Politics
Mamdani’s rise a bellwether for the Democratic Party’s future
The self-described Democratic Socialist embodies a broader shift his party’s values and potentially its future.
read more
Aviation crisis reaches new heights as air travel hits turbulence
As the shutdown drags into its second month, air travel has become the latest industry to face delays and safety concerns.
read more
Native leaders, advocates warn of shutdown’s impact on their communities
The Senate Committee on Indian Affairs heard expert witnesses’ warnings on furloughs, layoffs and lapses in funding that will hurt Native American communities.
read more
House Democrats and GOP at an impasse as shutdown barrels on
Democrats and Republicans traded jabs over the government shutdown, but neither side seemed willing to compromise.
read more
Senators raise competing legislation to continue SNAP benefits as suspension looms
Nearly one in eight Americans will lose food aid benefits on Nov. 1 due to the government shutdown, with out intervention.
read moreLawmakers urge bipartisan push against political violence
WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators on both sides of the aisle addressed the increasing political polarization in the country and their own roles in driving it during a hearing on politically violent attacks on Tuesday.
“I find hearings like this frustrating,” said Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.). “They deepen to me what is a problem in our country, which is a growing tribalism and our inability to come together and work on issues where we have so much common ground.”
Sen. Booker and other members of the Subcommittee on the Constitution agreed that the divide between Republican and Democratic lawmakers plays a role in the increasing tensions between those of different political ideologies.
Some lawmakers suggested that the way they talk about and treat their colleagues across the aisle could influence how the American public thinks about politics, with Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) saying that leaders elected to Congress should take care not to “say or do things that suggest that political violence is acceptable.”
“The stakes are really too high for the American people, and the health of our democracy, to use this hearing as an opportunity to demonize one side or the other,” said Subcommittee Ranking Member Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.).
Political Violence is on the Rise (Philip Lam/MNS)
Several lawmakers at the hearing pushed for their colleagues to put aside their differences and work together on this country’s “political violence problem.”
“I think that’s an important lesson for us to take,” said Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). “The Republican members of this committee believe they’re right, the Democrats believe they’re right, the American people want to see less violence. I hope we all want to see less violence.”
In fact, according to a newly published Pew Research Center survey, 85% of Americans say they believe politically motivated violence in the U.S. is increasing. Over half of Americans say they see both left-wing and right-wing extremism as a major problem.
Even so, Republican and Democratic lawmakers still took the opportunity to blame each other for instigating and inciting violence – a move which drew pushback.
“We are in a crisis right now,” Booker said. “There is growing political violence and a growing justification for it, but I find it stunning that the way we talk about it seems more about grievance politics and trying to score points than actually getting to the root of what is an American problem.”
Ultimately, some senators agreed that the debate over which side is responsible for the rise in political violence was unproductive.
“The only thing that’s going to save our country now is not more political posturing and partisan finger pointing,” Booker said. “The only thing that’s going to get us out of this condition is for courageous leaders in both parties to start standing up and extending grace and self-introspection.”
Some members of the committee urged their colleagues to prove their sincerity about working together on a bipartisan agreement by reviving their effort to fight political violence. Throughout the hearing, lawmakers continuously emphasized the importance of taking urgent action against political violence.
“We are faced with only two paths,” said Subcommittee Chair Sen. Eric Schmitt (R-Mo.). “Either we confront this political violence and end it, or it will end us.”
Mamdani lights up New York with AOC and Sanders, calls for ambition and change
NEW YORK — Mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez (D-N.Y.) and Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) drew thousands to Forest Hills Stadium in Queens on Sunday, where they spoke about fighting back against the policies of the Trump administration, starting in New York with Mamdani.
“We set the bar for America. I’m talking to you, Donald Trump,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “There has been a day before his presidency, and there will be a day after. And it belongs to us.”
Ocasio-Cortez addressed Trump directly and spoke about the recent ICE raids in New York City, emphasizing the power of community as a means of fighting back.
