Jayapal Slams ICE for Targeting Law-Abiding 'Moms, Dads, Grandparents'—Not Criminals

"ICE isn't going after the 'worst of the worst' like Trump promised," the progressive congresswoman said. "They're disappearing asylum-seekers, families, and relatives of citizens—many with no criminal record."


U.S. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) speaks to protesters near the White House in Washington, D.C. during May 1, 2025 rally against the Trump administration's deportation policies.
(Photo: Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)

Brett Wilkins
Jun 26, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Progressive U.S. Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal on Thursday hosted a "shadow hearing" on Immigration and Customs Enforcement's targeting of asylum-seekers, families, relatives of American citizens, and other law-abiding people for deportation—policies and practices that belie President Donald Trump's claim that his administration would focus on removing undocumented criminals.

Jayapal (D-Wash.)—the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on Immigration, Integrity, Security, and Enforcement and an immigrant—convened the panel, called Kidnapped and Disappeared: Trump's Weaponization of Immigration Courts. The shadow hearing "examined the disturbing trend of broad efforts to erode access to legal services and due process in immigration proceedings, especially as Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been targeting immigrants showing up for legal proceedings—following the requirements set for them by courts."

"These actions are a direct attack on the legal immigration system and the people who are trying to follow all the legal steps."

A sampling of the more than 65,000 people arrested by ICE since Trump reentered office in January reveals people including a beloved resident of a staunchly pro-Trump town, a decorated combat veteran, a child with cancer, anti-genocide protesters, and a woman with an American husband and child who's lived in the U.S. for nearly 50 years.

While the Trump administration claims that "3 in 4 arrests were criminal illegal aliens," most people caught up in Trump's mass deportation drive have no criminal records or have only committed minor offenses including traffic violations. According to the libertarian Cato Institute, 65% of people taken by ICE had no criminal conviction whatsoever and 93% had no conviction for violent offenses.

"Republicans like to talk about how they support immigrants who quote 'do things the right way,'" Jayapal said during the hearing. "Now that they control Congress and the White House, they should be putting their money where their mouth is and ensuring that the legal immigration process remains open to those who pursue it—but that's not what's happening."

"They have arrested people at their citizenship interviews, their check-in appointments with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and increasingly, at immigration court," Jayapal continued. "These actions are a direct attack on the legal immigration system and the people who are trying to follow all the legal steps."

"These actions only serve to make the immigration system even more chaotic and unjust than it already is," she added. "Just when you think this administration cannot sink any lower, they get out a shovel and keep digging."

House Democrats Judy Chu (Calif.), Jesús "Chuy" García (Ill.), Sylvia Garcia (Texas), Glenn Ivey (Md.), Henry C. "Hank" Johnson, Jr. (Ga.), Zoe Lofgren (Calif.), Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.), Delia Ramirez (Ill.), Mark Takano (Calif.), and Rashida Tlaib (Mich.) took part in Thursday's hearing.

Speakers on Jayapal's panel included retired immigration judge A. Ashley Tabaddor, National Immigrant Justice Center policy director Azadeh Erfani, Acacia Center for Justice chief of staff Bettina Rodriguez Schlegel, andImmigrant ARC interim director of programs Gillian Rowland-Kain.

"Due process in a courtroom means that every part of the system functions fairly and in concert. That requires an independent judge, a level playing field, and a safe, accessible forum for all participants," Tabaddor said. "Yet noncitizens have no right to appointed counsel—even in life-or-death matters."

"Now, the Trump administration claims that immigration judges are effectively at-will employees, directly undermining their independence," she continued. "At the same time, immigration courts are being transformed into enforcement zones, deterring participation and eroding public trust."

"As a former judge, I can tell you: When even one part of the machine breaks—when judges are undermined, when legal support disappears, or fear keeps people from appearing—the entire system collapses," Tabaddor added. "And when that happens, it doesn't just fail immigrants. It fails all of us."

Erfani said: "Nothing is off the table for ICE to meet Trump's arrest quotas and build the largest mass detention system in recorded history. First, they took away all legal services so no one could represent themselves. Next, they raided the courts and took away access to judges. And lately, they have set traps at ICE check-in appointments, where individuals with pending cases trying to comply with their proceedings are shackled and disappeared into remote jails."

"As ICE tramples all semblance of due process and the rule of law, they are terrorizing our communities," she added.

Rodriguez Schlegel noted how "the Trump administration's attacks on due process have upended the lives and futures of our families, neighbors, and friends."

"In addition to the profound impact on our communities, ending legal access programs has further exacerbated the limited capacity of the immigrant legal services field," she said. "Alongside our inspiring network of legal service provider partners, we will continue to fight for these lifesaving programs to be restored so that families, children, and adults aren't forced to navigate our country's increasingly dehumanizing immigration system alone."

"As ICE tramples all semblance of due process and the rule of law, they are terrorizing our communities."

Stressing that "this is more than a policy shift," Rowland-Kain called the Trump administration's actions "a coordinated effort to sideline due process and deport people without giving them the opportunity to present their case."

"What should have been a space for due process is instead a site of fear," she said. "Masked and armed federal agents are arresting and intimidating people who attend court. Volunteers and attorneys are being surveilled. Every day, our members are in those courtrooms—often the only ones there to stand beside immigrants facing an unjust system. We will continue to do our work and to push back."

'No Secret Police Act': Democratic Bill Would Ban Trump's Masked Federal Agents

"If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous," said Rep. Adriano Espaillat.


Masked federal agents stand outside a gate of Dodger Stadium on June 19, 2025 in Los Angeles, California.
(Photo: Mario Tama/Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jun 26, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

From the abductions of foreign students Rümeysa Öztürk and Mahmoud Khalil to the violent accosting of New York City Comptroller Brad Lander as he was trying to shield an immigrant from arrest at a courthouse, the images have become familiar to many Americans: masked federal agents descending on communities across the U.S. and arresting citizens and immigrants alike.

Two Democratic lawmakers on Thursday demanded an end to the Trump administration's use of "secret police," introducing legislation that would require all law enforcement officers and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) agents—including Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)—to clearly display identification and their official badges when detaining or arresting people.


"If you uphold the peace of a democratic society, you should not be anonymous," said U.S. Rep. Adriano Espaillat (D-N.Y.). "DHS and ICE agents wearing masks and hiding identification echoes the tactics of secret police authoritarian regimes—and deviates from the practices of local law enforcement, which contributes to confusion in communities."

