Does the Democratic Party Have a Death Wish?

The Epstein files won't save the party and 40 years of kissing Wall Street's ass cannot be undone by a PR campaign.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., left, and Democratic Caucus Chairman Pete Aguilar, D-Calif., conduct a news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on Wednesday, July 23, 2025.
(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)



Les Leopold
Aug 25, 2025

Common Dreams


The New York Times recently released a report showing what we already know—the Democrats are in decline as more voters now register as Republicans or Independents.

This is especially the case for young voters.

It’s not hard to figure out why. Just ask yourself this simple question: What is the Democratic Party vision for our country? What message of economic justice do they have for working people who have suffered mass layoffs and job insecurity in recent years and are finding themselves left behind?

What is their plan to help hard-working undocumented immigrants secure citizenship? How will they keep the wealth of the nation from gushing to the top one-tenth of the one percent?

Epstein!

That seems to be the current plan. The Democrats believe they can gain ground against Trump by forcing the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Supposedly this will split Trump from his conspiratorial base.

But what’s the chance of that helping the Democrats attract more registrants and votes?

Zilch.

And how about those record-breaking congressional speeches? Can anyone recall anything Corey Booker said during his 24 hours and 18 minutes on the Senate floor, or what Hakeem Jeffries said during his 8 hours and 44 minutes on the House floor? I sure can’t, and I suspect neither can those leaving the Democratic Party. Historic marathon elocution is surely an improvement on Biden’s difficulties forming sentences, but does it even attempt to put forth a vision for secure jobs and incomes for working people?

It’s time for a real second party of working people willing to turn trickle-down economics on its head. Working people, not Wall Street, should be the center of all economic policy.

The Democratic Party establishment is so fearful of “moving to the left” (meaning they do not want to attack the interests of their wealthy donors) they are having a tough time supporting Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic mayoral candidate in New York City, who is breathing new life into the party with a progressive and popular appeal to regular people and their economic concerns. How can party elites not support the man who won the Democratic primary and is leading in the general election?

If the party isn’t rallying around a bright new face with a knack for pitching attractive economic policies, please tell me why new voters should register as Democrats?

The Democrats have become conservatives. They want to protect the way things were from the Trump wrecking ball. And in many cases, they are on point. There are good reasons to protect public programs from drastic cuts, protect badly needed public servants from wasteful layoffs, stop cruel and unlawful deportations of immigrants, and save critically important programs like Medicaid.

But the Democrats also want to preserve the financialized Wall Street-driven economy that has moved wealth from working people into the hands of the few. They want to attract, not repel, donations from the wealthy. As a result, they have little to say to the working people who have lost their jobs due to private equity buyouts, mergers, and stock buybacks. After all, stopping that Wall Street gravy train would certainly piss off their donors. In short, they have no vision for a world in which working people, rather than their bosses, are front and center.

It is particularly disheartening to watch the Democrats all but abandon hard-working immigrants who are being deported rather than being moved into citizenship. As I’ve written before here and here, 63 percent of the voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin support, “granting legal status to all illegal immigrants who have held jobs and paid taxes for at least three years and have not been convicted of felony crimes.” Only 34 percent are opposed.

How did the multitude of millionaire Democratic pollsters and consultants miss this? Oh, they saw it, but it would be too risky to defy Trump on this, they have no doubt warned party leaders.

Many of my friends and colleagues, nevertheless, truly believe that the Democratic Party can come to its senses and once again appeal to the economic needs of working people. If only we show them enough data about how attractive progressive populism is, they will put out powerful messages about halting mass layoffs and curbing corporate power.

But that is unlikely to happen for two key reasons. First, most of the party leadership doesn’t believe in those messages. They don’t think we should interfere with corporate capitalism, and they don’t want to put out messages that will offend the donor class. In fact, they see nothing wrong with economic inequality and have no desire even to refrain from trading their stocks and bonds while in office.

The second reason is that even if they give up on the Epstein messaging and instead promote progressive populism, few voters will believe the Democrats are for real. It’s too late. Forty years of kissing Wall Street's ass cannot be undone by a PR campaign. As our Rust Belt survey will show when it is fully released, the vast majority of voters, including Democrats, don’t trust the Democratic Party to deliver, even when they say the right things.