“Here in New York City, it is the jewel and the center of all that is possible in America,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “And we will send a loud message to President Donald Trump that his authoritarianism is no good here.”
Nearly all 13,000 seats in the stadium were filled. As the sun set, attendees used their phone flashlights to express agreement, lighting up the venue.
Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders have both backed Mamdani since the primary election in summer. Sanders spoke about the rise of Mamdani’s “extraordinary and unprecedented grassroots movement,” from the candidate’s start as a relatively unknown state assemblyman. Sanders praised Mamdani for accomplishing “what people who are serious about real change always do.”
“These are not normal times. This is not a normal election,” Sanders said. “This election is taking place when we have an administration in Washington which every day is moving us toward an authoritarian society, undermining our constitution and the rule of law.”
After speeches from both Ocasio-Cortez and Sanders, Mamdani took the stage and was met with thundering applause. Mamdani said his name was “a statistical anomaly in every poll,” but that the campaign’s success came from building “a movement that reflected the city as it actually is,” and not one that “political consultants think exists on a spreadsheet.”
“We need a government that is every bit as ambitious as our adversaries,” Mamdani said. “No longer will we allow the Republican party to be the one of ambition.”
Attendees included Twitch streamer and political commentator Hasan Piker, as well as comedian Sarah Sherman, who emceed the rally. Activists, artists and organizers were invited to share their experience living in New York. Union workers across various fields, like health care, education and social work, echoed concerns about the cost of living.
April Verrett, president of the Service Employees International Union, spoke about the importance of coming together and the necessity to meet the moment with “love for your city.”
“Zohran Mamdani will be the kind of mayor that wakes up every morning and works his heart out for you,” Verrett said. “He knows how to fight, and he doesn’t just fight. He wins.”
Brad Lander, New York City Comptroller and a candidate who ran against Mamdani in the Democratic primary, offered his support while criticizing anti-Islamic rhetoric aimed at Mamdani. Governor Kathy Hochul also joined the rally, to which the crowd responded by chanting “tax the rich” during her speech.
While Mamdani has the support of Ocasio-Cortez, Sanders and other democratic socialists like New York state senator Julia Salazar, many of Washington’s top Democrats, like Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), have yet to comment. House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) endorsed Mamdani on Friday.
“At a moment when Americans are extremely distressed about where we are as a nation economically and politically, a victory here in New York will give hope and inspiration to people throughout our country and throughout the world,” Sanders said.
Early voting started the day before the rally, on Saturday a little more than a week before Election Day on November 4.
“The world is changing. It’s not a question of whether that change will come. It’s a question of who will change it,” Mamdani said. “We have an opportunity before us that few have ever received, and even fewer will seize.”
Ingrassia exit highlights rare GOP pushback to Trump’s personnel picks
WASHINGTON — Paul Ingrassia withdrew his nomination to lead the Office of Special Counsel on Tuesday night after facing Republican pushback over past controversial statements.
While Ingrassia joins a growing list of President Donald Trump’s nominees who have withdrawn from consideration, many who have aired controversial beliefs or lack requisite qualifications have still been appointed or are still in the nomination process.
“Trump has gone the distance to nominate people who are loyalists, people that he can count upon to do what he wants,” said Stanford political science professor Terry Moe. “And for the most part, senators have just been willing to embrace anyone that he nominates.”
Moe said, compared to past presidents, Trump has taken his determination to consider loyalty in presidential appointments “to the extreme,” laying aside the normal concern for competence.
Only a small group of senators have demonstrated a willingness to stand up against Trump’s appointments, and only behind closed doors, Moe emphasized. This was apparent in Ingrassia’s case — some senators reportedly “spent months quietly raising the alarm” against him.
Ingrassia was scheduled to appear before the Senate Homeland Security Committee for a confirmation hearing on Thursday, but had encountered opposition over his past use of racist language, promotion of conspiracy theories and connection to Nick Fuentes, a White nationalist and Holocaust denier.
