If Trump fires Mr. Werfel, it won't be to improve on his work; it'll be to install somebody Trump can control as he meddles with the IRS."

The appointment is likely to commence an "open season for tax cheats," said Lindsay Owens, executive director of Groundwork Collaborative.

Since leaving office, Long has promoted the Employee Retention Tax Credit (ERTC), a pandemic-era credit that was intended to incentivize employers to continue paying workers during the economic shutdown when the coronavirus pandemic hit the United States.

He has worked to help businesses claim the credit from the IRS, but fraudulent and improper claims have so permeated the program that the IRS stopped processing new claims temporarily. The U.S. House passed a bill to entirely halt ERTC claims, but it has been stalled in the Senate.

"These ERTC mills that have popped up over the last few years are essentially fraud on an industrial scale, conning small businesses and ripping off American taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars," said Wyden. "I'm going to have a lot of questions about Mr. Long's role in this business, first and foremost why the American people ought to trust somebody involved with a fraud-ridden industry to run an agency that's tasked with rooting out fraud."

Wyden also pointed out that Long has not been named in a "typical nomination like you'd see after every presidential election." Werfel's term was set to go until November 2027, and the IRS typically operates as a nonpartisan agency.

"Replacing Commissioner Werfel with over three years remaining in his term is a terrible mistake," said Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.). "He has done an excellent job rebuilding the IRS, boosting customer service, and enhancing enforcement aimed at wealthy tax evaders. Removing him will clearly signal Trump's intention to make the agency less responsive to the American people, while giving a green light to wealthy tax cheats to evade their fair share of the tax burden."

"Trump's nominee has clearly stated that he wants to abolish the IRS," added Beyer. "The change Trump proposes in IRS leadership would be a gift to tax cheats and a blow to anyone who believes it is important to rein in deficits."

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) added that Trump's nomination of Long signals "the weaponization of the tax agency."

"If he's confirmed," she said, "taxpayers can expect longer wait times for customer service, a more complicated process to file taxes, and free rein for the rich and powerful to continue rigging the system at the expense of everyone else."

Dozens of civil rights and pro-democracy organizations teamed up Wednesday to express opposition to President-elect Donald Trump's push to use recess appointments to evade the Senate confirmation process for his political nominees, many of which have glaring conflicts of interest.

The 70 groups—including People For the American Way, Public Citizen, the Constitutional Accountability Center, and the NAACP—sent a letter to U.S. senators arguing that Senate confirmation procedures provide "crucial data" that helps lawmakers and the public "evaluate nominees' fitness for the important positions to which they are nominated."

"The framers of the Constitution included the requirement of Senate 'Advice and Consent' for high-ranking officers for a reason: The requirement can protect our freedom, just as the Bill of Rights does, by providing an indispensable check on presidential power," reads the new letter. "None of that would happen with recess appointments. The American people would be kept in the dark."

Since his victory in last month's election, Trump has publicly expressed his desire to bypass the often time-consuming Senate confirmation process via recess appointments, which are allowed under the Constitution and have been used in the past by presidents of both parties. The need for Senate confirmation is already proving to be a significant obstacle for the incoming administration: Trump's first attorney general nominee, Matt Gaetz, withdrew amid seemingly insurmountable Senate opposition, and Pentagon nominee Pete Hegseth appears to be on the ropes.

"Giving in to the president-elect's demand for recess appointments under the current circumstances would dramatically depart from how important positions have always been filled at the start of an administration," the groups wrote in their letter. "The confirmation process gathers important information that helps ensure that nominees who will be dangerous or ineffective for the American people are not confirmed and given great power, and that those who are confirmed meet at least a minimum standard of acceptability."

"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices, and Trump's nominees are no exception."

Scholars argue recess appointments were intended as a way for presidents to appoint officials to key posts under unusual circumstances, not as an exploit for presidents whose nominees run up against significant opposition.

The Senate could prevent recess appointments by refusing to officially go on recess and making use of pro forma sessions, but incoming Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has said that "we have to have all the options on the table" to push through Trump's nominees.

"We are not going to allow the Democrats to thwart the will of the American people in giving President Trump the people that he wants in those positions to implement his agenda," Thune said last month.

Trump has also previously threatened to invoke a never-before-used provision of the Constitution that he claims would allow him to force both chambers of Congress to adjourn, paving the way for recess appointments.

Conservative scholar Edward Whelan, a distinguished senior fellow of the Ethics and Public Policy Center, denounced that proposed route as a "cockamamie scheme" that would mean "eviscerating the Senate's advice-and-consent role."

Svante Myrick, president of People For the American Way, said in a statement Wednesday that "if you're trying to ram through nominees without Senate and public scrutiny, it's a pretty good guess that you have something to hide."

"The American people deserve full vetting of every person selected to serve in our nation's highest offices," said Myrick, "and Trump's nominees are no exception."

Attorneys who argued against Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming healthcare at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday expressed hope that the court's nine justices will take "the opportunity to affirm the essential freedom and equality of all people before the law," while reports indicated that the right-wing majority is inclined to uphold the ban.

"Every day this law inflicts further pain, injustice, and discrimination on families in Tennessee and prevents them from receiving the medical care they need," said Lucas Cameron-Vaughn, staff attorney at the ACLU of Tennessee, which represented three families and a physician. "We ask the Supreme Court to commit to upholding the promises of the U.S. Constitution for all people by putting an end to Tennessee's state-sanctioned discrimination against trans youth and their families."

The law, S.B. 1, which was passed in March 2023, bars medical providers from prescribing puberty-delaying medications, other hormonal treatment, and surgical procedures to transgender minors and youths with gender dysphoria.

The Supreme Court case, United States v. Skrmetti, applies only to the ban on puberty blockers and hormonal therapy for minors; a lower court found the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to challenge the surgery ban.

The ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and a law firm were joined by the Biden administration in arguing that Tennessee allows doctors to prescribe puberty blockers and other hormonal treatments for youths with congenital defects, early puberty, diseases, or physical injuries.

As such, said the plaintiffs, Tennessee's ban for transgender and nonbinary youths violates the U.S. Constitution's 14th Amendment, which guarantees equal treatment under the law.

"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives."

The court's three liberal justices—Justices Sonya Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—all indicated they believed Tennessee has tried to classify people according to sex or gender with the law.

"One of the articulated purposes of this law is essentially to encourage gender conformity and to discourage anything other than gender conformity," said Kagan. "Sounds to me like, 'We want boys to be boys and we want girls to be girls,' and that's an important purpose behind the law."

Matthew Rice, the lawyer representing Tennessee in the case, claimed the state simply wants to prevent "regret" among minors, and the court's six conservative justices signaled they were inclined to allow Tennessee to ban the treatments—which are endorsed by the American Academy of Pediatrics and other top medical associations.

Chief Justice John Roberts said the nine justices should not overrule the decision made by lawmakers representing Tennessee residents, considering there is debate over the issue, and pointed to changes some European countries have made to their gender-affirming care protocols for minors.

Representing the Biden administration, U.S. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar acknowledged that there has been debate about gender-affirming care in the U.S. and abroad, but pointed out that countries including the U.K. and Sweden have not outright banned treatment.

"I think that's because of the recognition that this care can provide critical, sometimes lifesaving benefits for individuals with severe gender dysphoria," she said.

Following the arguments, plaintiff Brian Williams, who has a 16-year-old daughter in need of gender-affirming care, addressed supporters who had assembled outside the Supreme Court.

"Tennessee's ban on gender-affirming medical care is an active threat to the future my daughter deserves," said Williams. "It infringes not only on her freedom to be herself but on our family's love for her. We are not expecting everyone to understand everything about our family or the needs of transgender young people like our daughter. What we are asking for is for her freedom to be herself without fear. We are asking for her to be able to access the care she needs and enter adulthood knowing nothing is holding her back because of who she is."

Sotomayor said there is "very clear" evidence "that there are some children who actually need this treatment."

A 2022 study led by researchers at the University of Washington found that transgender and nonbinary youths aged 13-20 were 60% less likely to experience moderate or severe depression and 73% less likely to be suicidal after receiving gender-affirming care.

Prelogar asked the justices to "think about the real-world consequences of laws like S.B. 1," highlighting the case of a plaintiff identified as Ryan Roe.

Roe had such severe gender dysphoria that "he was throwing up before school every day," said Prelogar. "He thought about going mute because his voice caused him so much distress. And Ryan has told the courts that getting these medications after a careful consultation process with his doctors and his parents, has saved his life."

"But Tennessee has come in and categorically cut off access to Ryan's care," she added. "This law harms Ryan's health and the health of all other transgender adolescents for whom these medications are a necessity."

Tennessee is home to about 3,100 transgender teenagers, and about 110,000 transgender youths between the ages of 13-17 live in the 24 states where gender-affirming care is restricted.

More than 20 states have laws that could be impacted by the court's ruling in United States v. Skrmetti.

"My heart—and the heart of every transgender advocate fighting this fight—is heavy with the weight of what these laws mean for people's everyday lives," said Chase Strangio, co-director of the ACLU's LGBTQ & HIV Project. "But I also know that every out trans person has embraced the unknown in the name of living free from shame or the limits of other people's expectations."

"My heart aches for the parents who spent years watching their children in distress and eventually found relief in the medical care that Tennessee now overrides their judgment to ban," said Strangio. "Whatever happens today, tomorrow, and in the months and years to come, I trust that we will come together to fight for the realized promise of our Constitution's guarantee of equal protection for all."

A ruling in the case is expected in June.

Emphasizing that the Equal Rights Amendment is the only proposed constitutional amendment that has yet to be certified, 46 U.S. senators have joined the growing national call for President Joe Biden to ensure the proposed statute is part of the Constitution when he leaves office in January.

Reporting on the letter on Tuesday, the Virginia-based publication Style Weekly noted that the state's two Democratic senators—Sens. Mark Warner and Tim Kaine—joined almost the entire Democratic caucus in sending the letter to Biden on November 22. Independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont signed the letter, but Sen. Joe Manchin (I-W.Va.), who also caucuses with the Democrats, did not.

The ERA was passed by Congress in 1972, and was immediately ratified by 35 states. It took nearly five decades for the amendment to be ratified by three-fourths of U.S. state legislatures, with Virginia becoming the 38th state to ratify it in 2020.

Despite the amendment meeting the ratification requirements, Biden has yet to direct the national archivist, Colleen Shogan, to certify the ERA and publish it in the Federal Register, which would formally cement it as part of the U.S. Constitution.

Once published, the amendment would guarantee legal equality between men and women, and reproductive rights advocates have said it could be invoked by judges to overturn anti-abortion rights laws that have been passed by Republican-controlled state legislatures across the country—an urgent issue as President-elect Donald Trump's second term in office with a GOP-controlled Congress draws near.

"As you are keenly aware," wrote the senators, "after nearly 50 years under the protections of Roe, more than half of all Americans have seen their rights come under attack, with access to abortion care and lifesaving healthcare varying from state to state. A federal solution is needed, and the ERA is the strongest tool to ensure equality and protect these rights for everyone. It would establish the premise that sex-based distinctions in access to reproductive care are unconstitutional, and therefore that abortion bans—which single out women for unfair denial of medical treatment based on sex—violate a constitutional right to sex equality."