So, I’m trying to convince my friends and colleagues that it’s time for a new party of working people totally independent of the Democrats. It’s precisely what Rust Belt voters want. These poll findings have already been released:

In our YouGov survey of 3,000 voters in the Rust Belt States of Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin, 57 percent of the respondents supported a new political formation outside the two major parties. Only 19 percent opposed. This finding is especially notable because these voters were asked to support a very radical statement of anti-corporate populism.

Would you support a new organization, the Independent Workers Political Association, that would support working-class issues independent of both the Democratic and Republican parties. It would run and support independent political candidates committed to a platform that included
Stop big companies that receive tax dollars from laying off workers who pay taxes.
Guarantee everyone who wants to work has a decent-paying job, and if the private sector can’t provide it, the government will
Raise the minimum wage so every family can lead a decent life
Stop drug company price-gouging and put price controls on food cartels

Every demographic group supported this proposal, led by 71 percent of Rust Belt voters less than 30 years of age, and 74 percent of those who feel very insecure about losing their job.

How about a new second party instead of a third party?

I’m told repeatedly that third parties are impossible in America. The best they can do is spoil elections, as Ross Perot likely did for the Republicans in 1996, and Ralph Nader may have done for the Democrats in 2000.

The people who do the vital work of this country need decent wages, universal health care, and protection against incessant job destruction.

But we’re not talking about a third party. We’re talking about a second party. In more than 130 congressional districts the Republican in 2024 won by 25 percent or more. There is no viable second party in these one-party districts. An independent working-class candidate could hardly do worse. These one-party districts are the crucibles where a new political association of working people can cut its teeth.

But wait—don’t we need to elect a Democratic Congress to tame Trump’s rampage? Sure. There’s no contradiction between supporting Democrats and building a new independent party of working people. The two should function in entirely different Congressional districts. Independent worker candidates should not run in purple areas where elections are close. They should run in one-party Republican districts and states, just like the labor candidate Dan Osborn is doing in Nebraska.

But building a new independent worker political association will be a heavy lift, and it will take time. Most importantly it will take commitment and the energy of young people fighting for a new way, rather than those of us who are running our final laps.

It’s time for a real second party of working people willing to turn trickle-down economics on its head. Working people, not Wall Street, should be the center of all economic policy. The people who do the vital work of this country need decent wages, universal health care, and protection against incessant job destruction.

If that seems like too much to ask, it’s only because long ago the Democrats stopped asking.


Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Les Leopold is the executive director of the Labor Institute and author of the new book, “Wall Street’s War on Workers: How Mass Layoffs and Greed Are Destroying the Working Class and What to Do About It." (2024). Read more of his work on his substack here.
Full Bio >

Will Democrats Finally Change Their Stance on Gaza?

Party leaders continue to show how out of step they are with the opinions of the overwhelming majority of their voters.


People gather to protest a campaign event for Democratic presidential candidate U.S. Vice President Kamala Harris on August 14, 2024 in New York City.
(Photo by Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images)

James Zogby
Aug 25, 2025

Common Dreams

Even though the bottom has fallen out of Democrats’ support for Israel, some in the party still can’t bring themselves to recognize this reality.

While support for Israeli policies has been in decline for more than a decade, the war on Gaza has resulted in a dramatic sea change in opinion. In a recent Gallup poll, only 8% of Democrats said they approve of Israel’s military actions in Gaza. When another recent poll conducted by Quinnipiac asked Americans whether their sympathies were more with Israelis or Palestinians, only 12% of Democrats said Israel while 60% said their sympathies were more with the Palestinians. And when The Economist magazine asked voters how they feel about a range of issues related to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the results among those who say they are Democrats or lean toward Democrats were staggering:

When asked whether Israel was justified in attacking Gaza in response to the threat from Hamas, only 13% said it was justified, with 67% saying it was not.

When asked about military aid to Israel, 61% of voters who say they are Democrats or lean toward voting for Democrats responded that they either want to reduce or eliminate such aid, while only 25% said they favor either increasing or maintaining the current level of military aid to Israel.