On Monday, Politico reported Ingrassia had told a group of fellow Republicans in a text chain that he has “a Nazi streak” and that the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday belongs in the “seventh circle of hell.”
Ingrassia’s lawyer would not confirm to Politico that the texts were authentic, instead implying that the texts could have been “manipulated” and were intended to make fun of liberals.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-La.) suggested Monday night to reporters that the administration should withdraw Ingrassia’s nomination.
“He’s not going to pass,” Thune said.
At least three other Republicans on the committee indicated they would oppose Ingrassia’s confirmation: Sens. Rick Scott (R-Fla.), Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) and James Lankford (R-Okla.).
Committee Democrats were also expected to vote against Ingrassia and have condemned his speech.
“This clear pattern of bigoted and inflammatory rhetoric along with his complete lack of any — any — relevant experience, is wholly disqualifying,” said Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) on Thursday. “Paul Ingrassia should have never been nominated for such a critical oversight role, but his insistence just exemplifies the Trump administration’s outright contempt for independent oversight.”
Trump nominated Ingrassia in May to lead the Office of Special Counsel, a traditionally independent agency that enforces civil service laws and protects federal whistleblowers. Ingrassia is currently a White House liaison at the Department of Homeland Security.
Republicans delayed Ingrassia’s confirmation hearing in July, with one pointing to concerns about his alleged ties to antisemitism. He has also faced accusations of sexual harassment.
In withdrawing from consideration, Ingrassia joins a group of Trump nominees who have been pushed to remove their names from consideration after some form of wrongdoing.
Before Trump entered office in his second term, former Florida congressman Matt Gaetz withdrew as the nominee for attorney general after reports emerged that he had sex with a minor.
Last month, Trump withdrew his nomination for E.J. Antoni to lead the Bureau of Labor Statistics after CNN reported on his now-deleted Twitter account that “featured sexually degrading attacks on Kamala Harris, derogatory remarks about gay people, conspiracy theories and crude insults aimed at critics of President Donald Trump.”
Still, many Trump nominees have been confirmed despite known misconduct and a lack of qualifications. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, for instance, faced allegations of sexual assault, excessive drinking and financial mismanagement. Just recently, the Senate confirmed Herschel Walker as the U.S. ambassador to the Bahamas, even though two women have accused him of domestic abuse. The Senate also confirmed Joe Kent, who is affiliated with the Proud Boys, to lead the National Counterterrorism Center.
“There are many people who are willing to engage in extremist behavior who get nominated, who these Republican senators vote for,” Moe said. “This Paul Ingrassia situation is just the exception to the rule. For the most part, there are all sorts of extremists who have been appointed and Republicans are willing to fall in line.”
And, ongoing nomination processes have grown heated, as Democrats attempt to limit executive overreach. On Thursday, as the Senate Homeland Security Committee considered the rest of the nominations on its agenda, one seemingly contentious idea came to the fore: the independence of the Office of Inspector General.
Former congressman Anthony D’Esposito, who is up for consideration to be the Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Labor, received particular attention.
During his nomination hearing on Thursday, Peters accused D’Esposito of being a “partisan operative,” as he had allegedly written a “pledge to carry out the president’s agenda” in his opening statement.
“President Trump has a vision to reign in the golden age of the American worker,” D’Esposito said when asked to comment on this claim. “I don’t believe that’s partisan. I don’t believe creating the fiercest, strongest military is partisan. I think that all should be American.”
Sen. Margaret Hassan (D-N.H.) also pressed D’Espesito and other nominees as to whether they would choose to uphold the rule of law or Trump’s agenda, two things that she said come into conflict.
In response, D’Espesito said Trump is a “man of integrity” who would never ask the nominees to break the law.
Hassan wasn’t satisfied.
“Your answer defies the factual record,” she said.
Published in conjunction with 
‘Judge, jury and executioner’: Legal experts, senators condemn U.S. strikes on alleged ‘narco-terrorist’ boats
WASHINGTON — U.S. forces struck two alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Pacific Ocean on Wednesday, eliciting international outcry as the Trump administration continues its campaign against alleged “narco-terrorists.”