The senators noted that state-level equal rights amendments have already been used in Connecticut, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Nevada to protect against "legislative infringements on women's reproductive freedom."

The letter was reported ahead of a virtual town hall scheduled for Tuesday at 7:00 pm ET, when Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) is scheduled to speak about the ERA.

The town hall was organized by the Biden Publish the ERA Alliance, which consists of 20 non-partisan advocacy groups including Doctors for America, Free Speech for People, and the League of Women Voters.

Organizers are also planning rallies in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday and next week.

Kati Hornung, co-founder of Vote Equality U.S. and a leader in the grassroots effort that pushed Virginia to ratify the ERA, told Style Weekly that Biden "campaigned on fixing our constitutional gender equality gap and his campaign even requested to speak at a VAratifyERA event in 2019."

"He is running out of time to tell the national archivist, Colleen Shogan, to do her job," she said. "One hundred seventy million women and girls have been waiting 101 years for this amendment to be added and with the increased threats to our LGBTQIA+ family and friends, there is no excuse for leaving us all unprotected."

More than a decade after it sparked massive protests in the state capital, a Wisconsin judge on Monday struck down a controversial law that effectively ended public sector collective bargaining in the state.

In his final judgement, Dane County Circuit Judge Jacob Frost crossed out 85 sections of the 2011 law known as Act 10, which was championed by then-Republican Gov. Scott Walker. Frost's ruling restored the union rights of teachers, sanitation workers, nurses, and other public sector employees.

"After 14 years of battling for our collective bargaining rights, we are thrilled to take this step forward," Rocco DeMark, a building service worker and SEIU Wisconsin worksite leader, said in a statement. "This victory brings us immense joy. Our fight has been long, but we are excited to continue building a Wisconsin where we can all thrive."

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again."

Act 10 severely weakened the power of public sector unions in Wisconsin by only permitting them to bargain for wage increases that did not surpass inflation. It also raised what public employees paid for healthcare and retirement, ended the automatic withdrawal of union dues, and required workers to recertify their union votes every year.

The law has had a major impact on the Wisconsin workforce. Between 2000 and 2022, no state saw a steeper decline in its proportion of unionized employees, a drop that the nonpartisan Wisconsin Policy Forum partly attributed to Law 10. Unions say that the law has caused a "crisis" for the state's education workforce, as 40% of new teachers leave within six years due to low pay and an unequal wage system. There is also a 32% vacancy rate for state correction officers.

Act 10 had one exception, however: Certain "public safety" employees such as police and firefighters were exempt from the collective bargaining restrictions imposed on "general" employees. It was this division that unions used to challenge the law in November 2023, arguing that it violated the equal protection clause of the Wisconsin Constitution. In July, Frost affirmed that the law was unconstitutional when he struck down an attempt to dismiss the suit. Then, on Monday, he specified exactly which parts of the law would be struck down.

"Judge Frost's ruling is a monumental victory for Wisconsin's working class," Democratic Wisconsin State Assembly Member Darrion Madison toldCourthouse News Service. "All Wisconsinites deserve the opportunity to live in a state that treats all workers with respect and dignity."

The lawsuit was brought by Ben Gruber, Matthew Ziebarth, the Abbotsford Education Association (WEAC/NEA), AFSCME Local 47, AFSCME Local 1215, Beaver Dam Education Association (WEAC/NEA), SEIU Wisconsin, Teaching Assistants Association (TAA/AFT) Local 3220, and Teamsters Local 695.

"Today's decision is personal for me and my coworkers," said Gruber, who serves as president of AFSCME Local 1215. "As a conservation warden, having full collective bargaining rights means we will again have a voice on the job to improve our workplace and make sure that Wisconsin is a safe place for everyone."

The news was also celebrated by state›wide advocacy groups and national leaders.

"We applaud today's ruling as a win for workers' rights and as proof that when we come together to ensure our courts and elected leaders are working on behalf of our rights and freedoms instead of partisan antics, we can accomplish great things," said A Better Wisconsin Together deputy director Mike Browne.

American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said: "This decision is a big deal. Act 10 stripped workers of the freedom and power to have a voice on the job to bargain wages, benefits, and working conditions. It's about the dignity of work. And when workers have a voice, they have a vehicle to improve the quality of the services they provide to students, patients, and communities."

"Former Gov. Scott Walker tried to eliminate all of that, and it hurt Wisconsin," she continued. "Now, many years later, the courts have found his actions unconstitutional."

Rep. Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) wrote on social media, "I voted against Act 10 more than 13 years ago, and am thrilled our public servants are able to once again organize and make their voices heard."

This is not the first time that Act 10 has been challenged in court, but it is the first time since the state's Supreme Court switched from a conservative to a liberal majority in 2023. Since Republican lawmakers have promised to appeal Frost's ruling, the law's ultimate fate could depend on elections in April 2025, which will determine whether the court maintains its liberal majority, according toThe Associated Press.

As they celebrated, the plaintiffs acknowledged the legal fight was not yet over.

"We realize there may still be a fight ahead of us in the courts, but make no mistake, we're ready to keep fighting until we all have a seat at the table again," Gruber said.

WEAC President Peggy Wirtz-Olsen said: "Today's news is a win and, while there will likely be more legal legwork coming, WEAC and our allies will not stop until free, fair, and full collective bargaining rights are restored."

Betsy Ramsdale, a union leader who teaches in the Beaver Dam Unified School District, said that public sector collective bargaining rights ultimately helped the state.

"We're confident that, in the end, the rghts of all Wisconsin public sector employees will be restored," she said. "Educators' working conditions are students' learning conditions, and everyone benefits when we have a say in the workplace."

A lengthy series of X posts attacking Social Security as a "nightmare" caught the attention of the platform's mega-billionaire owner, Elon Musk, who could soon take aim at the beloved New Deal program as co-chair of an advisory commission tasked with identifying federal spending to slash.

"Interesting thread," Musk, the world's richest man, wrote late Monday in response to the posts by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), who once said he hopes to pull Social Security "up by the roots and get rid of it," along with Medicare and Medicaid.

In his new thread, Lee characterized Social Security—which lifts more Americans above the poverty line than any other federal program—as a "tax plan" insidiously disguised as a retirement plan and condemned the Social Security Act of 1935 as one of many "deceptive sales techniques the U.S. government has used on the American people."

Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), replied Tuesday that Lee's posts amount to "a misrepresentation of Social Security's history and how the program works."

"There is nothing deceptive about Social Security. The social insurance program has been working just fine for nearly 90 years and has never missed a payment," said Richtman. "The kind of propaganda Sen. Lee posted undermines public support for Social Security, making it easier to cut or privatize the program. It is perhaps no coincidence that Sen. Lee's second-biggest campaign contributor by industry is the securities and investment sector."

"The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."

Lee also claimed the federal government "routinely raids" the Social Security Trust Fund—a longstanding and misleading right-wing talking point.

Social Security Works (SSW), a progressive advocacy group, said Tuesday that by amplifying Lee's thread to his hundreds of millions of followers, Musk "just declared war on Social Security."

"For 89 years, through war and peace, boom time and bust, health and pandemics, Social Security has never missed a single payment," said Alex Lawson, SSW's executive director. "Compared to the risky alternatives on Wall Street, Social Security is a rock of retirement security. If billionaires like Elon Musk paid into Social Security at the same rate as the rest of us on all of their income, we could expand benefits for everyone and pay them in full forever."

"This is a declaration of war against seniors, people with disabilities, and the American public," Lawson said. "The Republicans are coming for your Social Security, which they call a 'nightmare.' Elon Musk's commission is a plot to destroy our Social Security by giving it to Wall Street executives—so that you get nothing and they get everything."

"We've seen this play again and again," he added. "When Republicans destroyed defined-benefit pension plans, they claimed that the market would be able to create amazing returns for everybody. Instead, workers got pennies, while Wall Street managers got billions. That is always the plan. We will defeat this Republican effort to steal our earned benefits. The money is ours, Mike Lee, Elon Musk, and Donald Trump. You're not going to get a penny of it."

Richard Fiesta, executive director of the Alliance for Retired Americans, similarly denounced Lee's thread and Musk's promotion of it, saying both "should enrage and concern every single American who has contributed to Social Security."

"Sen. Mike Lee has dreamed about 'phasing out Social Security' and the benefits generations of Americans have earned for more than a decade. His bad ideas have been rightfully ignored but last night he got a big assist from Elon Musk, who amplified Lee's wrongheaded views about Social Security on X."

"Social Security is a solemn promise between the American people and the government," Fiesta continued. "We pay for Social Security's guaranteed benefits with every paycheck and expect them to be there when we retire, lose a spouse or parent, or become disabled. No one voted to phase out Social Security or let Wall Street gamble with their earned benefits. Older Americans will rightly punish any politician who tries to cut their benefits or gut the system that has worked for generations."

On the campaign trail, President-elect Donald Trump pledged to defend Social Security while simultaneously pushing proposals that would wreck the program's finances.

Many Republican lawmakers, who are soon to be in the majority in both chambers of Congress, have called for raising the Social Security retirement age—a change that would cut benefits across the board. On Tuesday, Rep. Rich McCormick (R-Ga.) toldFox Business Network that "we're going to have to have some hard decisions" on Social Security, Medicaid, and Medicare—a euphemism for benefit cuts.

Richtman of NCPSSM said that the kind of attack advanced by Lee and other Republicans "conflicts with President Trump's promise not to tamper with Americans' earned benefits."

"It signals where Trump's MAGA allies in Congress are heading—toward privatization and benefit cuts, something the majority of Americans across party lines say they do not want," Richtman added.

Nearly two years after it was first proposed by Republican lawmakers, an Idaho law that, as one rights advocate said, essentially "traps" people in the state to stop them from getting abortion care, was permitted to go into effect on Monday after a federal appeals court ruling.

The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that Idaho can prohibit people from "harboring or transporting" a minor who needs to leave the state to obtain an abortion, which is still legal in the surrounding states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana.

The law, originally proposed as House Bill 242, makes the so-called crime of "abortion trafficking" punishable by two to five years in prison, even if the pregnant person obtains an abortion in a state where the procedure is legal.

The law was blocked in its entirety in late 2023 by a judge who found it violated First Amendment rights, because it also included a ban on "recruiting" teenagers to obtain abortion care across state lines.

The appeals court on Monday found that the "recruitment" portion of the law did violate the constitutional right to free speech because it could be applied to anything "from encouragement, counseling and emotional support; to education about available medical services and reproductive healthcare; to public advocacy promoting abortion care and abortion access."

"Encouragement, counseling and emotional support are plainly protected speech under Supreme Court precedent," wrote Judge M. Margaret McKeown, an appointee of former Democratic President Bill Clinton, in the majority opinion.

"Republicans want to scare anyone who might help teens access abortion—whether it's a beloved grandmother or a local abortion fund."

Wendy Heipt, an attorney representing the Northwest Abortion Access Fund and the Indigenous Idaho Alliance as well as a lawyer and advocate who sued the state over the law, said the portion of the ruling regarding "recruitment" was a "significant victory for the plaintiffs, as it frees Idahoans to talk with pregnant minors about abortion healthcare."

But Jessica Valenti, a writer and advocate who writes the Substack newsletter Abortion, Every Day, said efforts to establish traveling for abortion care as a crime should be "front page news every single day."