Sixty-eight percent (68%) said they agree that Israel is committing genocide in Gaza, only 8% disagreed.

Seventy-two percent (72%) said they agree it was right to call for a Palestinian state, with only 5% opposing.

(It’s important to note that with regard to each of the above questions, either majorities or strong pluralities of all respondents were in favor of cutting military aid to Israel, were opposed to Israel’s actions in Gaza, supported recognition of Palestinian statehood, etc.)

This change in the opinion of Democrats toward Israel and its policies has translated into congressional action. Last month, 27 of the 47 Democrats in the US Senate voted to block sending US military equipment to Israel. And a companion bill in the House of Representatives calling for withholding US offensive weapons to Israel now has 35 Democratic co-sponsors. Additionally, a number of Democratic State Party conventions have passed similar resolutions as did the national Young Democrats of America.

Given these developments, it should not have been surprising that a newly elected member of the Democratic National Committee would introduce a “Gaza Resolution” calling on the national party to support an immediate ceasefire in Gaza, a suspension of military aid to Israel, and a call to members of Congress to recognize Palestine as a nation state. The resolution concludes by urging the party to:
“affirm its commitment to international law, human rights for all people, an immediate … delivery of … humanitarian-focused, life-saving food and medical care in Gaza, and the pursuit a just and lasting peace for all in the region.”

What’s also unsurprising is how pro-Israel groups and some Democratic leaders have responded. For example, the group calling itself the Democratic Majority for Israel (DMFI)—which may need to change its name to the Democratic Minority for Israel—issued a strongly worded statement saying that they were:
"deeply troubled by the introduction of a flawed, irresponsible resolution at a Democratic National Committee meeting that will further sow division within our Party and do nothing to help bring an end to the Israel-Hamas war nor end the suffering on both sides.”

With polls showing that by margins of 10-to-1 or more Democrats support the positions taken in the Gaza Resolution, it is patently false to suggest that the resolution will “sow division.” In fact, it’s more accurate to say that defeating the resolution will create division. And when it comes to sowing division, it’s DMFI that in the last two elections teamed up with other pro-Israel PACs to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat Democratic members of Congress whom they deemed as insufficiently pro-Israel.

It’s disappointing that party leaders, in an effort to defeat the Gaza Resolution, have introduced a resolution of their own as a “substitute.” While their alternative focuses heavily on humanitarian aid, most of its prescriptive language would have been seen as somewhat constructive and even positive five years ago. But in the face of Israel’s massive destruction of Palestinian homes, hospitals, universities, places of worship, and infrastructure in Gaza, the “substitute” is no substitute at all. It ignores Israel’s responsibility for (and the US culpability in) the ongoing genocide. And, of equal importance, it is out of step with the opinions of the overwhelming majority of Democratic voters.

It’s not clear how this will play out when the party meets this week to discuss and vote on resolutions. There is an effort being made to bring the two sides together. But the young Democratic supporters of the Gaza Resolution, while open to some modification of their effort, are determined that the issue of Gaza be debated. They are right to do so.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


James Zogby
Dr. James J. Zogby is the author of Arab Voices (2010) and the founder and president of the Arab American Institute (AAI), a Washington, D.C.-based organization which serves as the political and policy research arm of the Arab American community. Since 1985, Dr. Zogby and AAI have led Arab American efforts to secure political empowerment in the U.S. Through voter registration, education and mobilization, AAI has moved Arab Americans into the political mainstream. Dr. Zogby has also been personally active in U.S. politics for many years; in 1984 and 1988 he served as Deputy Campaign manager and Senior Advisor to the Jesse Jackson Presidential campaign. In 1988, he led the first ever debate on Palestinian statehood at that year's Democratic convention in Atlanta, GA. In 2000, 2008, and 2016 he served as an advisor to the Gore, Obama, and Sanders presidential campaigns.
Full Bio >

Will the DNC End Their Complicity in Israeli Genocide or Double Down?

As apologists for Israel, Democratic leaders in Congress and at the DNC are doing major damage to the party's prospects for next year’s midterm elections or defeating the Republican ticket in 2028.