Since early September, U.S. Special Operations forces have conducted nine confirmed strikes against alleged drug-trafficking boats in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific Ocean, killing at least 37 people and prompting intense legal scrutiny.
Without providing evidence, the Trump administration has framed the strikes as necessary to prevent members of Venezuelan gang Tren de Aragua and other cartels from smuggling illicit drugs across U.S. borders.
Experts in international law, national security law and presidential power have largely deemed the strikes illegal, citing human rights law, U.N. treaties and congressional war powers.
“President Trump is the judge, the jury and the executioner,” said Notre Dame Law School Professor Mary Ellen O’Connell, who specializes in international law. “He’s just ordered summary execution of people about whom he knows almost nothing in a context in which they have the right to life.”
That uncertainty has been a significant sticking point with critics. The White House has not released any evidence to support its claim that the boats carried fentanyl bound for the U.S.
Critics of the strikes, including Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), have raised concerns that the increased U.S. military buildup in the Caribbean could signal the administration’s intent to topple Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro’s government.
Trump has stated publicly that he does not want Maduro in power, and acknowledged that he authorized the CIA to conduct covert operations in Venezuela, leaving many worried about potential regime change efforts.
The administration has attempted to provide a legal justification for the recent strikes.
In two September notifications to Congress, the White House said the attacks were acts of “self-defense” and alleged that the cartels’ actions amounted to an “armed attack” against the U.S.
According to international law experts, Article 51 of the U.N. Charter, which recognizes countries’ right to self-defense following an “armed attack,” has historically been interpreted only to extend to attacks by other countries. Though the U.N. extended this right to include attacks from nonstate groups following 9/11, this recognition remains controversial.
“The real question is whether or not there’s an armed attack against the United States by international narcotics activities, and that’s a highly unlikely proposition,” said Antonio F. Perez, a law professor at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law.
Following one strike, Colombian President Gustavo Petro accused the U.S. of killing an innocent Colombian fisherman. O’Connell said that if this allegation is true, the strikes run afoul of the internationally-recognized right to life.
She added that the strikes may also violate the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea, which establishes a legal framework for international waters. The U.S. has not ratified the convention, but military advisors have for decades stated that the U.S. would “act in a manner consistent with its provisions.”
“We have a very narrow set of situations where military force can be used,” O’Connell said. “They’re not present in the Caribbean, they’re not present in Venezuela, they’re not present in Colombia.”
The White House is also facing discontent among lawmakers, who remain largely in the dark about many details of the strikes.
“We’re shut down on any concrete information on the basis of the intelligence,” Sen. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) told Medill News Service.
Many Senate Democrats, along with Sens. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), have balked at the administration’s apparent rejection of congressional authority.
“I think there is an obligation under the Constitution to consult with Congress,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told Medill News Service.
Last month, Sens. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) and Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) introduced a joint War Powers Resolution to prevent Trump from taking military action against Venezuela without congressional authorization. Republicans ultimately tanked the bill.
“I support the administration,” Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) told Medill News Service when asked about the boat strikes.
“I’m concerned about the escalation we’ve seen over the years with drugs poisoning our communities,” he added.
A group of U.N. experts condemned the strikes, and Russian and Chinese leaders have publicly expressed support for Venezuela. Maduro, meanwhile, confirmed that the Venezuelan military is preparing for a U.S. invasion and threatened an “armed fight.”
As the strikes challenge preexisting norms of domestic and international law, experts warn they could go largely unchecked, but could have lasting consequences on future military interventions.
“If this is correct, if Donald Trump has this authority, it would mean he could order the killing of anyone anywhere,” said Chris Edelson, an assistant government professor at American University. “If he believes that there are drug traffickers anywhere, why would it be limited to the Caribbean?”