"If legislators were trying to trap men in states where they couldn't get healthcare, we would never hear the end of it," wrote Valenti.

Republicans in Idaho have pushed the law as one that would "stop adults from taking minors across state lines for abortions without parental permission," Valenti added. "In truth, the law criminalizes helping a teenager obtain an abortion in any capacity—anywhere."

She continued that the ban's "sweeping language... could send someone to prison as a 'trafficker' for lending a teen gas money."

"That's the point, of course: Republicans want to scare anyone who might help teens access abortion—whether it's a beloved grandmother or a local abortion fund," wrote Valenti. "They're targeting the helpers."

Tennessee Republicans have also passed an "abortion trafficking" law, but a court blocked it from being enforced in September, with U.S. District Judge Aleta Trauger writing that the state had "chosen to outlaw certain communications in furtherance of abortions that are, in fact, entirely legal."

"It is, therefore, a basic constitutional fact—which Tennessee has no choice but to accept—that as long as there are states in which abortion is permissible, then abortion will be potentially available to Tennesseans," added Trauger.

Republicans in Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma have introduced similar legislation, while Alabama Attorney General Steve Marshall has suggested states can restrict pregnant residents' travel.

Valenti wrote that Monday's ruling "is not just about Idaho" and that laws barring travel for abortion care will not "stop with teenagers."

"Young people are the canaries in the coal mine," she wrote. "What happens to them today comes for us all tomorrow."

Current chair of the Wisconsin Democratic Party Ben Wikler on Sunday officially threw his hat in the ring to take over the national party, leading with a promise to put the working class at the center of its organizing efforts following a crushing defeat to Donald Trump's far-right Republicans in November's election.

"If we're going to take on Trump, Republican extremists, and move our country forward, the Democratic Party needs to be stronger," Wikler said in a statement. "I'm running for Chair of the Democratic National Committee to unite the party, fight everywhere, and win."

With the term of current Democratic National Committee chair Jaime Harrison expiring in the new year, Wikler said his focus will be on lifting up the needs of working-class people, improving communication strategies, and running a more aggressive political operation.

"The soul of the Democratic Party is the fight for working people," Wikler said. "Ours is the party that built the middle class, that won breakthroughs on civil rights, women's rights, workers' rights, freedom and opportunity for all—and has so much more to do."

Wikler, who got his start in state-level politics in his home state and later played a leading role at the national progressive advocacy group MoveOn, notes that while Trump and the Republicans made gains across the board against Democrats in the 2024 election, the swing was much less in Wisconsin where Wikler has rebuilt the party over recent years, taking back majorities in the state legislature and other key fights.

"What has made a difference in Wisconsin," he said, "can make a difference everywhere. We need a nationwide permanent campaign."

In an interview with the New York Times published Sunday, Wikler acknowledged that a significant explanation about the Democratic loss of the presidential race—as well as Republican's winning control of both chambers of Congress—was that too many voters simply don't believe Democrats take their economic concerns seriously or think the party is capable of addressing them.

"It's clear from this election that there are many voters, especially those hardest hit by rising prices, those who experienced the pandemic-era financial support slipping away, who voted primarily on the economy," he said. "We’ve seen in the United States and worldwide if you have to break pills in half to be able to afford your groceries, that is going to be the top-of-mind issue when you go to the ballot box."

The Democratic Party can win, Wikler argued, "when voters know that we're the ones fighting for them against those who will seek to rip them off to add an extra billion dollars to their bank account."

Calling Wikler a "party builder," The Nation's political correspondent John Nichols, also a Wisconsin native, said Wikler joins "an increasingly crowded list of contenders for the post, including Minnesota DFL chair Ken Martin, former Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley and New York state Sen. James Skoufis."

In response to the announcement, former labor secretary Robert Reich gave his endorsement to Wikler in a Sunday blog post, calling him someone who "can turn the Democratic Party into a party that's once again on the side of the little guy."

With the Democratic Party in the midst of deep soul-searching following Vice President Kamala Harris' devastating defeat to Trump, progressives have called for a major rethink. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who ran for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination both in 2016 and 2020 as a challenge to its corporate leanings, said last week that getting big money out of politics should be a top priority for the party's leadership going forward.

"If the Democratic Party is to become a democratic party, the first job of a new DNC Chair is to get super-PAC money out of Democratic primaries," Sanders said. "AIPAC and other billionaire-funded super-PACS cannot be allowed to select Democratic candidates."

Former Ohio state senator Nina Turner, a close Sanders' ally, said the same on Sunday, shortly after Wikler's announcement. "Every candidate running for DNC Chair must commit to getting dark money and corporate money out of the Party. Period," tweeted Turner.

Sanders, Turner, and other progressive voices have been adamant that without a real strategy to win back working-class families, the Democrats are lost.

Randi Weingarten, union president of the American Federation of Teachers, said Wikler "understands how to organize and communicate."

Reich embraced Wikler's call for a new, bolder organizing strategy as well as his record in Wisconsin. "Wikler organized and mobilized voters in a state that Republicans had rigged to ensure total dominance and control. Ben unrigged that system," Reich wrote. "He turned Wisconsin into a year-round organizing and fundraising powerhouse, winning seven of the last 10 statewide elections since he took over."

Reich also explained why it's important that someone like Wikler be the replacement for the outgoing Harrison, a former lobbyist and a staunch ally of the corporate wing of the Democratic Party establishment.

"For years, the Democratic National Committee has been little more than a fundraising machine, which means it's been tilted toward sources of big money—billionaires, big corporations, and Wall Street," argued Reich. "That's precisely the problem. That's why the DNC cut Bernie Sanders off at the knees when he ran against Hillary Clinton in 2016. That's why starting in the 1980s the Party began turning its back on the working class."

"There's no way the Party can speak for the majority of working people in America," concluded Reich, "when it's reluctant to bite the hands that feed it."

The country's largest Muslim civil rights group on Thursday called for added protections for U.S. Reps. Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar after Florida state Sen. Randy Fine issued an apparent threat against the two Muslim lawmakers.

Fine, who has the endorsement of President-elect Donald Trump in his candidacy for the U.S. House of Representatives, called himself the "Hebrew Hammer" in a post on X on Tuesday and suggested Reps. Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Omar (D-Minn.) should leave office for their own safety.

"Bombs away," he added.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations, which has spoken out previously about anti-Palestinian and anti-Muslim statements by Fine (R-19), called the lawmaker an "unhinged anti-Muslim bigot."

His apparent threat of violence "must be investigated by state and federal law enforcement authorities and condemned by both Democratic and Republican Party leadership," said Edward Ahmed Mitchell, national deputy executive director of CAIR. "President-elect Donald Trump, in particular, should denounce Mr. Fine's remarks and the Florida Republican Party should expel him."

"We also call on U.S. Capitol Police to step up protection for Representatives Omar and Tlaib to ensure their safety as they come under increasing threats from anti-Muslim and pro-genocide bigots like Randy Fine," said Mitchell.

Fine was held in contempt of court in Florida earlier this year for making obscene gestures and mouthing curse words at a hearing. He is running in a special election set for April 1, 2025, due to Trump's appointment of Rep. Michael Waltz (R-Fla.) to be national security adviser.

In 2021, the Florida chapter of CAIR filed an ethics complaint against Fine after he posted on social media calling Palestinian people "animals" and calling for their annihilation with the hashtag "#BlowThemUp."

Omar and Tlaib—the only Palestinian-American in Congress—have been vehement critics of the United States' support for Israel's assault on Gaza, and defenders of Palestinian rights.

The watchdog Public Citizen on Wednesday demanded that U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's transition team release a report from an internal investigation into allegations that aide Boris Epshteyn asked potential nominees to pay him monthly consulting fees in exchange for pushing for them to get jobs in the next administration.

"If a pay-for-play operation has corrupted the political appointment process in the Trump transition, as seems to be the case, the full facts must be disclosed to the American people," said Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman in a statement. "If one of Mr. Trump's close advisers has been compromised by personal monetary considerations, then the personnel selection process itself has been compromised."

In a letter to Trump transition co-chairs Howard Lutnick and Linda McMahon, Weissman and Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert noted that "media accounts indicate that the internal report discovered at least two specific incidents where Mr. Epshteyn made inappropriate demands for payment, so the concerns appear far beyond speculative."

Multiple outlets, including Just the News and CNN, reported on the existence of the internal review on Monday.

"One of those who was pitched by Epshteyn for both a consulting contract and an investment opportunity was Scott Bessent, the hedge fund manager named Friday night by Trump as his nominee for Treasury secretary. Bessent rejected the overtures and eventually, when asked, reported concerns about them to the Trump transition team, including Vice President-elect JD Vance," Just the News detailed. "Trump late last week ordered an internal inquiry into the consulting arrangements of Ephsteyn and other contractors to be conducted by lawyer David Warrington with the results to be delivered to his incoming Chief of Staff Susie Wiles."

Just the News continued:

Former Missouri Gov. Eric Greitens, a retired Navy SEAL who previously hired Epshteyn for consulting on an unsuccessful Senate candidacy in 2022, reported to the transition team in a sworn statement that he had an uncomfortable conversation this month with Epshteyn when he inquired about whether he should apply for the job of Navy secretary. "It is too early for that, let's talk business," Greitens quoted Epshteyn as telling him. "Mr. Epshteyn's overall tone and behavior gave me the impression of an implicit expectation to engage in business dealings with him before he would advocate for or suggest my appointment to the president," Greitens wrote in a statement that was submitted Friday to the Trump transition office and obtained by Just the News. "This created a sense of unease and pressure on my part."
Greitens immediately alerted his lawyer to the concerns, who arranged for the statement to be sent to Warrington, the lawyer named by Trump and Wiles to probe the issue, according to interviews and documents.

While CNN reported that the claims "prompted those looking into the matter to make an initial recommendation that Epshteyn should be removed from Trump's proximity and that he should not be employed or paid by Trump entities," the aide broadly denied the alleged behavior.

"I am honored to work for President Trump and with his team," Epshteyn said in a statement. "These fake claims are false and defamatory and will not distract us from Making America Great Again."

In a statement to both outlets, Trump spokesperson Steve Cheung said that "as is standard practice, a broad review of the campaign's consulting agreements has been conducted and completed, including as to Boris, among others. We are now moving ahead together as a team to help President Trump Make America Great Again."

Trump himself told Just the News that "I suppose every president has people around them who try to make money off them on the outside. It's a shame but it happens."

"But no one working for me in any capacity should be looking to make money. They should only be here to Make America Great Again," he added. "No one can promise any endorsement or nomination except me. I make these decisions on my own, period."

Weissman and Gilbert wrote Wednesday: "No doubt Mr. Trump makes his own decisions on personnel. But advisers frame decisions, push for candidates they like, make the case against those they disfavor, and sometimes act as gatekeepers influencing who gets consideration at all. No one doubts that close advisers are impactful."

"The American people have a right to know the facts your internal review has found," the watchdog leaders concluded.

The probe into Epshteyn is part of a flood of ethics problems with Trump's transition team and future administration. Another issue has been a delay in signing transition agreements with the Biden administration. Wiles announced Tuesday that the team finally signed a memorandum of understanding with President Joe Biden's White House.