Democratic National Committee Chair Ken Martin talks about the economy and immigration at Teresitas Restaurant in East Los Angeles on Wednesday, July 30, 2025
(Photo by Sarah Reingewirtz/MediaNews Group/Los Angeles Daily News via Getty Images)

Norman Solomon
Aug 25, 2025

Common Dreams


This week will go down in history as a time when the governing body of the Democratic Party had a chance to oppose the U.S. government’s arming of Israel. But with the first Democratic National Committee meeting in seven months getting underway on Monday, the DNC’s leadership is determined to derail a resolution calling for “an arms embargo and suspension of military aid to Israel.”

Maneuvering to sidetrack that resolution, DNC Chair Ken Martin and all five vice chairs are sponsoring a counter-resolution that does little more than repeat the kind of hollow rhetoric that President Biden and Vice President Harris offered about Israel and Gaza last year.

Martin and the vice chairs “have aimed to blunt the power of the resolution on Gaza by introducing their own, watered-down resolution that stops far short of calling for an end to arms shipments to Israel,” my RootsAction colleague Sam Rosenthal points out. It’s an approach that helped to defeat the Democratic ticket last year, as polling clearly shows. Recycling it now is even more oblivious to the roar of public opinion.

But the half-dozen top DNC officers are eager to scuttle the arms-embargo resolution as fast as possible without having to vote on it themselves. If the Resolutions Committee rejects the resolution on Tuesday, as appears likely, it won’t get to the entire 448-member DNC for a vote.

That seems to explain the response from DNC Vice Chair Shasti Conrad a few days ago, when I asked whether she would cosponsor the arms-embargo resolution. “I haven’t decided,” she replied. “Will probably see how the [resolutions] committee votes and the discussion, and will make a real-time decision.” Waiting to “see how the committee votes” is a way to stall until the resolution is no longer on the table.

A different but no less evasive response came from the most powerful DNC vice chair, Jane Kleeb, who is also the president of the ASDC association of state party chairs (“the only national party organization focused exclusively on the current and future needs of State Democratic Parties”). When I asked Kleeb whether she supported, opposed or was neutral about the arms-embargo resolution, she would only say: “I've sponsored a resolution on Gaza with other officers. I hope everyone comes to the table with agreed upon joint language.”

Martin and his allies have already tried—and failed–to drastically weaken the arms-embargo resolution. Its sponsor is a new DNC member, Allison Minnerly, a 26-year-old youth organizer in Central Florida. On her way to Minneapolis for the meeting, Minnerly told me that—while she wasn’t closed to the possibility of accepting amendments to her resolution—it must “keep the core message.”

The resolution’s core message—“an arms embargo and suspension of military aid to Israel”—is exactly what has provoked such strong opposition from the DNC leadership. In sharp contrast, the counter-resolution from party leaders doesn’t even slightly criticize Israel for its methodical large-scale killing of Palestinian people, now in its 23rd horrendous month.

Just days ago, the Guardian reported that “figures from a classified Israeli military intelligence database indicate five out of six Palestinians killed by Israeli forces in Gaza have been civilians, an extreme rate of slaughter rarely matched in recent decades of warfare.”

The official estimate of the carnage in Gaza—60,000 direct deaths, including 18,500 children—is very likely a significant undercount. Meanwhile, by providing upwards of 69 percent of Israel’s arms imports, the United States has been making it all possible.

Chair Martin and three of the DNC vice chairs—Pennsylvania state representative Malcolm Kenyatta, attorney Reyna Walters-Morgan in North Carolina, and Nevada-based labor advocate Artie Blanco—did not respond to repeated requests for comment on whether or not they support the arms-embargo resolution.

Along with backing from all the vice chairs, Martin’s resolution got some outside help in the drafting process. “This resolution was crafted with the input of Democratic Majority for Israel, a group whose super PAC worked to oust former Representatives Jamaal Bowman and Cori Bush,” The Nation reports. Naturally, DMFI has put out a press release denouncing the arms-embargo resolution.

More than ever, on the subject of Israel and Palestinian people, it’s DNC leadership versus a huge majority of Democrats nationwide. One poll after another this year has found that—in the words of a headline over a Brookings analysis this month—“support for Israel continues to deteriorate, especially among Democrats and young people.”