Espaillat was joined by Rep. Dan Goldman (D-N.Y.) in introducing the No Secret Police Act, which would also direct Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to conduct research and development to enhance the visibility of official insignia and identification.

"Across the country, plain-clothed federal agents in homemade face coverings are lying in wait outside immigration courts to snatch law-abiding, nonviolent immigrants going through our legal system the right way," said Goldman. "This isn't about protecting law enforcement, it's about terrorizing immigrant communities."

The legislation was introduced a day after U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi claimed during a Senate hearing that she hadn't been aware of federal agents' recent practice under the Trump administration of wearing masks while completing law enforcement work.

Todd Lyons, ICE's acting director, also said recently that the agency's officers "wear masks for personal protection and to prevent doxxing."

But as New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote Wednesday, "ICE has no right to anonymity."

"All people engaged in public service, from the president to an officer of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, are bound by the nature of a public office to act with some fidelity to the public interest," wrote Bouie. "At a minimum, they must be accountable to the people they serve, ready to accept responsibility when they abuse their power or violate the trust of the public."

Murad Awawdeh, president and CEO of the New York Immigration Coalition, said that by granting ICE agents anonymity, the Trump administration has begun "a war on immigrant communities carried out in the shadows... an unconstitutional campaign of terror."

"Armed, unmarked federal agents are stalking immigrants outside courtrooms and targeting people who are following the rules and fighting for their lives. These tactics are ripped straight from an authoritarian playbook," said Awawdeh. "We will not be silenced nor intimidated by these actions. We are on the right side of the law and we will fight tooth and nail to end this assault on our people and our democracy. We call for the swift passage of the No Secret Police Act."

Gestapo: You Guys Look Like Fucking Criminals


ICE thugs raid a popular swap meet in southern California.
Screenshot from KTLA

Abby Zimet
Jun 25, 2025

COMMON DREAMS

New war hysteria looms, yet still armed, masked, unnamed stormtroopers roam the land, keeping us safe from "the worst of the worst illegal alien criminals" by abducting nefarious landscapers, car wash workers, Wal Mart greeters, tamale makers, swap meet fans and distraught mothers of children with cancer. As glorified "state-sanctioned intimidation" turns some terrified Latino neighborhoods into ghost towns, "Day by passing day, we are watching what amounts to a national police riot by ICE."

In our new Police States of America, the chilling images are everywhere: Throngs of burly, ill-trained, rifle-toting bullies cosplaying as soldiers, storming a car wash or Home Depot in their fearless face masks, headphones, neck gaiters, camo helmets, armored vests, mirrored sunglasses, dime-store badges, tight t-shirts and tough-guy walkie-talkies to round up and terrorize whatever brown-skinned innocents they can find into unmarked cars and then, whoosh just like Fast and Furious, into unknown, possibly illegal, probably distant detention camps. Who are these louts? Nobody knows. Operating under an ominous "shroud of opacity" lacking any accountability, they could be any racist losers with a penchant for violence: For an entry-level "frontline" ICE gig, they just need a driver's license and have to be a U.S. citizen, eligible to carry a firearm, younger than 40. They can apply online.

Rumors abound: They are Proud Boys, Patriot Front, J-6 warriors, former goons of Erik Prince's malignant Blackwater, which would be "quite the callback to Season One of Fascist Celebrity Apprentice." Some are likely former cops gone flabby or fired for excessive force. Many are likely garden-variety white nationalists, friendless basement-dwelling incels weary of playing Call of Duty and eager to up their ugly game by arresting brown people. To a point: Despite being giddily kitted out in over-the-top, Bagdad-ready military gear, they've reportedly been advised to avoid all the seriously gangsterish areas around L.A., which is why we've seen virtually no videos of amateur-hour Nazi thugs confronting gang members who might actually punch or shoot back - just manhandling pregnant moms, elderly farmworkers, dazed young skinny guys wiping down windshields at car washes.

Starting years ago with a heinous orange guy pronouncing all Mexicans rapists and murderers, it keeps getting worse as guard rails drop. His marauding agents of chaos can now go after frightened targets in once-safe spaces: schools, courts, hospitals, places of worship. They often skip warrants, mask up, refuse to identify themselves, grab U.S. citizens or witnesses (legally) recording - reminiscent, many note, of Gestapo on the streets of Poland. They just further limitedoversight by ending lawmakers' unannounced visits to detention facilities and requiring at least 72 hours' notice. And now - thanks Goebbels - the "heat's on to (go) after the devils who are taking away the jobs." No wonder stories of random bigots impersonating ICE - "Don’t be speaking that pig-Latin in my fucking country!" - are soaring. Also, kudos to Gloria Johnson on her "unhealthy toddler impersonating a President."


And so to harrowing videos of working people suddenly assaulted, cuffed and whisked away by mobs of jumpy, bellicose hoodlums in what newly arrested New York Comptroller Brad Lander calls "a proceeding that bears no resemblance to justice." Like the 238 Venezuelans deported to El Salvador, at least 75% have no criminal history; most of the rest have paltry traffic or immigration violations before being "effectively disappeared." They grabbed a young Afghan interpreter for U.S. troops who invaded his country; he was at court, checking in as instructed. They pinned a pregnant U.S. citizen to a truck, detained the baby's father, then let her go to give birth four days later. They cuffed, interrogated and pulled a gun on a U.S. citizen in Chicago who, driving past thugs accosting a woman, "gave a little honk (to) be there for my people"; said thugs claimed he tried to kill them.

ICE rampages are nationwide. Here in Portland ME, an immigration legal advocacy group gets over 60 calls a day from people too scared to go to work, Hispanic kids only go out to play after dark, and abduction stories spread. In Oregon's wine country, thugs nabbed and put in chains Moises Sotelo, popular 2020 winner of the Oregon Wine Board's Vineyard Excellence Award, who's lived and raised a family there for decades. In a statement, ICE got all the facts wrong about Sotelo; when a friend tried to visit him in detention, he'd vanished and an official insisted they didn't have to tell him to where: "I told him I thought that sounded wrong, and he said, ‘Well, that’s the way it is.'" The Guardian managed to find out Sotelo was shipped to Arizona; when they asked for ICE confirmation they're under no obligation to tell family or attorneys where prisoners are, they responded, "That is correct."