Wiles also signaled that rather than signing a separate agreement with the General Services Administration to access federal funding, government office space, and cybersecurity support, Trump's transition team will run a privately funded operation. Politicoreported that the team did not respond to a question about another agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice that enables the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to run background checks and start processing security clearances for Cabinet nominees.

U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has criticized the delays in the transition process that is laid out in federal law, said Tuesday that "this announcement fails to answer key questions about national security threats and FBI vetting of nominees, and increases concerns about corruption. There appear to be serious gaps between the Trump transition's ethics agreement and the letter of the law."

While Wiles said the team will disclose its funders and not take foreign money, Warren added that "the reliance on private donors to fund the transition is nothing more than a ploy for well-connected Trump insiders to line their pockets while pretending to save taxpayers money."

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Tuesday sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's threat to impose a 25% tariff on all imported goods from Canada and Mexico, calling the proposal a potentially disastrous distraction from meaningful solutions to drug trafficking and mass migration.

"Migration and drug consumption in the United States cannot be addressed through threats or tariffs," Sheinbaum, a member of Mexico's leftist Morena party, wrote in a letter to Trump. "What is needed is cooperation and mutual understanding to tackle these significant challenges."

Sheinbaum warned that if Trump follows through with his threat, "there will be a response in kind, until we put at risk our shared enterprises," echoing economists' concerns that such sweeping tariffs could result in higher prices for consumers, job losses, and a damaging trade war. Companies in the U.S. are already signaling that they would use tariffs on imports as a justification to raise consumer prices.

"Among Mexico's main exporters to the United States are General Motors, Stellantis, and Ford Motor Company, which arrived in Mexico 80 years ago," Sheinbaum wrote. "Why impose a tariff that would jeopardize them? Such a measure would be unacceptable and would lead to inflation and job losses in both the United States and Mexico."

"Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours."

Sheinbaum's letter to Trump was made public hours after the U.S. president-elect took to his social media platform, Truth Social, to fearmonger about a supposedly "unstoppable" migrant "caravan coming from Mexico."

Trump pledged to "sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25% Tariff on ALL products coming into the United States" and said such tariffs would remain in place until Mexico and Canada—the nation's largest trading partners—halt the flow of migrants and drugs, particularly fentanyl, into the U.S.

"Both Mexico and Canada have the absolute right and power to easily solve this long simmering problem," Trump wrote. "We hereby demand that they use this power, and until such time that they do, it is time for them to pay a very big price!"

In her response, Sheinbaum wrote that Trump "may not be aware" that Mexico "has developed a comprehensive policy to assist migrants from different parts of the world who cross our territory en route to the southern border of the United States." Sheinbaum noted that the policy helped produce a major decline in migrant encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border over the past year.

"For these reasons, migrant caravans no longer arrive at the border," the Mexican president wrote. "Even so, it is clear that we must work together to create a new labor mobility model that is necessary for your country, as well as address the root causes that compel families to leave their homes out of necessity."

"If even a small percentage of what the United States allocates to war were instead dedicated to building peace and fostering development, it would address the underlying causes of human mobility," she added.

Sheinbaum went on to write that Mexico has "consistently expressed its willingness" to help stop fentanyl and weapons from entering the United States through its southern border.

"You must also be aware of the illegal trafficking of firearms into my country from the United States," she wrote. "Seventy percent of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from your country. We do not produce these weapons, nor do we consume synthetic drugs. Tragically, it is in our country that lives are lost to the violence resulting from meeting the drug demand in yours."

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau offered a far more vague response to Trump's tariff threat, telling reporters that he had a "good conversation" with the U.S. president-elect following his Truth Social post.

"This is a relationship that we know takes a certain amount of working on, and that's what we'll do," Trudeau said.

The Biden administration on Tuesday unveiled a new rule aimed at reining in privatized Medicare Advantage plans, which have drawn growing federal scrutiny for denying coverage claims en masse—sometimes using artificial intelligence—and overbilling the government to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year.

But the proposal could soon be fed through the buzzsaw of the incoming Trump administration, which is likely to have an outspoken Medicare Advantage supporter, Mehmet Oz, at the helm of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS).

Biden's CMS said in a fact sheet released Tuesday that the new rule would ensure MA companies make enrollees aware of their right to appeal coverage denials. CMS pointed to data showing that MA plans, which now cover more than half of the Medicare-eligible population, "overturn 80% of their decisions to deny claims when those claims are appealed."

"These data also show that a low percentage of denied claims are appealed, meaning many more could potentially be overturned by the plan if they were appealed," CMS added.

The rule would also look to constrain MA plans' deceptive marketing practices and "use of inappropriate prior authorization." Prior authorization is a byzantine process under which providers must demonstrate that a proposed treatment is medically necessary before the insurer will cover it.

"The big question, of course, is what will the Trump administration do with these rules? Will they side with patients needing treatment or care-denying big insurers?"

Robert Weissman, co-president of the consumer advocacy group Public Citizen, welcomed the new rule as a "common-sense" measure that would "limit" some of the damage inflicted by MA plans, which are notorious for denying patients necessary care.

"The big question, of course, is what will the Trump administration do with these rules? Will they side with patients needing treatment or care-denying big insurers?" Weissman continued. "Unfortunately, despite its populist pretensions, there's every reason to expect the Trump administration to block these proposed rules from moving forward. Dr. Mehmet Oz, Trump's nominee to run the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, is a major proponent of expanding privatized Medicare, with nary a worry about privatized Medicare's rampant abuses and rip-offs of taxpayers."

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), chair of the Senate Finance Committee, vowed Tuesday that he will "be watchdogging the incoming Trump administration to ensure there is no backsliding on these critical consumer protections and coverage improvements."

Oz, a long-time television personality known for hawking unproven treatments, has been characterized as a "shill" for MA, a program funded by taxpayers and run by for-profit insurance companies.

As recently as August, Oz boosted Medicare Advantage on his YouTube account, as New York magazine reported earlier this week:

In August, Dr. Mehmet Oz's official YouTube account posted a video titled "Get $0/Month Medicare Coverage: What You Need to Know," in which Oz lays a sales pitch on his viewers. "Which of these items can you get for zero dollars?" he says, pointing to images of a coffee cup, a pack of gum, and a newspaper, as if quizzing a toddler on the pictures in a children’s book. "Or how about a health insurance plan?" he says. If you've ever watched daytime television, you know how the next part goes: Oz reveals he was, indeed, talking about the health insurance plan, and the studio audience erupts into applause. He then brings out an insurance agent to paint a rosy portrait of Medicare Advantage before ending with a call to action, encouraging any seniors in the audience to call in to a special phone number or visit a website to learn more and enroll.

During his 2022 bid for a U.S. Senate seat, Oz campaigned on a proposal he called "Medicare Advantage for All"—while owning stock in UnitedHealth Group, the nation's largest MA insurer.

Oz's support for Medicare Advantage aligns with the Project 2025 agenda, which calls for making MA the default enrollment option for U.S. seniors—an existential threat to traditional Medicare. Such a sweeping change would hugely benefit UnitedHealth and other private insurance giants.

"Project 2025's plans for Medicare, seconded by Dr. Oz, will end Medicare as we know it, and leave seniors to the tender mercies of dishonest and debased private insurance plans," The American Prospect's Robert Kuttner warned Tuesday. "What's insidious is that none of these changes require legislation. The best we can hope for is that the sunlight of exposure of these schemes will act as a disinfectant."

Boris Epshteyn, a leading adviser to President-elect Donald Trump, allegedly sought payments in the tens of thousands of dollars in exchange for promoting candidates for top positions in the incoming administration, a scheme that observers saw as further evidence of the corruption pervading the Republican leader's inner circle.

Multiple news outlets reported Monday that the top attorney on Trump's transition team investigated Epshteyn—who helped represent the former president during his effort to overturn the results of the 2020 election—over accusations that he requested payments from people seeking roles in the incoming administration.

Scott Bessent, Trump's pick to lead the Treasury Department, was among those Epshteyn pushed for payments , according toThe Associated Press.

The Washington Post reported Monday that Epshteyn asked Bessent for "a monthly stipend of at least $30,000" in exchange for promoting him for the Treasury role, an offer Bessent declined. Epshteyn "later asked Bessent to invest $10 million in a three-on-three basketball league," according to the Post, which cited an internal legal review.

Epshteyn called the accusations "fake" and "defamatory."

Reports of Epshteyn's scheme came amid broader concerns about glaring conflicts of interest within Trump's transition team and incoming administration, both of which are teeming with lobbyists and executives who stand to benefit from the president-elect's second term.

"In any organization, when the person at the top is as corrupt as Trump, everyone else becomes corrupt, because otherwise you're a sucker," journalist Jon Schwarz wrote Monday.

In what one watchdog group called "a highly unprecedented move," Trump has thus far refused to sign a legally required ethics pledge and other documents necessary to formally set the transition in motion. By not signing the ethics pledge, Trump has been able to conceal the names of individuals and corporations financing his return to power, allowing them to contribute unlimited sums.

"This resistance to commit to ethical conduct while serving as president is a red flag pointing to nothing so much as greed and corruption and an intention to enrich himself and/or his family through the extensive powers of his office," Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, said in a statement Monday. "Americans expect and deserve a president who prioritizes the nation's well-being over personal gain. They will not tolerate a president who abuses the powers of his office to line his own pockets."

During his first term, according to a recent analysis by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, Trump "likely benefited from $13.6 million in payments from foreign governments" to his companies.

Trump, granted sweeping immunity by the conservative-dominated Supreme Court, is poised to enrich himself further during his second term. As the Postnoted last week, the president-elect "has made no promises to divest from any of his financial interests, which have now soared to include a cryptocurrency business and a stake valued at $3.76 billionin a social media company, in addition to his family firm's growing number of foreign deals."

"The unprecedented scenario of a president holding a single company's shares worth billions of dollars—as Trump does in Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., the parent company of Truth Social—is unanticipated by existing law," the Post added.

Delaney Marsco and Maha Quadri of Campaign Legal Center wrote earlier this month that "in the absence of swift, concrete action by the president-elect to signal his dedication to ethics standards, all signs point to a second term that will prioritize personal interest over public good, and a declining trust in public institutions."

President-elect Donald Trump's choice of Russell Vought, a Project 2025 architect, to lead the White House budget office was seen as further evidence of the threat the incoming administration poses to Social Security, Medicare, and other critical government programs.

Vought, who currently heads the far-right think tank Center for Renewing America think tank, served as director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) during Trump's first term, and he's set to return to the post after playing a central role in crafting the Project 2025 agenda that the Republican president-elect attempted to disavow on the campaign trail.

In remarks to an undercover journalist earlier this year, Vought dismissed the notion that Trump opposed the aims of Project 2025, saying the Republican leader was "very supportive of what we do."

Vought is expected to aggressively pursue federal spending cuts in concert with other actors within and around the incoming Trump administration, including the "government efficiency" commission led by billionaires Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy.

"With the architect of Project 2025 nominated to lead Trump's Office of Management and Budget, there can be no distinction between the two."

During his tenure at OMB and as an outside adviser to Republican lawmakers, Vought advocated massive cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, programs that the GOP is targeting as it looks to offset the costs of its proposed tax cuts.

Vought also spearheaded budget proposals from the Trump White House that recommended cuts to Social Security and Medicare, both of which the president-elect vowed to protect during his 2024 campaign.