WATCH: FEMA EMPLOYEES RALLY AGAINST SECRETARY NOEM, CALL FOR RESIGNATION OF FEMA ADMINISTRATOR
WASHINGTON — Current and former FEMA employees held a solidarity rally outside the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) headquarters last Friday, calling out Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FEMA administrator David Richardson for their policies and what protesters say is a lack of qualifications.
Public signers of the Katrina Declaration, which called out the Trump administration for reversing progress on disaster management, were placed on leave without explanation in August. Some of those public signers spoke out at the rally, demanding answers and expressing their desire to return to work.
Watch the video report here:
Sen. Merkley delivers overnight speech on shutdown and Trump’s ‘authoritarian takeover’
WASHINGTON — Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) showed no signs of yielding the Senate floor Wednesday afternoon as he approaches hour 22 of what could become a record-breaking marathon speech condemning the ongoing government shutdown, now in its 22nd day with no resolution in sight.
Merkley’s office confirmed the senator “plans to go as long as he is able to bring attention to how Trump is ripping up the Constitution,” according to a statement.
Sen. Cory Booker (D-N.J.) set the record for the longest Senate speech in recent history in April at 25 hours and 5 minutes to protest President Donald Trump’s policies. Merkley would need to continue speaking until approximately 7 p.m. on Wednesday to pass it.
Merkley himself previously held the Senate floor for 15 hours in 2017 during the confirmation process for Supreme Court Justice nominee Neil Gorsuch.
“I want to repeat my main mission statement for being here through the night, and that’s to ring the alarm bells … at this authoritarian takeover and of this strategy of doing authoritarian bills in which families lose and billionaires win,” said Merkley, who began speaking shortly before 6:30 p.m on Tuesday.
Republicans, however, have criticized the extended floor speech as political theater. “The Democrats are going to make Capitol Police and Capitol support staff – who they refuse to pay – work all night so they can give speeches patting themselves on the back for shutting down the government and hurting the American people,” Wyoming Sen. John Barrasso, the Senate Majority Whip, posted on X Tuesday night. “How ridiculous is that?”
To help fill the time, the Oregon Democrat has been methodically walking through chapters of “How Democracies Die” by Harvard professors Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, prominently referencing the book’s chapter “The Guardrails of Democracy,” which examines how democratic norms erode before institutions collapse.
As Merkley’s speech stretched into its 15th hour, a rotating cast of Democratic senators joined him on the floor, weaving between immediate shutdown impacts, broader democratic erosion concerns, and policy issues like health care access.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) briefly joined Merkley, speaking on the erosion of democratic ideals.
“President Trump is following a playbook that would-be autocrats have used successfully in places like Hungary and Turkey,” Murphy said. “They maintain elections where critics and opposition can exist, but they rig the rules so the opposition never has enough oxygen to win at the national level.”
Booker also appeared on the floor this morning to bolster his colleague’s message.
“Americans are hurting. Americans are afraid. Americans are worried that they’re going to get a diagnosis from a doctor that’s going to drive them to bankruptcy. Americans don’t know how they could take care of a sick child and pay the rent,” Booker said emphatically.
He praised Merkley’s persistence, calling it “a master’s class in helping people understand not just constitutional principles, but how all of us are invested in this Constitution.”
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) joined the floor debate around noon, framing the issue in terms of constitutional separation of powers.
“Donald Trump is not a king. He will never be a king. And America does not bow down to kings,” Warren stated, linking Merkley’s extended floor speech to the constitutional concerns expressed by nationwide “No Kings” protests that have drawn millions across the country.
“Peaceful protest is patriotic. Holding the floor to protest what she characterized as ‘lawlessness’ is patriotic. Standing up for what is right, that’s patriotic.”
Speaking to reporters outside the Senate chamber, Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) described her experience with Merkley. Her speech in the chamber focused on authoritarianism and the Justice Department, specifically calling out President Trump for “treating the Justice Department as his personal law firm.”