Clearly California, and especially majority-Latino L.A., are the hardest hit. One resident tries to describe it: "Imagine vans roll up to your local Hobby Lobby. Heavily armed men pour out, body armor, masked, no I.D. They immediately move to every white person they see. They handcuff them, assuming they're Jan. 6 rioters." In Pico Rivera, they mobbed and took down a scrawny 20-year-old Wal-Mart worker and U.S. citizen when he tried to stop them from grabbing an older worker; the community loudly protested. In Huffington Park, a half-dozen cars filled with armed, masked, cosplay soldiers barged into the home of a pregnant mother of four; they were looking for her husband David; she said her husband's name is Jorge, and he wasn't there. Nazi Barbie stood outside, ready for the cameras; instead, they left empty-handed, after which the kids got to go back into their now-trashed house.

In Santa Fe Springs, a DHS copter circled overhead as about sixty armed, masked, geared-up brownshirts-in-jeans surged across a crowded flea market as vendors and customers fled in terror. After dragging out people from bathrooms and harassing whoever they found for I.D's, they cuffed and hauled off two victims. Another mob of about 20 masked, psyched, uber-armed hooligans went aftera 60-year-old woman selling tamales outside a Lowe's; after she had a panic attack and collapsed, chaos ensued: Sirens, air horns, brave furious swarms of locals, cell cameras held high, yelling, "You guys are fucking terrorists!" and "What the fuck are you doing here?" As one chubby jerk lifted his rifle, they shrieked, "We don't need fucking guns here! Go get some bad guys!" "What a bunch of weak-ass cowards," said one. "If kidnapping the Tamale Lady doesn't wake you up, you're dead inside."

In Santa Ana, in video that's gone viral, hoodlums brutally beat, punched and pepper-sprayed a 48-year-old landscaper and father of three U.S. Marines before dragging him so hard into an unmarked van they dislocated his shoulder; one son said over 24 hours later his father had gotten no treatment, water or food (but thank you for your service). In Pasadena, a power-drunk thug leapt out of his car, drew his gun and (illegally) pointed it at the head of a guy taking a photo of his (illegally) glare-guard-obscured license plate. Comments on a hyper-militarized GI-Joe wannabe with zero accountability: "Needs to deport: illegal, paranoid, jumpy," "Where can I report a masked man pulling a firearm on a civilian while stopped in traffic in the middle of the day?" "In hindsight, maybe empowering thugs to become American Gestapo might not have been so wise," and, "I think we're officially a shithole country now."

In what passes for mercy these days, an El Monte mother of a 21-year-old daughter battling bone cancer - the mom filmed weeping as she was dragged off - was released on bond on "humanitarian" grounds after outraged "Free Yolanda" marches; in an interview, she stoically displayed her ankle monitor. But that was a rare, small victory. Much more common are surreal scenes like the geared-up punk in Santa Ana, part of a raid outside the Little Market, seeing an observer recording from a nearby car and swiftly sticking his rifle in her face. Later, the woman, part of a local, grassroots rapid response team, calmly posted video of the encounter with helpful information: "You are legally allowed to record an ICE raid from a safe distance, for you and them. They are NOT supposed to draw any type of weapon at you for simply recording...With that said, move with caution.",

In his Doomsday Scenario, Garrett Graff argues the regime's anti-immigrant machinery has "switftly transformed itself into the closest thing the US has ever had to a secret police at the heart of our democracy" - an entity more culturally akin to the Klan nightriders of Reconstruction than any legit law enforcement agency, and one that does not believe it will ever be subject to any meaningful legal oversight or restraint by people in power wholly indifferent to public perceptions of their abuses. Given that indifference, the S.S.-like Goebbel push for 2,000 arrests a day, and soaring assaults on California's farm workers, day laborers, street vendors and other "easy targets" in easily accessed outdoor jobs, local lawmakers and rights advocates are doing what they can to tweak the laws, educate and protect the most vulnerable, and stem the authoritarian tide.

In response to all the documented abuses, two Bay Area legislators just introduced a bill to bar all law enforcement from wearing masks; it also requires them to identify themselves with badges and names. Arguing, "These are not lawful arrests," Huntington Park Mayor Arturo Flores has also called on local police to verify identities of gun-in-your-face yahoos carrying out "masked abductions," and to enforce vehicle codes on visible license plates and agency markings. Still, with many rights advocates charging there's often distance between Dems' rhetoric and reality - LAPD is "protecting (ICE), not protecting us" - local organizers have ratcheted up advocacy efforts with groups like CLEAN Carwash Worker Center and Community Self-Defense Coalition, offering residents rights workshops, “Know Your Rights” cards, and “adopt a corner” programs to warn workers of raids. Lone patriots have quietly stepped up.

In L.A., protests continue, tow trucks are reportedly hauling off ICE rigs in solidarity, and cowboys did a unity ride because, "Nobody is going to save us. We have to come out and stand up." Elsewhere, there are No Sleep For Ice protests - drums, cans, trombones - at hotels where they stay. A new “Dictator Approved" sculpture appeared in D.C. featuring a fat, gold, thumbs-up hand crushing the crown of Lady Liberty and mock tributes from despots: "Trump is a very bright and talented man."The Onion did a special issue - sample: "Think Tank Called Himmler Institute Assures Nation This All Legal" - thanking a craven Congress for doing nothing as we "stand in the smoldering ruins of our democratic government...slipping smoothly into the warm bath of authoritarianism...Now more than ever, our nation needs your cowardice." Then they stuck a print copy in every congressperson’s mailbox.Still, the horrors mount, brutality upon brutality. Goons abduct a woman en route to school with her kids, left sobbing; a reporter covering “No Kings” protests; a pregnant woman who suffers a stillbirth when she's denied care in custody; 15 workers on a flood control project in flood-prone New Orleans. They devise Alligator Alcatraz, a migrant concentration camp of tents and misery in Florida's Everglades, where if they escape, a baleful video leers, alligators and pythons await them. And they swarm Bubble Bath Car Wash in Torrance CA, where the owner yells, "Get outta here You guys look like fucking criminals, and you act like criminals." A defiant woman out front joins in, berating them as bounty hunters. "Who are you guys? You need to fucking identify yourselves - this is a kidnap," she shouts. "Fucking racial profiling is against the law, motherfuckers. Get the fuck outta here, assholes." Deflated thugs stand dumbly, then slink away. "Fuck them, assholes," she spits. There are monsters among us. There are also saints.