"Vought oversaw every budget in the first Trump administration that cut Social Security and Medicare," said Tony Carrk, executive director of the watchdog group Accountable.US. "This much is clear: Social Security and Medicare are at risk in the second Trump presidency."

According to Accountable, Vought is one of at least six individuals associated with Project 2025 whom Trump has picked for a spot in the incoming administration.

"With the architect of Project 2025 nominated to lead Trump's Office of Management and Budget," said Carrk, "there can be no distinction between the two."

While Project 2025's sweeping policy document includes little discussion of Social Security, the far-right program's authors have endorsed changes such as raising the retirement age—which would result in across-the-board benefit cuts.

As for Medicare, Project 2025 proposes making privatized Medicare Advantage plans the default enrollment option for U.S. seniors, a change that would be massively profitable for insurance giants and potentially disastrous for patients.

Vought's nomination to lead OMB is expected to bolster Trump administration efforts to slash spending across the federal government. As Punchbowlreported Monday, Vought "is among those Trump allies looking to challenge Congress' authority over spending via impoundment," a strategy that Democratic lawmakers have condemned as unlawful.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, told Punchbowl in a statement that Vought "is deeply confused about this and many other points about the Constitution and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974."

"While Trump distanced himself from Project 2025, Vought's nomination makes it crystal clear that Trump lied to the American people," said DeLauro. "Trump's agenda is the Project 2025 manifesto."

With the stock market surging Monday morning after U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of hedge fund manager Scott Bessent to be treasury secretary, some Wall Street executives said they were celebrating a "reasonable" pick who would moderate some of Trump's most extreme proposals.

But economic justice advocates and experts said the jubilation was likely over expectations that Bessent will deliver "trillions in tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy."

Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, founder and president of the Yale Chief Executive Institute, toldCNN that the billionaire Key Square Group executive is a "pragmatic" choice who supports only "selective tariffs" and could dial back Trump's plan to introduce across-the-board tariffs of up to 20% on imported goods—a plan that economists say would raise prices for U.S. households.

But Bessent himself told radio host Larry Kudlow on Saturday that tariffs "can't be inflationary."

David Kass, executive director of the economic justice group Americans for Fair Taxation (ATF), said that during Bessent's confirmation process, the organization will work to ensure lawmakers get answers to questions about whether the Wall Street billionaire plans to use tariffs to fund another Trump plan Bessent has endorsed: the renewal of the 2017 tax cuts.

"As income inequality is soaring and Americans are being crushed by the rising costs of living, we have to ask why billionaire Scott Bessent supports renewing the Trump tax bill, which gives trillions in tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy and mega-corporations," Kass said. "Moreover, we also need to know how Mr. Bessent would fund this massive tax giveaway. Will he make working and middle-class Americans foot the bill by enacting wide-ranging cuts to vital government programs like Social Security and Medicare? Will he squeeze Main Street by raising prices on essential goods through tariffs?"

The government watchdog Accountable.US noted that Bessent has defended Trump's tariff plan, which analysts found would raise annual household costs by an average of $3,900, while backing the extension of Trump's tax plan, which overwhelmingly benefited the wealthy and corporations.

"For all his talk of looking out for working-class Americans, President-elect Trump's choice of a billionaire hedge fund manager to lead the Treasury Department shows he just wants to keep a rigged system that only works for big corporations and the very wealthy," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk. "If confirmed, Scott Bessent's first order of business will be to push trillions of dollars in more tax giveaways to the very well-off and at the same time essentially enact a $3,900 tax increase for the typical American family."

"This is yet another disastrous cabinet nomination by Donald Trump, and a further indication of the administration's plans for massive giveaways to the superrich and slashing of regulatory safeguards that guarantee the well-being of the American people."

As the Dow Jones Industrial Average surged by 500 points on Monday, National Association of Manufacturers CEO Jay Timmons told CNN that Bessent is likely to try to rein in what he called President Joe Biden's "out-of-control government spending." Republican leaders have signaled that with the GOP set to control both chambers of Congress as well as the White House starting in January, the party is likely to try to make cuts to Medicare and Social Security—long derided by the right as too expensive and wasteful.

"Wall Street may be breathing a sigh of relief at Scott Bessent's nomination, but working people see no help coming their way," Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who is set to be the highest-ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, said Monday. "Mr. Bessent's expertise is helping rich investors make more money, not cutting costs for families squeezed by corporate profiteering."

Earlier this year, Bessent told his clients at Key Square Group that a second Trump turn would mean an "economic lollapalooza" for them, with the Republican lowering taxes for his wealthy investors and bringing about an era of deregulation.

The Republican megadonor has proposed a "3-3-3" policy approach to Trump, which would include cutting the budget deficit by 3% by 2028, boosting GDP growth by 3%, and urging Big Oil to produce another 3 million barrels of crude oil per day.

Bessent has also expressed support for Trump's embrace of the cryptocurrency industry, which poured more than $110 million into federal election spending this year and spent an all-time high of $24.7 million on anti-regulatory lobbying in 2023.

Brad Garlinghouse, CEO of financial tech firm Ripple, said Friday that he expects Bessent to be "the most pro-innovation, pro-crypto treasury secretary we've ever seen." Critics have warned that the unregulated and highly speculative crypto industry has little to offer working people.

"America doesn't need a hedge fund executive to lead its economic policymaking, least of all one under the delusion that tax cuts for the rich, rollbacks of public regulatory protections, and an increase in oil drilling is somehow the way to strengthen the nation's economy," said Robert Weissman, co-president of consumer advocacy group Public Citizen. "This is yet another disastrous cabinet nomination by Donald Trump, and a further indication of the administration's plans for massive giveaways to the superrich and slashing of regulatory safeguards that guarantee the well-being of the American people."

Despite some proponents' claims that Bessent is a more mainstream pick than some other names that were floated for treasury secretary, Carrk said the nomination is from "the same old playbook, and it will have the same results of an economy that only works for a select few, not everyone."

Democrats on the House Budget Committee said Friday that the plan Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy outlined to eliminate spending already appropriated by the U.S. Congress would run afoul of a federal law enacted in response to former President Richard Nixon's impoundment of funds for programs he opposed.

In a Wall Street Journal op-ed published earlier this week, Musk and Ramaswamy specifically mentioned the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act (ICA) only to wave it away, arguing it would not hinder their effort to enact sweeping spending cuts as part of the "government efficiency" commission President-elect Donald Trump appointed them to lead.

But House Budget Committee Democrats said Friday that the Nixon-era law and subsequent Supreme Court rulings make clear that "the power of the purse rests solely with Congress."

"Fifty years after the ICA became law, Congress once again confronts a threat attempting to push past the long-recognized boundaries of executive budgetary power," the lawmakers wrote in a fact sheet. "During his first administration, President Trump illegally impounded crucial security assistance funding for Ukraine in an effort to benefit his reelection campaign. Now, Donald Trump and his far-right extremist allies are pushing dangerous legal theories to dismantle that system."

"They want to give the president unchecked power to slash funding for programs like food assistance, public education, healthcare, and federal law enforcement—all without congressional approval," the Democrats continued. "American families would be forced to pay more for basic necessities, investment in infrastructure and jobs would decline, and our communities would become less safe. Instead of working within the democratic process, Trump and his allies want to sidestep Congress entirely. But the Constitution is clear: only Congress, elected by the people, controls how taxpayer dollars are spent."

"House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

The fact sheet was released days after Musk and Ramaswamy, both billionaires, offered for the first time a detailed explanation of their plan to pursue large-scale cuts to federal regulations and spending, as well as mass firings of federal employees, in their role as co-heads of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

The pair noted that Trump "has previously suggested" the ICA is unconstitutional and expressed the view that "the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question." The former president appointed half of the court's right-wing supermajority.

"But even without relying on that view, DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood."

Other programs that would be vulnerable if Musk, Ramaswamy, Trump, and Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.)—who's set to lead a new related House subcommittee—get their way are veterans' healthcare, Head Start, housing assistance, and childcare aid, according toThe Washington Post.

Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the top Democrat on the House Budget Committee, said in a statement Friday that "the legal theories being pushed by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are as idiotic as they are dangerous."

"Unilaterally slashing funds that have been lawfully appropriated by the people's elected representatives in Congress would be a devastating power grab that undermines our economy and puts families and communities at risk," said Boyle. "House Democrats are ready to fight back against any illegal attempt to gut the programs that keep American families safe and help them make ends meet."

An analysis released Wednesday showed that the United States' 815 billionaires have seen their combined wealth surge by roughly $280 billion since Donald Trump's victory in the 2024 presidential election earlier this month, a finding that came as Republicans continued to lay the groundwork for another massive tax giveaway for the rich.

Citing Forbes data, Americans for Tax Fairness (ATF) noted that the collective net worth of the nation's billionaires jumped $276 billion between November 4—the day before Election Day—and November 12. Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest man and a Trump confidant, accounted for 20% of the total billionaire wealth surge, with his net worth growing by $57 billion in just a week.

ATF found that U.S. billionaire wealth is now at an all-time high of $6.7 trillion—a fact that hasn't deterred Republican lawmakers from pursuing additional tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, which they want to pay for in part by slashing Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance.

"Among the tax handouts the GOP hopes to offer America's plutocrats is a weakening or elimination of the estate tax, the federal government's only curb on dynastic wealth," ATF noted. "As proof of the party's intent, the new Republican majority in the U.S. Senate has chosen as its next leader the chamber's main champion of estate-tax repeal, John Thune (R-S.D.)."

The group observed that scrapping the estate tax would save billionaire households an estimated $2.7 trillion while depriving "working Americans of the exact same amount of funding for vital public services like Medicare, childcare, education, and housing."

Since the highly regressive 2017 Trump-GOP tax cut that Republicans are looking to extend and expand, U.S. billionaire wealth has risen by $3.8 trillion—over 131%—according to ATF.

"Instead of addressing the nation's growing economic inequality and the growing shortfall in federal revenue, President Trump and congressional Republicans plan to make the situation even worse by enacting a new tax cut package that gives billionaires tax breaks on the backs of working people," the group said Wednesday. "This Republican tax plan will start with extending all the expiring provisions in the 2017 Trump law—which alone will balloon the federal debt by $5 trillion over the next decade—but will likely include new handouts to the very wealthy, such as elimination of the estate tax."

During a hearing on Wednesday, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) voiced similar concerns about the Trump-GOP tax agenda, which also includes cutting the statutory corporate tax rate from 21% to 15%.

"President-elect Trump has proposed making every single 2017 tax cut for the wealthy permanent," Warren said during the Senate hearing. "In fact, he plans to go further by cutting the corporate tax rate even more, so that giant corporations making record profits off struggling Americans can shovel even more cash to their rich executives and shareholders."

"The tax fight is starting now, and every person in the United States, every person in the Senate, needs to show the American people what side we stand on," said Warren. "Will we sign our names to more giveaways to President-elect Trump's billionaire buddies, or will we fight for tax fairness for the American people?"

Georgia officials fired everyone on the Maternal Mortality Review Committee after ProPublica reported that the panel found the deaths of two women whose care was restricted by the state's abortion ban were preventable, the news outlet revealed Thursday.