“I spoke with him on the floor and asked him some questions and talked about authoritarianism and what we’re seeing coming out of the Justice Department right now. [Trump’s] put his personal lawyers in there and he’s asking them to do his bidding. He’s asking them to go after his so-called enemies, removing career prosecutors, putting in his pals, giving pardons to people like George Santos,” Klobuchar said.
“I want to thank my colleague Jeff Merkley for standing up, not just for 10 minutes, not just when it’s easy, but through the night – and he’s still at it.”
As of the time of reporting on Wednesday afternoon, Merkley has not yielded the floor.
“The president is not a king. Americans are standing up because laws are not suggestions,” Merkley said. “Americans are standing up because following the Constitution is not optional.”
WATCH: Rallygoers gather as Supreme Court weighs fate of Voting Rights Act
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court heard arguments for a high-profile Louisiana Congressional redistricting case that could potentially gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act prohibits redrawing congressional maps that would dilute the voting power of minority groups.
Supporters of upholding Section 2 say the Voting Rights Act levels the playing field for historically marginalized groups, giving them a fair say in who they elect to Congress.
“When you’re talking about more than a third of the population not feeling as though their voices are being heard, we have a problem,” Nora Ahmed, legal director for the ACLU of Louisiana, said. “We’re not addressing the needs of the people.”
Those who oppose Section 2 say the Voting Rights Act is unconstitutional because it groups voters by race, violating the 14th Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause.
WATCH THE VIDEO REPORT HERE:
WATCH: Thousands gather in DC for No Kings Protest
WASHINGTON – This past Saturday, nearly 7 million people attended No Kings protests across the country.
No Kings, which calls itself a movement against President Trump’s “abuses of power,” has described Saturday’s protests as being a part of a “sustained national resistance to tyranny.”
Protesters in Washington D.C. attributed their desire to protest to many issues, including the deployment of the National Guard, mass federal layoffs, furloughs, the lack of pay for federal workers during the ongoing government shutdown and the cutting of education and health funding.
“I have accepted this is reality,” said No Kings protester Nadine Seiler. “But I just still cannot grasp that the American public is accepting what is happening and it is beyond frustrating.”
Organizers said people protested at more than 2,700 locations across the country.
WATCH THE VIDEO REPORT HERE:
In Photos: Faces from the ‘No Kings’ Protest
WASHINGTON — Over a hundred thousand demonstrators gathered near the National Mall to protest against the Trump administration as part of the No Kings movement on Saturday.
Some protesters told us why they attended the rally and what they are worried about.
Nadine Seiler, 60, Waldorf Md.
Brenda Funes, 32
“So many things brought me here. But if I could really pinpoint down is the failure of our institutions to actually execute the checks and balances that are Founding Fathers left for us. I think it is unlawful that the president could not say whether or not it was his duty to defend the Constitution. I became an American citizen last year, after being in process for 26 years. I took an oath to defend the Constitution and I’m doing it and I am proud to do it. I want to show that Latinas love the United States for the opportunities that it has provided us. My parents brought me here to this country through the southern border illegally when I was four years old. Because of certain laws, I was able to apply for DACA, and I was able to apply for asylum, and I want those same protections that I was granted, for others.”
Tatyana Schum, 55
“We’re living in a world that I don’t recognize anymore. We’re slipping very, very quickly toward authoritarianism and our rights are being cut each day. Finding the job that I want has been a little harder than I would like. The economy has hit my household. Recently, we moved, and things have slowed down a little bit for our household, so I don’t know. It’s scary – not just for me. Our neighbors have lost their jobs. It’s tenuous. When I sit at home for too long and I see the news and think about what’s going on, it makes me feel isolated. But then when I come out and I see all of these people… it’s pretty amazing. I also have friends that say, ‘I don’t understand why all those white people are going out protesting.’ Um… because we can still. Those of us who feel like we can need to stand up for those of us who feel like they can’t. We’re all in this together.”
Claire Moore, and her son, Silas
Jennifer, 38, Arlington, Va.