Update: On Tuesday, MAGA's own Goebbels, reflecting his racist cabal's meltdown that Zohran Mamdani, a brown person (Muslim yet), won the New York City mayoral primary, blamed the catastrophe on "unchecked immigration." He called Mamdani's rise "the clearest warning yet of what happens to a society when it fails to control migration," noting a third of New York City's residents are foreign-born and almost two-thirds of its children live in a foreign-born household. Sounds pretty cool to us.

The US Supreme Court Just Granted Trump a License to Erase Moral Responsibility

By permitting the U.S. government to deport asylum-seekers and noncriminal undocumented immigrants to random third countries, the six Republicans on the bench handed a dangerous tool to a man most inclined to abuse it.

People take part in a protest against the deportation of alleged Venezuelan criminals from the USA to a high-security prison in El Salvador in Caracas, Venezuela on April 9, 2025.
(Photo: Jesus Vargas/picture alliance via Getty Images)

Thom Hartmann
Jun 26, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The American people just got a taste of authoritarianism wrapped in judicial robes. In a stunning 6-3 ruling this week, the Supreme Court green-lit the mass deportation of immigrants, not to their home countries but to third nations where they have no legal status, no family, and often no hope.

In her dissent, Justice Sonja Sotomayor, calling the shadow docket ruling “inexcusable,” pointed out how destructive this is to the rule of law (both U.S. and international law largely prohibit this) and to the lives of the people who may be deported without due process:

The Government has made clear in word and deed that it feels itself unconstrained by law, free to deport anyone anywhere without notice or an opportunity to be heard. The episodes of noncompliance in this very case illustrate the risks.

The Due Process Clause represents “the principle that ours is a government of laws, not of men, and that we submit ourselves to rulers only if under rules.” By rewarding lawlessness, the court once again undermines that foundational principle.

In matters of life and death, it is best to proceed with caution. In this case, the government took the opposite approach. It wrongfully deported one plaintiff to Guatemala, even though an Immigration judge found he was likely to face torture there. Then, in clear violation of a court order, it deported six more to South Sudan, a nation the State Department considers too unsafe for all but its most critical personnel.

This ruling by six corrupt Republican justices allows Donald Trump or any future president to designate any country they choose as a “safe third country” and deport people there without meaningful review, even if they’ve committed no crime and have a valid asylum claim.

If that sounds familiar, it should. It echoes one of the most cold-blooded decisions made by Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime: to locate their extermination camps not within Germany, but in the foreign lands of occupied Poland.

Let’s be clear: Deportation is not genocide. But both decisions—then and now—are grounded in the same logic of moral evasion through geographic displacement.

When regimes want to commit acts that would stir conscience or provoke backlash at home, they find ways to outsource the cruelty.

The decision wasn’t just about deportation. It was about moral laundering, washing the blood off our hands by putting it on someone else’s tarmac.

The Nazi leadership understood that while Germany’s public had been bombarded with antisemitic propaganda for years, they still might balk at the wholesale slaughter of millions of people inside German borders. So they built Auschwitz, Treblinka, Sobibor, and Belzec far away, deep in Poland, where there were no German newspapers, no prying eyes, and no courts to second-guess their machinery of death.

As Raul Hilberg and other Holocaust historians have documented, Nazi leaders like Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich made this decision deliberately to preserve the illusion of “moral cleanliness” at home while carrying out genocide abroad.

Today’s Trump version of this practice is more sanitized, but no less cynical.

By permitting the U.S. government to deport asylum-seekers and noncriminal undocumented immigrants to random third countries—often places they’ve never even set foot in—the Supreme Court has granted the executive branch a license to erase moral responsibility.

As long as the suffering happens somewhere else, we’re told, it’s not our fault. It’s not our soil. Not our responsibility.

That kind of logic is the death of democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. As Federal Judge Patricia Millett said of Trump’s deportation of Venezuelan prisoners to a concentration camp in El Salvador, compared with FDR’s actions in WWII, “Nazis got better treatment under the Alien Enemies Act.”

A future president with dictatorial ambitions could cite this ruling to round up political dissidents, journalists, or whistleblowers and ship them off to “safe third countries” that are anything but.

The Trump administration argued—and the court’s on-the-take, Republican-appointed majority agreed—that migrants have no right to American judicial processes once they’re transferred elsewhere. In other words, we can dodge our legal obligations under both U.S. and international law simply by putting someone on a plane.

This is the same loophole thinking that allowed George W. Bush’s administration to kidnap terror suspects and ship them to places like Egypt and Syria, where they were tortured out of view. That policy was called “extraordinary rendition.” Today, we might call this new policy extraordinary rejection: a way to deny asylum without confronting its human cost.

And here’s the truly chilling part: Once someone has been deported to a third country, they are functionally outside the U.S. legal system. They can’t sue. They can’t appeal. They may not even survive. And, to Trump’s delight, it’ll all be outside the reach of American courts and U.S. media.

This obscene policy isn’t about safety, it’s about displacement as punishment and the creation of a pseudo-legal infrastructure of indifference to the humanity of the people we’re “processing.”

Whether it’s a camp outside Kraków or a deportation center in Guatemala, the strategy is the same: create a zone of moral invisibility. A legal no-man’s-land where acts that would outrage decent people become routine, because they happen far away, beyond the reach of media, law, and conscience.

That’s not how democracies behave: That’s how authoritarian regimes insulate themselves from dissent.

And like all authoritarian tools, once it exists, it will be used again.

You may think this only affects immigrants. But consider: The legal precedent now exists for the government to forcibly remove someone from U.S. soil and drop them in another country without due process. Today it’s asylum-seekers. Tomorrow, who knows?

A future president with dictatorial ambitions could cite this ruling to round up political dissidents, journalists, or whistleblowers and ship them off to “safe third countries” that are anything but.

You think that’s paranoid? So did people in 1932 Berlin.

The genius of the American system—at least in theory—is that it puts checks on state power. The executive cannot act like a king. The courts must protect the vulnerable. And the public must have visibility into the actions done in our name.