ProPublica first exposed the committee's findings for Amber Nicole Thurman and Candi Miller in September, sparking a flood of criticism directed at abortion care restrictions and the primarily Republican politicians who impose them. Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris, who was running for the White House, even traveled to Atlanta to pay tribute to the two women.

"They didn't like that reporters found out that the state's ban killed two women."

Thurman and Miller's stories, as the news outlet acknowledged Thursday, "became a central discussion" in not only the presidential contest—ultimately won by Republican President-elect Donald Trump, who has bragged about the role he played in reversing Roe v. Wade—but also ballot initiatives to protect abortion rights in 10 states, seven of which succeeded.

In a November 8 letter obtained by ProPublica, Georgia Department of Public Health Commissioner Dr. Kathleen Toomey wrote that an "investigation was unable to uncover which individual(s) disclosed confidential information" despite state law and confidential agreements signed by panel members barring such disclosures.

Toomey explained that the committee was immediately "disbanded," a replacement panel will be formed through a new application process, and additional procedures are under consideration regarding confidentiality, oversight, and organizational structure.

ProPublica reported that the office of Republican Gov. Brian Kemp—who appointed Toomey—declined to comment and referred questions to the health department, whose spokesperson also declined to comment, saying that the letter, "speaks for itself."

As the outlet detailed:

Reproductive rights advocates say Georgia's decision to dismiss and restructure its committee also could have a chilling effect on the committee's work, potentially dissuading its members from delving as deeply as they have into the circumstances of pregnant women's deaths if it could be politically sensitive. "They did what they were supposed to do. This is why we need them," said Monica Simpson, executive director of SisterSong, one of the groups challenging Georgia's abortion ban in court. "To have this abrupt disbandment, my concern is what we are going to lose in the process, in terms of time and data?"

Other reproductive rights advocates and journalists were similarly critical in response to the new reporting from ProPublica—which has also covered the deaths of two women in Texas: Josseli Barnica and Nevaeh Crain.

"Women died because they received no life-saving care as they were having miscarriages in Georgia and the state responded by simply eradicating the committee that investigated deaths of pregnant women," declared writer and organizer Hannah Riley.

The National Institute for Reproductive Health, an advocacy group, asserted that "when anti-abortion politicians find FACTS inconvenient, they dismantle the systems meant to hold them accountable."

New York magazine senior correspondent Irin Carmon, whose forthcoming book is about pregnancy in the United States, similarly said: "This is how they cover up what abortion bans do—fire anyone who helps tell the stories of harm. Everyone who is or can be pregnant will pay the price."

Jessica Valenti, author of the newsletterAbortion, Every Day and the bookAbortion, also argued that Georgia officials fired the panel members because "they didn't like that reporters found out that the state's ban killed two women."

"I wrote about this in my book—this is how they cover up our deaths," Valenti continued. "In Idaho, they disbanded the Maternal Mortality Review Committee altogether; in Texas, they put a well-known anti-abortion activist on there to skew the data."

"I guarantee you that when Georgia replaces those seats on the Maternal Mortality Review Committee, they're going to put anti-abortion activists on there," she added. "Just watch."

The Biden administration on Thursday said it "fundamentally" rejected the International Criminal Court's arrest warrant for Israel's prime minister and ex-defense minister—but the Dearborn, Michigan mayor who has been an outspoken critic of U.S. support for Israel in recent months said he would join the majority of countries in recognizing the court's jurisdiction, and would carry out the warrants if given the chance.

"Our president may not take action, but city leaders can ensure [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu and other war criminals are not welcome to travel freely across these United States," said Mayor Abdullah Hammoud on the social media platform X.

Hammoud said Dearborn authorities would arrest Netanyahu and former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant if they set foot within city limits, and called on other cities across the United States to do the same.

The ICC said Thursday that it had found "reasonable grounds" to arrest Netanyahu and Gallant for "crimes against humanity and war crimes," more than 13 months after Israel began its bombardment and near-total blockade on Gaza. The court also issued a warrant for Hamas leader Mohammed Deif, who was killed in an airstrike in July. The ICC said it could not confirm Deif's death.

In May, President Joe Biden said ICC chief prosecutor Karim Khan's application for arrest warrants for Netanyahu and Gallant was "outrageous."

On Thursday, a White House National Security Council spokesperson said the Biden administration was "deeply concerned by the prosecutor’s rush to seek arrest warrants."

The U.S. is joined by powerful governments including those of China, Russia, Israel, and India in refusing to recognize the ICC's jurisdiction; 124 countries are parties to the Rome Statute, which established the ICC as a court that prosecutes individuals accused of war crimes.

Gaza officials say the death toll in the enclave has passed 44,000 since Israel began its assault, with Gallant saying he had "released all the restraints" on the military. Nearly 70% of deaths verified by the United Nations in Gaza have been among women and children. Israel also faces a case at the International Court of Justice in which South Africa and several other countries have accused it of genocidal acts.

The Irish Foreign Ministry on Thursday called on all governments to respect the ICC's "independence and impartiality, with no attempts made to undermine the court."

Progressive U.S. advocacy group RootsAction urged "people everywhere to perform a citizen's arrest of Netanyahu wherever he can be found, including in Washington D.C."

Democracy for the Arab World Now (DAWN), a U.S.-based human rights group, noted that "Article 25(3)(c) of the Rome Statute outlines clear criminal liability for aiding and abetting war crimes, which applies to individuals in non-member states like the U.S. when their actions enable violations under ICC jurisdiction."

"By continuing to provide military assistance to Israeli officials," said DAWN advocacy director Raed Jarrar, "despite credible accusations of war crimes by the ICC, U.S. leaders—including President Biden, Secretary [Antony] Blinken, and Secretary [Lloyd] Austin—are exposing themselves to personal liability under international law."

The two right-wing billionaires President-elect Donald Trump has tasked with spearheading a new "government efficiency" commission outlined their vision Wednesday for the mass firing of federal employees, large-scale deregulation, and major spending cuts that could impact antipoverty programs, drug research and development, and more.

For the first time since Trump announced plans to create the Department on Government Efficiency (DOGE)—which, despite its name, would be an advisory commission rather than an actual federal department—Tesla CEO Elon Musk and biotech entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy offered a detailed look at how they plan to achieve their stated objective of taking a "chainsaw" to federal operations.

"We are assisting the Trump transition team to identify and hire a lean team of small-government crusaders, including some of the sharpest technical and legal minds in America," the pair wrote in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal. "The two of us will advise DOGE at every step to pursue three major kinds of reform: regulatory rescissions, administrative reductions, and cost savings. We will focus particularly on driving change through executive action based on existing legislation rather than by passing new laws."

Decrying rules crafted by "unelected bureaucrats," Musk and Ramaswamy—unelected outside advisers—wrote that they intend to present to Trump "a list of regulations" they believe should be eliminated. The culling of regulations would, they argued, provide the justification for "mass headcount reductions"—corporate-speak for sweeping firings—across federal agencies, a plan the two wrote would not be deterred by civil service protections.

Watchdogs have noted that the regulatory cuts envisioned by the commission's co-leaders would likely benefit Musk's companies, at least three of which are currently under scrutiny from nine federal agencies.

"Based on Elon Musk's comments, the so-called Department of Government Efficiency is poised to make far-reaching recommendations that could have a devastating impact on Americans and enormously benefit insiders, starting with Musk himself," Public Citizen co-president Robert Weissman said Wednesday.

"A second Trump term will undoubtedly see a multipronged attack on any institution that seeks to constrain big business, and DOGE will lead the charge."

Musk and Ramaswamy also laid out a plan under which Trump would evade existing federal statutes such as the Impoundment Control Act to cut spending already allocated by Congress.

"DOGE will help end federal overspending by taking aim at the $500 billion-plus in annual federal expenditures that are unauthorized by Congress or being used in ways that Congress never intended, from $535 million a year to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and $1.5 billion for grants to international organizations to nearly $300 million to progressive groups like Planned Parenthood," they wrote.

As The Washington Post's Jacob Bogage recently observed, the federal programs "without separate spending authorization" that Musk and Ramaswamy are targeting "represent more than $516 billion" and encompass key areas including veterans' healthcare, education spending, housing assistance, childcare aid, student loan programs, Head Start, opioid addiction treatment, and NASA.

Musk, a megadonor to Trump's 2024 presidential bid, claimed on the campaign trail that he would be able to identify "at least $2 trillion" in possible cuts to federal spending.

Casey Wetherbee, an Argentina-based writer, warned Wednesday that "Musk and Ramaswamy's admiration of Argentine president Javier Milei offers us a glimpse into their ideal end state."

"Ramaswamy tweeted on November 18: 'A reasonable formula to fix the U.S. government: Milei-style cuts, on steroids,'" Wetherbee wrote for Jacobin. "When Milei assumed office last year, he declared that conditions would worsen before things would get better; Musk similarly warned that DOGE’s recommendations may cause 'temporary hardship.' Meanwhile, in Argentina, Milei's austerity measures have targeted the country's social safety net, causing the poverty rate to skyrocket while only lowering taxes for the country's wealthiest citizens, a troubling outlook for a second Trump administration if DOGE's advice is ever implemented."

"A second Trump term will undoubtedly see a multipronged attack on any institution that seeks to constrain big business, and DOGE will lead the charge," Wetherbee added. "After all, in DOGE's public call for collaborators, it seeks 'super high-IQ small-government revolutionaries'; that's how they see themselves. We can only hope that, by virtue of how evidently insufferable they are, DOGE's relationship with the Trump administration flames out spectacularly."

Consumer advocacy group Public Citizen feigned surprise on Wednesday over President-elect Donald Trump's nomination of Wall Street CEO Howard Lutnick to lead the U.S. Department of Commerce.

"Oh look, another billionaire has made his way into Trump's Cabinet," said the group, noting Lutnick is also a promoter of cryptocurrency and a Trump megadonor. "The conflicts of interest are almost too many to count."

Among the conflicts are Lutnick's involvement in the crypto industry and federal and state cases against Cantor Fitzgerald.

In addition to running the Wall Street firm, Lutnick is a banker for the "stablecoin" company Tether; purchasers receive a Tether token for $1, with the proceeds invested in reserves and Treasury bonds managed by Lutnick's Cantor Fitzgerald.

As Public Citizen noted, New York Attorney General Letitia James found in 2021 that Tether and another crypto firm "recklessly and unlawfully covered up massive financial losses to keep their scheme going and protect their bottom lines."

The company is also reportedly under federal investigation over alleged criminal violations of anti-money laundering rules and sanctions.

Public Citizen also said that while co-chairing Trump's transition team, Lutnick "may also have helped arrange a meeting between Trump and Coinbase chief Brian Armstrong," who "helped steer a record amount of political spending from the crypto industry into the 2024 election."

Crypto firms poured over $119 million into directly influencing the 2024 federal elections, Public Citizen found in August, making the industry's spending second only to that of fossil fuel companies.

As Politico reported in October, even other members of Trump's inner circle have accused Lutnick of using his transition team co-chair position to take meetings on Capitol Hill and "talk about matters impacting his investment firm, Cantor Fitzgerald—including high-stakes regulatory matters involving its cryptocurrency business."

Lutnick's nomination, said former Labor Secretary Robert Reich, serves as a reminder that "Trump serves the oligarchy, not the people."