“I feel like we are losing our democracy, and I am concerned about that, so I came out to feel solidarity with all the people who are angry about what’s happening. I would just say, I don’t need to be personally targeted by this administration to feel like he’s taking our country in the wrong direction. We’re losing the humanity of our country. We shouldn’t be treating civil servants, immigrants, people who contribute to this country [this way] – people who have contributed far more to this country than Donald Trump and his lackeys.”
Jordan Ziegler, 46
“Living around here, everything to do with the government affects everyone in the area. You walk down the street, you see National Guardsmen. Civilian life is different now. My life is not that different, actually, but you know it’s important to be here for those who are more affected. [The protest] is very energetic, huge and immense. Everyone is just in very high spirits.”
Phil Price, 76
“We’re slipping over the edge. I feel like that in a very strong way, I’m worried. I was out on the street with this flag earlier in the week and I mentioned to a Black guy who come up to me and I said, ‘I’ve got an age and color advantage over you.’ I said ‘I can get away with more s**t.’ I think people have to do what they can do.”
In Photos: No Kings protesters meet GOP attacks with satire
WASHINGTON — During a press conference decrying the government shutdown on Friday, House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) addressed Saturday’s nationwide “No Kings” protest with disapproval.
“We refer to it by its more accurate description, the Hate America Rally,” Johnson said. “And I’m not sure how anybody can refute that.”
Johnson is one of many Republican lawmakers and Trump administration officials who preemptively denounced the protest, using extreme language to exaggerate the depravity of their opponents.
Attorney General Pam Bondi pointed to the protest as evidence of an Antifa organization, which she has equated to the MS-13 drug gang.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt echoed these comments Thursday on Fox News.
“The Democrat Party’s main constituency are made up of Hamas terrorists, illegal aliens, and violent criminals,” Leavitt said.
The reality contrasted starkly with this narrative. On Saturday, large crowds peacefully gathered in protests in more than 2,500 locations across the country. Protesters appeared all too aware of the GOP’s descriptions of them.
Inspired by “Operation Inflation” in Portland, many stepped out in inflatable costumes to satirize the administration’s portrayal of their actions.
“There’s nothing they can’t stand more than being mocked,” said Pete Fitzpatrick, who wore a clown costume. “And what are they going to do? Beat up a clown?”
“I’m second-generation anti-fascist,” said Fitzpatrick, whose father served in the army. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Unicorns were a common sighting on Saturday. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Some protesters in inflatable costumes stuck together throughout the rally. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Megan Sweeney said she loved the “playfulness” and “absurdity” of the protests. “It is a really great counter to the fact that these are violent or extremists,” she said. “This is everyday people who are just fed up with what Donald Trump and his regime has been doing.” (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Many dressed in inflatable costumes had signs that referenced their character. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Protesters used puns to critique the Trump administration. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
A person dressed as a caricatured version of the president did impressions, drawing laughter from the surrounding crowd. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
Protesters marched down Pennsylvania Avenue towards the U.S. Capitol building on Saturday. (Sophie Baker/MNS)
LAWMAKERS, EXPERTS CONCERNED ABOUT WHITE HOUSE’S NEW MASS FEDERAL LAYOFFS
WASHINGTON – On Friday, the Trump administration followed through on threats to begin mass firings during the government shutdown. White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought announced on X: “The RIFs have begun.”
The announcement was immediately met with significant backlash. Virginia Sens. Mark R. Warner and Tim Kaine (D-VA) released a joint statement about the layoffs.
“They’re doubling down by laying off federal workers,” Warner and Kaine said. “[They’re] turning their own failure to govern into a direct attack on the people who keep this country running and jeopardizing vital government services.”
Virginia is home to nearly 150,000 civilian federal employees, making it the state with one of the highest numbers of federal workers.
Before the government shutdown began, the OMB had instructed federal agencies to prepare mass reduction-in-force (RIF) plans. According to a memo released by the OMB, the layoffs specifically targeted employees who work for programs that are considered non-essential and are impacted by the shutdown.