This week, though, the Supreme Court abdicated that role. And in doing so, the six Republicans on the bench handed a dangerous tool to a man most inclined to abuse it.

Let’s not kid ourselves. The decision wasn’t just about deportation. It was about moral laundering, washing the blood off our hands by putting it on someone else’s tarmac.

The Nazis did it. So did the Bush administration. Now Trump’s backers on the court have opened the door once more.

History doesn’t repeat, but, as Mark Twain said, it rhymes. And if we’re not careful, we may soon find that rhyme turning into a full verse we’ve heard before.

US Supreme Court Religious Opt-Out Ruling 'Could Wreak Havoc on Public Schools'

The ruling, said Justice Sonia Sotomayor, reflects the right-wing majority's "failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."


Supporters of LGBTQ+ rights hold signs as they demonstrate outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. on April 22, 2025.
(Photo: Oliver Contreras/AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

A day after many LGBTQ+ Americans celebrated the 10th anniversary of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling that established marriage equality in the United States, right-wing Justice Samuel Alito suggested in a new decision that public schools should not promote "acceptance of same-sex marriage."

Alito's opinion was handed down in a 6-3 ruling in Mahmoud v. Taylor, in which the high court's right-wing majority held that parents should be permitted to opt their children out of certain lessons in public schools on religious grounds.

The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by parents of several religious backgrounds in Montgomery County, Maryland, who sued the county's school system for not giving parents advance notice and an opportunity to opt out of a curriculum that included storybooks dealing with LGBTQ+ themes.

The books included Pride Puppy, about a dog that gets lost at an LGBTQ+ pride parade; Love, Violet, about a girl who has a same-sex crush; Born Ready, about a transgender boy; and Uncle Bobby's Wedding, about a gay couple getting married.

Alito pointed to the latter book in particular in his opinion.

"It is significant that this book does not simply refer to same-sex marriage as an existing practice," wrote the judge. "Instead, it presents acceptance of same-sex marriage as a perspective that should be celebrated."

Elly Brinkley, staff attorney for U.S. Free Expression Programs at the free speech group PEN America, noted the timing of Alito's comments about marriage equality.

"Just after the 10th anniversary of Obergefell v. Hodges and as we celebrate Pride Month, the Supreme Court has delivered a devastating blow to the dignity of LGBTQ+ people and families," said Brinkley. "This ruling means that parents can opt their children out of any classroom activity that acknowledges same-sex marriages, the right to which this very court held was guaranteed by the Constitution."

The right-wing majority ruled that Montgomery County Public Schools must allow families to opt out of any lessons that parents believe will interfere with their children's religious education, including stories or discussions with LGBTQ+ themes.

"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights."

Legal scholars said that in addition to stigmatizing the families of an estimated 5 million children in the U.S. who have one or more LGBTQ+ parents, the ruling could pave the way for parents to argue that their children shouldn't be exposed at school to materials involving any number of topics, including evolution, yoga, and mothers who work outside the home—all issues that have been the subject of earlier, unsuccessful lawsuits against schools.

"The decision could have far-reaching consequences for public schools' ability to create an inclusive and welcoming environment that reflects the diversity of their communities, as well schools' ability to implement any secular lesson plan that may trigger religious objections," said the ACLU, which filed an amicus brief in the case arguing that the school district's "policy prohibiting opt-outs from the English Language Arts curriculum is religiously neutral and applicable across the board."

Daniel Mach, director of the ACLU's Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief, said that religious freedom is "fundamentally important" under U.S. law.

But freedom of religion, Mach said, "shouldn't force public schools to exempt students from any secular lessons that don't align with their families' religious views. This decision could wreak havoc on public schools, tying their hands on basic curricular decisions and undermining their ability to prepare students to live in our pluralistic society."

Cecilia Wang, national legal director of the ACLU, added that parents with religious objections will now be "empowered to pick and choose from a secular public school curriculum, interfering with the school district's legitimate educational purposes and its ability to operate schools without disruption—ironically, in a case where the curriculum is designed to foster civility and understanding across differences."

Liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented in the case, with Sotomayor making the unusual move of announcing her dissent from the bench.

Citizens fully experiencing the United States' multicultural society, said Sotomayor, "is critical to our nation's civic vitality. Yet it will become a mere memory if children must be insulated from exposure to ideas and concepts that may conflict with their parents' religious beliefs."

She also accused the majority of making a "myopic attempt to resolve a major constitutional question through close textual analysis of Uncle Bobby's Wedding," which revealed, she said, "its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist."

The ruling is the latest victory for right-wing advocates of what they view as religious freedom at the high court; other recent rulings have allowed a web designer to refuse to make a website for same-sex couples and a high school football coach to pray with his team at school games.

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, called Friday's ruling a "deeply troubling outcome for public education, equality, and the constitutional principle of the separation between state and church."

"This ruling threatens to give any religious parent veto power over public school curricula. If this dangerous logic is carried forward, it could unravel decades of progress toward inclusive education and equal rights," said Gaylor. "Public schools must be grounded in facts and reality and not subject to religious censors."

By Limiting Nationwide Injunctions, US Supreme Court Declares 'Open Season on All Our Rights'

In a ruling that stems from the president's birthright citizenship order, the "conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses."


Demonstrators hold up signs opposing President Donald Trump and his attack on birthright citizenship outside the U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., on June 27, 2025.
(Photo: Alex Wroblewski/AFP via Getty Images)


Jessica Corbett
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


The U.S. Supreme Court issued a flurry of decisions Friday morning, including a ruling related to U.S. President Donald Trump's attack on birthright citizenship that led legal experts, elected Democrats, immigrants, and rights advocates to warn—as MoveOn Civic Action spokesperson Britt Jacovich put it—that the justices "just made it easier for Trump to take away your rights."

Three different federal judges had granted nationwide injunctions blocking Trump's effort to end birthright citizenship with an executive order that Cody Wofsy, deputy director of the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project, described as "blatantly illegal and cruel." Rather than considering the constitutionality of the president's order, the justices examined the relief provided by lower courts.

"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet."

In Friday's 6-3 ruling for Trump v. CASA, the right-wing justices held that "universal injunctions likely exceed the equitable authority that Congress has given to federal courts," with Justice Amy Coney Barrett, a Trump appointee, delivering the majority opinion.