"Debris from crypto's political spending tsunami will jam up more halls in Washington than ever before if Lutnick is confirmed as secretary of commerce," said Bartlett Naylor, a financial policy advocate for Public Citizen. "The president-elect, who once correctly called bitcoin a scam, now surrounds himself with even more crypto enablers. Cryptocurrency won't return good jobs to the heartland or reduce food prices; it will only thin the wallets of those vulnerable to a now government-legitimized con."

Government watchdog Accountable.US pointed to more than $19 million in political donations Lutnick has made since 2009, nearly all of which went to GOP candidates and political action committees. He contributed $6 million to Trump's super PAC, Make America Great Again, Inc., in 2024 alone.

"Howard Lutnick's questionable qualifications to lead the Department of Commerce begin and end with his loyalty to the president-elect," said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk.

Tether isn't the only Lutnick-linked company that's been investigated for wrongdoing. The Securities and Exchange Commission fined Cantor Fitzgerald $1.4 million in 2023, saying the company repeatedly failed "to identify and report customers who qualified as large traders." The company also agreed to pay $16 million in fines to the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in 2022 for using unauthorized communication channels.

Should Lutnick be confirmed as commerce secretary, Accountable.US said a "major regulatory conflict" could arise due to a dispute between the BGC Group, a spin-off brokerage of Cantor Fitzegerald, and futures and commodities exchange CME Group, over a competing trading platform BGC Group is launching.

"Lutnick's company's violations resulting in financial regulator fines and millions in right-wing political donations shows that political devotion takes precedence over actual experience to do the job in Trump's Cabinet," said Carrk.

Trump campaigned as a champion of working people as he railed against high grocery prices. As The New Republicreported on Tuesday, Lutnick has showered Trump's plan for across-the-board tariffs with effusive praise—even as leading economists warn the plan to impose tariffs on foreign imports will pass higher costs onto consumers, not foreign countries.

"In September, Lutnick told CNBC that 'tariffs are an amazing tool for the president to use—we need to protect the American worker,'" wrote Edith Olmsted. "Lutnick also gushed about tariffs at Trump's fascistic rally in Madison Square Garden last month, claiming that America was better off 100 years ago, when it had 'no income tax and all we had was tariffs.' His high praise for tariffs came even as he admitted Americans would face higher prices as a direct result."

Lutnick's nomination, said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "is a win for the billionaire class at the expense of working people."

"The across-the-board tariff plan," she said, "is a distraction from the MAGA scam to extend tax giveaways for giant corporations and billionaires like Howard Lutnick."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump announced late Tuesday that he intends to nominate Linda McMahon, the billionaire former CEO of World Wrestling Entertainment, to lead the Department of Education, a key agency that Republicans—including Trump and the authors of Project 2025—have said they want to abolish.

McMahon served as head of the Small Business Administration during Trump's first White House term and later chaired both America First Action—a pro-Trump super PAC—and the America First Policy Institute, a far-right think tank that has expressed support for cutting federal education funding and expanding school privatization.

Trump touted McMahon's work to expand school "choice"—a euphemism for taxpayer-funded private school vouchers—and said she would continue those efforts on a national scale as head of the Education Department.

"We will send Education BACK TO THE STATES, and Linda will spearhead that effort," Trump said in a statement posted to his social media platform, Truth Social. (McMahon is listed as an independent director of Trump Media & Technology Group, which runs Truth Social.)

The National Education Association (NEA), a union that represents millions of teachers across the U.S., said in response to the president-elect's announcement that McMahon is "grossly unqualified" to lead the Education Department, noting that she has "lied about having a degree in education," presided over an organization "with a history of shady labor practices," and "pushed for an extreme agenda that would harm students, defund public schools, and privatize public schools through voucher schemes."

"During his first term, Donald Trump appointed Betsy DeVos to undermine and ultimately privatize public schools through vouchers," NEA president Becky Pringle said in a statement. "Now, he and Linda McMahon are back at it with their extreme Project 2025 proposal to eliminate the Department of Education, steal resources for our most vulnerable students, increase class sizes, cut job training programs, make higher education more expensive and out of reach for middle-class families, take away special education services for disabled students, and put student civil rights protections at risk."

"The Department of Education plays such a critical role in the success of each and every student in this country," Pringle continued. "The Senate must stand up for our students and reject Donald Trump's unqualified nominee, Linda McMahon. Our students and our nation deserve so much better than Betsy DeVos 2.0."

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, took a more diplomatic approach, saying in a statement that "we look forward to learning more about" McMahon and that, if she's confirmed, "we will reach out to her as we did with Betsy DeVos at the beginning of her tenure."

"While we expect that we will disagree with Linda McMahon on many issues, our devotion to kids requires us to work together on policies that can improve the lives of students, their families, their educators, and their communities," Weingarten added.

McMahon is one of several billionaires Trump has selected for major posts in his incoming administration, which is teeming with conflicts of interest. During Trump's first term, McMahon and her husband, Vince McMahon, made at least $100 million from dividends, investment interest, and stock and bond sales.

The Guardian noted Tuesday that "in October, [Linda] McMahon was named in a new lawsuit involving WWE."

"The suit alleges that she and other leaders of the company allowed the sexual abuse of young boys at the hands of a ringside announcer, former WWE ring crew chief Melvin Phillips Jr," the newspaper reported. "The complaint specifically alleges that the McMahons knew about the abuse and failed to stop it."

"Siri, what is insider trading?"

That's how one reader responded to Tuesday reporting by The American Prospect's Daniel Boguslaw that Rahm Emanuel, who is supposedly mulling a bid for Democratic National Committee (DNC) chair, made some concerning financial moves while in his current government job.

Emanuel is the U.S. ambassador to Japan. He was previously the mayor of Chicago, a Democratic Illinois congressman, and a key adviser to former Presidents Barack Obama and Bill Clinton. While in the House of Representatives, he chaired the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee and then the party's caucus in the chamber. He's also been an investment banker.

As Boguslaw detailed Tuesday:

Periodic transaction reports filed with the Office of Governmental Ethics over the past two years suggest that Chicago's golden boy may be better served returning to his roots on Wall Street, given the six-figure trades he executed at highly opportune moments in U.S.-Japanese trade relations. Among the millions of dollars of stock trades Emanuel conducted between 2021 and 2024 while serving as ambassador, one purchase jumps out. On September 29, 2023, Emanuel bought between $250,000 and $500,000 worth of stocks in CoreWeave, a leading AI cloud computing service.
Emanuel's purchase took place one day before the Japanese government announced a $320 million subsidy to Micron Technology to manufacture storage components that are essential to the Nvidia chips which CoreWeave relies on for its AI computation services.

Emanuel "purchased between $100,000 and $250,000 worth of Ocient stock on March 8, 2024, before the close of the firm's series B raise," after the Illinois "data analytics company's CEO Chris Gladwin traveled to Japan in October on a trade delegation mission," Boguslaw noted. "At the end of July, Rahm also purchased between $50,000 and $100,000 worth of stock in Monroe Capital, a Chicago-based middle-market lender that specializes in collateralized debt obligations, the Frankenstein financial product that crashed global markets in 2008."

While Emanuel did not respond to the Prospect's request for comment, Jeff Hauser, executive director of the Revolving Door Project, declared on social media that it was a "MASSIVE STORY!"

Hauser told Common Dreams that "being ambassador to Japan is a big job, but normally owing to its importance to America's relationship with a key ally in a critical area of the globe, and not because of the access it apparently provides to actionable stock tips."

"Ambassador Emanuel's brain ought to have been focused on improving America's lot in East Asia, not maximizing his retirement account," he said. "We at Revolving Door Project have long argued that senior government officials should be limited to investing in diversified mutual funds rather than stock by stock. That Emanuel was making exotic investments in businesses he may have learned about on the government's dime only underscores the need for such reforms."

"If Democrats are to ever put a full and final end to Trumpism, they are going to need to develop a clear and consistent critique of why corruption by public officials is a bad thing. That would make Rahm Emanuel among the worst possible choices for DNC chair, especially since Sen. Menendez seems likely to be unavailable for the position," Hauser added, referring to Bob Menendez, a former Democratic senator from New Jersey who in July was convicted of taking bribes.

As Common Dreamsreported last week, progressive critics of Emanuel have called his potential leadership of the DNC—after various devastating losses for the party on Election Day earlier this month—a "sick joke" and "the worst idea in the world."

Noting Emanuel's consideration of the job in an email to supporters on Tuesday, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) said that "there is a disease in Washington of Democrats who spend more time listening to the donor class than working people. If you want to know the seed of the party's political crisis—that's it."

"The DNC needs an organizer who gets people," she asserted. "Not someone who sends fish heads in the mail."

Martin O'Malley, a former Democratic presidential candidate and Maryland governor, and Ken Martin, the Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party chair and a DNC vice chair, have both formally launched their campaigns for the position.

Other potential contenders for the DNC post include Wisconsin Democratic Party Chair Ben Wikler and Chuck Rocha, a political strategist for the latest campaign of Sen.-elect Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and the presidential campaign of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).

Sanders, who caucuses with Democrats, said after the elections earlier this month that "it should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working-class people would find that the working class has abandoned them."

According toCBS News:

Rocha said he's still waiting to see how the field develops before jumping in, and "if there's a better candidate that really stands for what I want to see done with the party." But Rocha has set several action items he would take as chair: eliminate education requirements for senior DNC positions, mandating that state parties "be more inclusive" and diverse with consultant hiring, and to focus on building party infrastructure in all 50 states.
Asked about Martin's and O'Malley's campaigns, Rocha called them "names that are from the institution."
"I think we need somebody from the outside and a strategist to come in and rebuild the party," said Rocha, who noted that his non-college background and upbringing in East Texas could be an advantage as the party looks to reconnect with working-class voters.

Politicoreported Tuesday that another Sanders ally, James Zogby, "expects to formally launch his campaign in the coming days."

A longtime DNC member and president of the Arab American Institute, Zogby told Politico that he was motivated to run by his anger over Republican President-elect Donald Trump's defeat of Democratic Vice President Kamala Harris.

Zogby criticized Harris for campaigning with former Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Okla.), said the Democratic Party was too "focused on suburban women and not on white working-class people," and called the decision to not invite a Palestinian American to speak at the national convention "unimaginative, overly cautious, and completely out of touch with where voters are."

The Democratic chairman of the Senate Finance Committee said Monday that GOP plans to target Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance to help offset the huge cost of their tax agenda encapsulates the economic agenda of the incoming Republican trifecta led by President-elect Donald Trump, who postured as a working-class champion during the 2024 race.

"You couldn't come up with a better distillation of the real Trump agenda than paying for tax breaks for the rich by gutting Medicaid and increasing child hunger," Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) said in a statement after a Washington Post report detailed internal Republican discussions on a possible Medicaid work requirement, cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), and other potential changes to the programs that provide health insurance and food aid to tens of millions of Americans.

"Following through on this plan would cause real hardship and increase the cost of living for millions of working families, but the votes are tallied and Trump is headed back to the White House, so his campaign trail populism is over and done with," said Wyden. "Ultra-wealthy political donors want their massive tax handouts, and as far as Trump and Republicans are concerned, everybody else can go pound sand."