Since Friday’s mass firings began, more than 4,000 workers have been laid off across seven federal agencies, including the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and the Department of Education (DOE). Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle responded to the layoffs by emphasizing the harm this could have on federal employees and their families.
“Many of these abrupt terminations will do more harm than good, stunting opportunities in Alaska and leaving holes in our communities,” wrote Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) on social media. Murkowski added: “Indiscriminate workforce cuts aren’t efficient and won’t fix the federal budget, but they will hurt good people who have answered the call to public service to do important work for our nation.”
Others have asserted that the firings are not only harmful, but actually illegal. Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), Ranking Member of the House Budget Committee, referred to the layoffs as an “illegal attempt to fire hardworking public servants.”
Some legal experts agree.
Paul Gowder, a professor of constitutional law at the Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, believes the firings are unconstitutional. He says the constitutionality issue here is whether the President has to obey the laws of Congress regarding “who can be fired and when.”
“Presidents, particularly the Republican presidents, and super particularly Trump, have been attached for a while now to this theory called the Unitary Executive,” Gowder said. “The idea of this theory is that the executive branch is controlled by one person, and that person is the president, and they have sort of complete authority to decide how to supervise personnel in the executive branch: who to hire, who to fire, and so forth.”
But, Gowder says, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution – the list of Congress’ powers – contains a clause called the Necessary and Proper Clause. This clause explicitly grants Congress the power to make any laws that are “necessary and proper” to “carry into execution” all power vested by the Constitution in the government.
“What that means is that the counter-argument to the unitary executive view is actually that Congress has the authority to decide which officers are protected from firing and which aren’t under what circumstances,” Gowder said. “That’s really what the fight is about.”
At least one court has already agreed: A federal judge on Wednesday temporarily blocked the Trump administration from “taking any action to issue any reduction-in-force notices to federal employees […] during or because of the federal government shutdown,” ordering the administration to immediately halt the mass firings. The judge granted the temporary restraining order on the basis that she believed the evidence would ultimately show the cuts were “illegal and in excess of authority.”
As of now, it is unclear whether the mass federal layoffs will ultimately be allowed to continue. Since taking office, more than 200,000 federal employees have been fired or left their jobs.
Photo Essay: Shutdown enters third week, protesters rally in front of Supreme Court
WASHINGTON — Wednesday was a busy day on Capitol Hill, as the government shutdown continued into its 15th day. Republicans and Democrats held news conferences without making any progress toward reopening the government.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court held oral arguments for Louisiana v. Callais. The focus of the case was Section Two of the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits racial discrimination in voting. Several people protested in front of the Court with signs supporting minority voting rights.
Wednesday marked the beginning of the third week of the government shutdown. Still, Democrats and Republicans remain at an impasse, pointing fingers at each other. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
The night after a protest, lawmakers held a press conference at the House Triangle, calling Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to swear in Rep.-elect Adelita Grijalva (D-Ariz.) to office. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Photo 3: Johnson enters the room for a news conference held on Wednesday. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) said that none of the republicans are “taking any pleasure” in the government shutdown and that it would be “no good” to pass another Continuing Resolution. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) answers questions from the press following the conference. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) and members of the democratic Caucus gather on the east steps of the Capitol. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Before questioning Rep. Nancy Pelosi on the Jan. 6 insurrection, LindellTV DC Correspondent Alison Steinberg watches the Democratic caucus presser. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Several people gathered in front of the Capitol protesting in support of the Voting Rights Act during the oral arguments of the landmark case, Louisiana vs Callais. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
NAACP Legal Defense Fund President and Director-Counsel Janai Nelson speaks to protesters following oral arguments of a landmark case. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
One protester holds a sign that says, “Protect People, not power,” while waving an American flag. They were repeatedly saying, “yes” during Janai Nelson’s Remarks. (Riddhimaa L. Kodali/MNS)
Medill Today | Wednesday, November 5, 2025