"The Supreme Court's conservative supermajority just took away lower courts' single most powerful tool for reining in the Trump administration's lawless excesses," wroteSlate's Mark Joseph Stern‬. "I understand there is some debate about the scope of this ruling, but my view remains that the Supreme Court has just effectively abolished universal injunctions, at least as we know them. The question now is really whether lower courts can craft something to replace them that still sweeps widely."

"Trump's Justice Department is about to file a motion in every lower court where it faces a universal injunction citing this case and arguing that the injunction must be narrowed," the journalist explained. "This will have huge downstream consequences for a ton of other extraordinarily important and controversial cases."

Justice Sonia Sotomayor penned a dissent, joined by the other two liberals, and Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson also wrote her own. Many other critics of the high court's majority decision echoed their warnings about the expected consequences of the ruling.

"The Supreme Court has green-lighted Trump to run roughshod over a critical constitutional right. This is not a slide into authoritarianism—this is a one-way plummet," said Analilia Mejia and DaMareo Cooper, co-executive directors of the grassroots coalition Popular Democracy, in a Friday statement.

"This ruling takes away the power of lower courts to block unconstitutional moves from the government on a federal level— allowing the government to act with impunity and apply law inconsistently across the country," they stressed. "As Justice Sotomayor wrote, 'No right is safe in the new legal regime this court creates.'"



Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.), the daughter of Guatemalan immigrants and a citizen by birthright, said Friday that "I agree, Judge Sotomayor, no right is safe under the new regime, not even the ones clearly guaranteed under our Constitution."

"For more than 100 years, the 14th Amendment has reaffirmed that all people born in the U.S. are U.S. citizens, with equal rights under the law. It has been and is the law of the land, consistently upheld by courts and scholars across the political spectrum," she noted. "But in limiting nationwide injunctions, Trump's loyalists have decided to—once again—put him above the rule of law, our Constitution, and the principles of our nation."

Caroline Ciccone, president of the watchdog Accountable.US, highlighted that same line from Sotomayor and also explained that "results like this are the result of a yearslong takeover by Trump and special interest allies to capture the courts and install conservative majorities that help him advance an extreme ideological agenda."

"Let's be clear: The Trump administration appealed this case to undermine the power of federal judges, rather than address his blatantly unconstitutional executive order seeking to end birthright citizenship," Ciccone said.

Brett Edkins, managing director of policy and political affairs at the progressive advocacy group Stand Up America, said that "as Justice Jackson notes, 'The court's decision to permit the executive to violate the Constitution with respect to anyone who has not yet sued is an existential threat to the rule of law.'"

"Today, six justices on the Supreme Court eliminated one of the most effective checks on Donald Trump, clearing a path for him to impose his extreme, anti-democratic agenda on any American who can't afford a lawyer or doesn't join the game of litigation Whac-A-Mole now required to protect their basic rights," he added. "This ruling should send a chill down every American's spine."

Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) also described the decision as chilling and argued on social media that "the Supreme Court is declaring open season on all our rights."



U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Immigration Subcommittee, called out the high court for failing "every American," and said that "we must heed Justice Jackson's warning," citing that same line from her dissent.

Maggie Jo Buchanan, interim executive director of the group Demand Justice, pointed to another line, agreeing that "as Justice Jackson wrote in her dissent, the court has created an 'existential threat' to the rule of law and the system of checks and balances upon which our nation was founded."

"The same six justices who gave Trump king-like immunity for criminal acts have now limited the ability of the judicial branch to protect everyday Americans from unconstitutional or illegal executive overreach," she said, referring to a decision issued a year ago. "Just as Republican leaders in Congress duck their heads and carry out Trump's bidding, the Republican appointees on the court do so as well."

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) also took aim at both his GOP colleagues and the justices, saying that "the Supreme Court's decision to limit courts of their long-held authority to block illegal executive actions is an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court."

"Congressional Republicans have to choose between being bystanders or co-conspirators," Schumer added, urging them to challenge Trump. "Congress must check this unimpeded power, but for that to happen, Republican members must stand up for core American democratic values and not for unchecked presidential power of the kind that our Founders most deeply feared."

In addition to sounding the alarm about what the high court's decision means for all future legal battles, critics noted that although the justices didn't weigh in on Trump's birthright citizenship order, it could soon start to impact families nationwide.

"The administration's attempt to deny citizenship to many children born in the United States is unquestionably unconstitutional, and nothing in today's Supreme Court opinion suggests otherwise. Yet, the court has nonetheless created a real risk that the administration's unconstitutional order will go into effect in many parts of the country in 30 days," said Sam Spital, associate director-counsel at the Legal Defense Fund (LDF), vowing to continue the fight against the order.



FWD.us president Todd Schulte pointed out that with its new ruling, "the Supreme Court has opened the door to a fractured system in which a child born in one state is recognized as a citizen, but a child born in another is not."

"If the president's order is allowed to go into effect by the lower courts, there will be immediate chaos for parents, hospitals, and local officials, and long-term harm for families and communities across the country," he warned.

Juana, a pregnant mother, CASA member, and named plaintiff in a lawsuit over the order, said Friday that "I'm heartbroken that the Supreme Court chose to limit protections instead of standing firmly for all families like mine."

"Every child born here deserves the same rights, no matter who their parents are," Juana declared. "I joined this lawsuit not just for my baby, but for every child who deserves to be recognized as fully American from their first breath. We won't stop fighting until that promise is real for everyone."

Shortly after the ruling, organizations including the ACLU, Democracy Defenders Fund, and LDF filed a class action lawsuit on behalf of a proposed class of babies subject to Trump's executive order and their parents.

"The Constitution guarantees birthright citizenship, and no procedural ruling will stop us from fighting to uphold that promise," said Tianna Mays, legal director for Democracy Defenders Fund. "Our plaintiffs, and millions of families across this country, deserve clarity, stability, and justice. We look forward to making our case in court again."

The Republican Nursing Home Apocalypse


If the Big Ugly Bill becomes law, over half of nursing homes say they will have to reduce staff, and a quarter say they will close.