The Trump-led Republican Party has made clear that a new round of tax cuts is at the top of its agenda as it prepares to take control of the House, Senate, and White House in January. In recent weeks, the GOP has discussed using the filibuster-immune reconciliation process to ram tax legislation through Congress before individual provisions of the party's 2017 tax cuts expire at the end of next year.

Trump also campaigned on slashing the corporate tax rate, even as he appealed to working-class voters who aren't reaping the benefits of record corporate profits.

Such tax cuts would likely add trillions to the U.S. deficit, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, leading the GOP to seek out offsets in programs they've long demonized.

"Trump wants to strip healthcare from poor people and increase grocery bills."

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) suggested to reporters last week that Republicans could aim to transform Medicaid's funding structure by instituting block grants—a change that analysts say would likely result in devastating cuts.

Edwin Park, research professor at Georgetown University's Center for Children and Families, wrote Monday that under a block-grant structure, states would "either have to dramatically raise taxes and drastically cut other parts of their budget including K-12 education or, as is far more likely, institute deep, damaging cuts to Medicaid eligibility, benefits, and provider and plan payment rates."

"That includes not just dropping the Medicaid expansion, which covers nearly 20 million newly eligible parents and other adults," Park wrote, "but gutting the rest of state Medicaid programs that serve tens of millions of low-income children, parents, people with disabilities, and seniors."

The Post reported that Republicans are also looking to curb SNAP benefits in the face of a nationwide hunger crisis. According to the latest federal data, 75% of households receiving SNAP benefits live at or below the poverty line and nearly 80% include either a child, an elderly person, or a person with a disability.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) wrote on social media Monday that members of her party "must unite and fight back" against the GOP's push for draconian cuts to SNAP and Medicaid.

"Trump wants to strip healthcare from poor people and increase grocery bills," Warren wrote. "Here's the new Republican plan to pass tax giveaways for Trump's billionaire backers and giant corporations on the backs of struggling Americans."

Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) added that "making it even more difficult for people to get healthcare or afford food in order to give tax cuts to the same greedy companies that are driving up healthcare and food costs is disgusting."

"We were elected to serve the American people," wrote Markey, "not feed corporate America's bottom line."

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump on Monday announced Sean Duffy as his nominee to lead the Department of Transportation—the second Fox News host he has named as a presumptive Cabinet secretary, after picking Pete Hegseth as the future Pentagon chief.

Like the ex-president, Duffy is a former reality television star who shifted into politics. He was initially known for MTV's "The Real World: Boston" and "Road Rules: All Stars," then spent eight years as district attorney of Ashland County, Wisconsin.

Duffy was then elected to represent Wisconsin as a Republican congressman. After resigning from the U.S. House of Representatives in 2019, Duffy joined Fox the following year. His wife, Rachel Campos-Duffy, is also part of the network.

Trump said in a lengthy statement that "during his time in Congress, Sean was a respected voice and communicator in the Republican Conference, advocating for Fiscal Responsibility, Economic Growth, and Rural Development. Admired across the aisle, Sean worked with Democrats to clear extensive Legislative hurdles to build the largest road and bridge project in Minnesota History."

"As a member of the House Financial Services Committee, Sean played a key role in shaping and strengthening Economic policies, and ensuring Transparency and Accountability in Government programs," he continued. "Sean's leadership extended to championing the needs of families, farmers, and small businesses, especially in rural communities."

"He will prioritize Excellence, Competence, Competitiveness, and Beauty when rebuilding America's highways, tunnels, bridges, and airports," Trump added. "He will ensure our ports and dams serve our Economy without compromising our National Security, and he will make our skies safe again by eliminating DEI for pilots and air traffic controllers."

DEI—or diversity, equity, and inclusion—is a term used to describe policies that promote including people of various backgrounds. In recent years, Republicans at all levels of politics have taken aim at such policies, often used by employers and universities.

"Trump is using Fox as a staffing agency. Duffy is the sixth announced administration pick that works or worked at the network," Media Matters for America senior fellow Matthew Gertz said Monday. "Duffy's transportation experience—outside of 'Road Rules'—includes blaming Boeing's ills on DEI."

In a series of social media posts, Yonah Freemark, senior research associate at the Urban Institute's Metropolitan Housing and Communities Policy Center, said that "I am having a hard time finding experience in transportation for Sean Duffy."

Freemark highlighted that based on Duffy's voting record in Congress, he has a 2% lifetime score from the League of Conservation Voters—even lower than the group's 14% score for Lee Zeldin, the former Republican congressman from New York whom Trump has chosen to lead the Environmental Protection Agency.

"He seems to not believe that climate change is caused by human activity," Freemark said of Duffy. "(Transportation is the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S.)"

To actually become transportation secretary, Duffy must be confirmed by the Senate, which is set to be controlled by Republicans—unless Trump goes through with his threats to force through Cabinet members via recess appointments.

As The Associated Pressreported Monday:

The Transportation Department oversees the nation's complex transportation system, including pipelines, railroads, cars, trucks, and transit systems as well as federal funding for highways. The department includes the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, which regulates automakers, including Elon Musk's Tesla. The department sets fuel economy standards for cars and trucks and regulates the airline industry through the Federal Aviation Administration, one of its agencies.

Musk, the richest person on the planet, put significant resources toward electing Trump and has often been seen with him since Election Day. The president-elect announced last week that Musk will co-lead the not-yet-created Department of Government Efficiency with fellow billionaire and campaign supporter Vivek Ramaswamy.

Migrant rights advocates on Monday sharply criticized U.S. President-elect Donald Trump after he confirmed plans to declare a national emergency and use the military to pursue his long-promised mass deportations, despite legal and logistical barriers.

Shortly after Trump's electoral victory earlier this month, Tom Fitton, president of the right-wing group Judicial Watch, welcomed reports that the incoming administration is "prepared to declare a national emergency and will use military assets to reverse the Biden invasion through a mass deportation program."

Fitton's post was on Trump's platform, Truth Social. The president-elect responded early Monday, simply saying, "TRUE!!!"

While Trump didn't provide additional details on Monday, fearmongering about immigrants has been a priority for the president-elect since he entered politics during the 2016 cycle and recent reporting has previewed what could come when he returns to the White House after campaigning on a pledge to "launch the largest deportation program in American history."

In the latest elections, Republicans retained control of the U.S. House of Representatives and reclaimed a Senate majority, but Democrat Yassamin Ansari had a decisive win in Arizona's 3rd Congressional District. She said Monday that "Trump's plan to use the military to aid mass deportation is abhorrent and hateful, and will directly impact many of my constituents in AZ-03. Using the world's strongest military to target the most vulnerable community is not leadership, it's abuse of power."

Vanessa Cárdenas, senior director of communication for America's Voice, similarly said in a statement that "Trump continues promoting anti-immigration hate and is using it as an excuse to appropriate the military for domestic law enforcement and circumvent normal checks and balances on presidential power."

Cárdenas continued:

Trump and allies are attempting to justify their potential use of the military to conduct indiscriminate mass raids and roundups by wrapping it in the language of 'invasion' and the false notion that America is under assault, and it must be repelled by force. Yet just because Trump and allies have spent recent years normalizing this idea and making this assertion doesn't make it any less radical. Let's be clear, this is the adoption of a white nationalist conspiracy theory, already linked to multiple deadly acts of gun violence against civilians, which is driving federal policy and Republican agendas. Despite the martial language and emphasis on the border and recent arrivals, make no mistake that the Trump team is planning to target long-settled immigrants and mixed-status families as part of their mass deportations. Having legal status and even citizenship is not necessarily a shield of protection. Their pledges to end immigration enforcement priorities, while making as many people as possible deportable, is a disturbing tell that their definition of 'criminal' will look fundamentally different from most Americans' conceptions. Perhaps most disturbingly, the resulting fear and cruelty that will be on display is likely a feature and not a bug to those in charge.

Pointing to Trump's previous term, Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, a senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said Monday that "my lesson from the first time around is that we absolutely cannot take things that the Trumpworld people say as gospel, given their total lack of specifics and total willingness to make grandiose pronouncements that are aimed at triggering the libs and making headlines."

"The National Emergencies Act is a specific law which unlocks specific authorities to do specific things—a president doesn't declare a national emergency and then become king. And 'use the military for deportations' isn't one of those specific things," he highlighted, citing the Brennan Center for Justice guide on emergency powers.

Reichlin-Melnick acknowledged that "last time, Trump invoked a specific emergency authority to unlock military construction funding—and direct more troops to do logistical support at the border" with Mexico.

The New York Timesreported Monday that during the Republican primary campaign, "Mr. Trump's top immigration policy adviser, Stephen Miller, said that military funds would be used to build 'vast holding facilities that would function as staging centers' for immigrants as their cases progressed and they waited to be flown to other countries."

Miller—architect of the forced family separation program from Trump's first term—is set to serve as deputy chief of staff for policy in the next administration. The president-elect has also named other immigration hard-liners for key posts: Tom Homan, former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), as "border czar" and GOP South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem for homeland security secretary.

"Mr. Miller has also talked about invoking a public health emergency power to curtail hearing asylum claims," according to the Times. Trump's team also plans to "expand a form of due-process-free expulsions known as expedited removal" and "stop issuing citizenship-affirming documents, like passports and Social Security cards, to infants born on domestic soil to undocumented migrant parents."

Additionally, the newspaper noted, Trump intends to bolster the ICE ranks "with law enforcement officials who would be temporarily reassigned from other agencies, and with state National Guardsmen and federal troops activated to enforce the law on domestic soil under the Insurrection Act."

Joseph Nunn, a counsel in the Brennan Center's Liberty and National Security Program, explained in 2022 that "although it is often referred to as the 'Insurrection Act of 1807,' the law is actually an amalgamation of different statutes enacted by Congress between 1792 and 1871" to enable "the president to deploy military forces inside the United States to suppress rebellion or domestic violence or to enforce the law in certain situations."

Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) on Monday expressed concern about Trump's potential use of another law enacted in 1978.

"Donald Trump plans to declare a national emergency and utilize the Alien Enemies Act to conduct mass deportations," Omar, a war refugee, said on social media. "This xenophobia and cruelty shouldn't be allowed in America. We are going to fight it every step of the way."

As Nunn's Brennan Center colleague Katherine Yon Ebright detailed last month, the law "allows the president to detain or deport the natives and citizens of an enemy nation," and although "enacted to prevent foreign espionage and sabotage in wartime, it can be—and has been—wielded against immigrants who have done nothing wrong, have evinced no signs of disloyalty, and are lawfully present in the United States."

While Trump and his allies have prepared to use any powers they can to deport the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants in the United States, rights advocates and reporters have warned of the consequences of their plans for not only those people, but also 20 million mixed-status families and citizens who would suffer from the economic consequences.

As Mother Jones' Isabela Dias recently laid out, mass deportations would have major negative impacts on care, food, and infrastructure while enriching charter flight operators, consulting firms, private prison companies, and surveillance contractors.

Congresswoman Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) issued a warning after Trump's Monday post, declaring that "this will hurt all of us."

Spotlighting a Monday report in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Rep. Gwen Moore (D-Wis.) similarly stressed that "mass deportations aren't just inhumane—they'd devastate America's agricultural industry. Combined with his tariffs, Trump has a recipe for economic disaster. Farmers, workers, and consumers... all pay the price."