Sr. Jeanne Arsenault returns to her room after breakfast at St. Chretienne Retirement Residence, a home for Catholic nuns in Marlborough, Massachusetts on August 26, 2020.
(Photo: Craig F. Walker/The Boston Globe via Getty Images)

Alex Lawson
Jun 30, 2025

Common Dreams

Imagine learning that your grandmother’s nursing home is closing. The nearest one with room for her is a three-hour drive away. It doesn’t accept Medicaid, so if your grandmother is among the two-thirds of nursing home patients who are covered by Medicaid, she’s out of luck.

Your grandfather still lives at home. But the hospital near his house is closing, too. If he has a medical emergency, he’ll have to go to an overburdened hospital that’s 40 minutes away.

That’s what will happen if President Donald Trump’s so-called “One Big Beautiful Bill” becomes law. There’s nothing beautiful about this hideous betrayal of the American people. Unless you’re a billionaire who can hop in a helicopter to see your private doctor, it will make your health care worse. All to give that same billionaire a giant tax cut.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.

The Big Ugly Bill cuts a trillion dollars from Medicaid. Even if you’re not on Medicaid, this will hurt you and your family. That’s because hospitals and nursing homes around the country rely on Medicaid for much of their funding.

If this bill becomes law, over half of nursing homes say they will have to reduce staff, and a quarter say they will close. At the nursing homes that remain open, seniors and people with disabilities will wait in agony for someone to take them to the bathroom or give them their pain medication.

Those whose nursing homes close will struggle to find another one with room for them, especially if they rely on Medicaid. If they manage to find one, it will likely be hours away from their loved ones.

This bill is a disaster for people who rely on Medicaid to pay for nursing homes and other long-term care. But it’s also a disaster even for those who don’t directly rely on Medicaid, because it will devastate the entire healthcare system. Rural areas will be hit hardest, but nowhere and no one (except for billionaires) is safe.

Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) told Iowans concerned about the bill’s Medicaid cuts that “we all are going to die.” Many of us will die faster, including the hundreds of Iowans who will lose their nursing home beds.

In Iowa alone the impact is massive across the entire state and in each vulnerable Republican House District.

In Iowa’s 1st District, represented by Republican Mariannette Miller-Meeks, four nursing homes with a collective 280 beds will close: Aspire of Muscatine (46), Mississippi Valley Healthcare & Rehabilitation Center—Keokuk (83), Iowa City Rehab and Health Care Center—Iowa City (89), and Azria Health Prairie Ridge—Mediapolis (62).

In Iowa’s 2nd District, represented by Republican Ashley Hinson, two nursing homes with a collective 271 beds will close: Heritage Specialty Care—Cedar Rapids (201) and Cedar Falls Healthcare Center (70).

In Iowa’s 3rd District, represented by Republican Zach Nunn, two nursing homes with a collective 113 beds will close: Aspire of Perry (46) and Granger Nursing and Rehabilitation Center—Granger (67).

And this story repeats across the entire country. There is no place to hide from the tsunami being unleashed against nursing homes. Anyone who has dealt with the current system knows how bad it is now. It is about to be a whole lot worse. Nursing homes that don’t close outright will become death traps as the demand far outstrips the supply.

All of this needless death and chaos, just so some billionaires can get trillions in tax handouts that they don’t even need.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) says Americans who are concerned about Medicaid should “get over it.” Sorry, Mitch. We refuse to “get over it,” and we’re not dying quietly.

Polling shows that Americans hate the Big Ugly Bill—if they know about what’s in it. The problem is that most of them don’t. Nearly half of Americans are completely unaware of the bill, and only 8% of them know it cuts Medicaid.

Talk to your friends and family members. Tell them that Republicans are about to cause a nursing home and hospital apocalypse—but it isn’t too late to stop it. The Senate is voting on the Big Ugly Bill very soon. Then, it goes back to the House of Representatives, where Republicans will try to rush the bill through before the public can learn about it.

Call your representative and both senators now at 202-224-3121. The key swing votes in the Senate include Susan Collins of Maine (the oldest, and most rural, state in the country) and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska. If you know anyone in those states, urge them to call today and tell their senators to stop the nursing home apocalypse!

UN Expert Calls for 'Defossilization' of World Economy, Criminal Penalties for Big Oil Climate Disinformation

Fossil fuel companies have for decades "instilled doubt about the need to act on, and the viability of, renewables," said U.N. climate expert Elisa Morgera.

Rescuers help evacuate residents from a flooded street in Rongjiang, in China's southwest Guizhou province, on June 24, 2025.
(Photo: AFP via Getty Images)

Julia Conley
Jun 30, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


As health officials across Europe issued warnings Monday about extreme heat that could stretch into the middle of the week in several countries—the kind of dangerous conditions that meteorologists have consistently said are likely to grow more frequent due to human-caused climate change—a top United Nations climate expert told the international body in Geneva that the "defossilization" of all the world's economies is needed.

Elisa Morgera, the U.N. special rapporteur on climate change, presented her recent report on "the imperative of defossilizing our economies," with a focus on the wealthy countries that are projected to increase their extraction and use of fossil fuels despite the fact that "there is no scientific doubt that fossil fuels... are the main cause of climate change."

"Despite overwhelming evidence of the interlinked, intergenerational, severe, and widespread human rights impacts of the fossil fuel life cycle," said Morgera, "these countries have and are still accruing enormous profits from fossil fuels, and are still not taking decisive action."

World leaders must recognize the phase-out of fossil fuels "as the single most impactful health contribution" they could make, she argued.




Morgera named the U.S., U.K., Australia, and Canada as wealthy nations where governments are still handing out billions of dollars in subsidies to fossil fuel companies each year—direct payments, tax breaks, and other financial support whose elimination could reduce worldwide fossil fuel emissions by 10% by 2030, according to the report.

"These countries are responsible for not having prevented the widespread human rights harm arising from climate change and other planetary crises we are facing—biodiversity loss, plastic pollution, and economic inequalities—caused by fossil fuels extraction, use, and waste," said Morgera.

She also pointed to the need to "defossilize knowledge" by holding accountable the companies that have spent decades denying their own scientists' knowledge that continuing to extract oil, coal, and gas would heat the planet and cause catastrophic sea-level rise, hurricanes, flooding, and dangerous extreme heat, among other weather disasters.

Defossilizing information systems, said Morgera, would mean protecting "human rights in the formation of public opinion and democratic debate from undue commercial influence" and correcting decades of "information distortions" that have arisen from the public's ongoing exposure to climate disinformation at the hands of fossil fuel giants, the corporate media, and climate-denying politicians.

Morgera said states should prohibit all fossil fuel industry lobbying, which companies like ExxonMobil and Chevron spent more than $153 million last year in the U.S. alone—with spending increasing each year since 2020, according to OpenSecrets.

"More recent research has documented climate obstruction—intentional delaying efforts, including through media ownership and influence, waged against efforts for effective climate action aligned with the current scientific consensus," wrote Morgera. "Fossil fuel companies' lobbyists have increased their influence in public policy spaces internationally... and at the national level, to limit regulations and enforcement. They have instilled doubt about the need to act on, and the viability of, renewables, and have promoted speculative or ineffective solutions that present additional lock-in risks and higher costs."

While a transition to a renewable energy-based economy has been portrayed by the fossil fuel industry and its supporters in government as "radical," such a transition "is now cheaper and safer for our economics and a healthier option for our societies," Morgera toldThe Guardian on Monday.

"The transition can also lead to significant savings of taxpayer money that is currently going into responding to climate change impacts, saving health costs, and also recouping lost tax revenue from fossil fuel companies," she said. "This could be the single most impactful health contribution we could ever make. The transition seems radical and unrealistic because fossil fuel companies have been so good at making it seem so."

In addition to lobbying bans, said Morgera, governments around the world must ban fossil fuel advertising and criminalize "misinformation and misrepresentation (greenwashing) by the fossil fuel industry" as well as media and advertising firms that have amplified the industry's disinformation and misinformation.

Several countries have taken steps toward meeting Morgera's far-reaching demands, with The Hague in the Netherlands introducing a municipal ordinance in 2023 banning fossil fuel ads, the Australian Green Party backing such a ban, and Western Australia implementing one.

The fossil fuel industry's "playbook of climate obstruction"—from lobbying at national policymaking summits like the annual U.N. Climate Change Conference to downplaying human rights impacts like destructive storms and emphasizing the role of fossil fuels in "economic growth"—has "undermined the protection of all human rights that are negatively impacted by climate change for over six decades," said Morgera.

Morgera pointed to three ways in which states' obligations under international humanitarian laws underpin the need for a fossil fuel phaseout by 2030:The survival of states that contributed minimally to climate change is impaired by loss of territory to sea-level rise and/or protracted unsafe climatic conditions;
People are substantially deprived of their means of subsistence because of the severe deterioration of entire ecosystems due to climate change due to flooding, drought, and extreme heat; and
The cultural survival of the populations of small island developing states, Indigenous peoples, people of African descent, peasants and small-scale fishers is impaired by loss of territories, protracted unsafe climatic conditions and/or severe ecosystem degradation.

Morgera's report was presented as more than a third of Tuvaluans applied for a visa to move to Australia under a new climate deal between the two countries, as the Pacific island is one of the most vulnerable places on Earth to rising sea levels and severe storms.Morgera said that fossil fuel industry's impact on the human rights of people across the Global South—who have contributed little to the worsening of the climate emergency—"compels urgent defossilization of our whole economies, as part of a just, effective, and transformative transition." 

Senate Dems Demand Explanation After Big Oil Lobbied for 'Giveaways at the Expense of American Families'

The fossil fuel industry spent big to push through a $1 billion provision in the GOP budget bill, which the senators said would allow some oil companies to "pay no federal income taxes whatsoever."



U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at a forum in the Dirksen Senate Office Building on May 14, 2025.
(Photo: Jemal Countess/Getty Images for Student Borrower Protection Center)

Stephen Prager
Jun 27, 2025
COMMON DREAMS

Four Democratic U.S. senators are demanding an explanation from Big Oil after a $1.1 billion tax loophole was added to the Senate version of the GOP's budget reconciliation megabill.

Letters sent Thursday by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) called out the CEOs of two oil giants, ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv, which they say "lobbied furiously" for the handout.

The companies, the senators said, "[stand] to benefit tremendously from this provision and ha[ve] spent big to support it—while preserving the many government subsidies for the oil and gas industry already in the tax code."

They asked for the companies to disclose how much they have spent lobbying Republicans for the tax break and how much of a windfall they expect in return.

The provision in question, approved by the Senate Finance Committee last week, would shield many large oil companies from the Inflation Reduction Act's corporate alternative minimum tax, or CAMT. Introduced in 2022, the CAMT requires that companies making more than $1 billion pay 15% of the profits they report to shareholders.

"The rationale for CAMT was simple," the senators said. "For far too long, massive corporations had taken advantage of loopholes in the tax code to avoid paying their fair share, sometimes paying zero federal taxes despite earning billions in profits."

The GOP bill modifies how oil companies are required to report earnings, allowing them to exempt "intangible drilling and development costs," which in turn allows more companies to fall below the $1 billion earnings threshold.

The senators highlighted a 2023 earnings call by Marathon Oil, recently acquired by ConocoPhillips, in which executives said the CAMT was the only income tax they were required to pay.

"If enacted," the senators said, "this provision would reduce or even eliminate tax liabilities for oil and gas companies under CAMT, allowing some to pay no federal income taxes whatsoever."

The letter highlighted lobbying filings by ConocoPhillips and Ovintiv in which they "explicitly prioritize" securing this handout.

Referenced throughout is the aggressive effort to court Sen. James Lankford (R-Okla.), who wrote the loophole into the Senate bill. According to OpenSecrets, Lankford received more than $546,000 in campaign contributions from the oil and gas industry—his top source of industry donations—between 2019 and 2024.

The senators described the industry's lobbying as "especially insulting" because "Senate Republicans are trying to pay for this handout with cuts to other programs that would end up raising energy prices for everyday Americans."

The GOP bill would eliminate tax breaks for clean energy that incentivize consumers to purchase electric vehicles and make their homes more energy-efficient, including the home energy-efficiency and residential clean energy credits.

Citing data from Rewiring America, the senators estimated that ditching the two credits would cost the average household up to $2,200 per year in savings on utility bills.

The Center for American Progress projects that eliminating electric vehicle credits would increase demand for gasoline, raising prices by 27 to 35 cents per gallon by 2035. Americans will pay the oil and gas industry "an additional $339 billion for gasoline and $75 billion for electricity by 2035," the May report says.

"Congress should not raise energy prices for working families to deliver handouts to Big Oil," the senators said.