A Gallup poll in July found that only 8 percent of Democrats said they approved of Israel’s military action in Gaza. That poll lines up with the conclusions from Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and other (including Israeli) human rights organizations that have reported Israel is committing genocide in Gaza.

Minnerly’s resolution for suspending military aid has gained notable support from young Democratic leaders.

Midway through last week, the president of the official College Democrats of America organization (who is also a DNC member), Sunjay Muralitharan, tweeted: “As the National President of @CollegeDems I'm proud to co-sponsor the DNC Resolution calling for an arms embargo and explicit recognition of a Palestinian State. Young Americans have made their voices clear. A modern Democratic Party must stand against global injustice.”

On Friday, the leader of the official group High School Democrats of America put out a similar statement. “As National Chair of @hsdems, I represent American youth in the Democratic Party,” Zayed Kadir tweeted. “That’s why I’m proud to co-sponsor a DNC Resolution demanding an Arms Embargo and recognition of Palestine. The youth voice is clear. Our party must stand against injustice—at home and abroad.”

The top of the DNC power structure has exerted pressure on Minnerly to dilute or withdraw her resolution, but she has refused to be intimidated. When we spoke over the weekend, her tone was measured, emphatic, and resolute. And in response to follow-up questions about her approach to organizing, she emphasized that “we don't wait for change: we create it. It isn't easy, but it's worth fighting for policies and ideals that represent you.”

Minnerly added: “The reality is that not many folks know that resolutions can relate to policy. This experience has taught me—and many watching from the sidelines—that even within the party structure there is the ability to work towards the future we want as Democrats.”

But the counter-resolution from DNC leaders shows that they are continuing to drift into a sealed-off political galaxy, very far from where Democrats actually are now in the United States. Consider the responses this month when the Economist/YouGov Poll asked Democrats this question: “Do you think that Israel is committing genocide against Palestinian civilians?” Here are the results: Yes, 65 percent. No, 8 percent. “Not sure,” 27 percent.

Those numbers show that, on the subject of Israel and Gaza, the DNC’s officers are guilty of political malpractice—and actively complicit with what most Democrats in the nation see as genocide.

At the same time, to put it mildly, the party can hardly afford to further alienate its base.

The New York Times has just published an in-depth analysis of voter registration data, with stunning conclusions: “The Democratic Party is hemorrhaging voters long before they even go to the polls. Of the 30 states that track voter registration by political party, Democrats lost ground to Republicans in every single one between the 2020 and 2024 elections—and often by a lot. That four-year swing toward the Republicans adds up to 4.5 million voters, a deep political hole that could take years for Democrats to climb out from.”

The possibility that the Democratic Party will actually climb out of the “deep political hole” is especially remote because its leaders —not only DNC Chair Martin but also Sen. Chuck Schumer and Rep. Hakeem Jeffries—are functioning as if navigating politics in some bygone era. As apologists for Israel, they’re doing major damage to Democratic prospects for next year’s midterm elections or defeating the Republican ticket in 2028.

Meanwhile, Israel continues with mass killing and genocide made possible by the US government.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. The paperback edition of his latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, includes an afterword about the Gaza war.
Full Bio >

'On notice!' Trump threatens retaliation for countries that tax or regulate tech companies

Daniel Hampton
August 25, 2025 
RAW ST0RY

President Donald Trump on Monday night threatened to hike tariffs and impose export restrictions on countries that tax or regulate American tech companies.

Trump vowed on his Truth Social platform to "stand up" to countries that he said "attack our incredible American Tech Companies."

"Digital Taxes, Digital Services Legislation, and Digital Markets Regulations are all designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology," he asserted. "They also, outrageously, give a complete pass to China's largest Tech Companies. This must end, and end NOW!"

Trump added that, "With this TRUTH, I put all Countries with Digital Taxes, Legislation, Rules, or Regulations, on notice that unless these discriminatory actions are removed, I, as President of the United States, will impose substantial additional Tariffs on that Country's Exports to the U.S.A., and institute Export restrictions on our Highly Protected Technology and Chips."

He concluded that neither the U.S. nor tech firms are a "piggy bank" or a “doormat” for other nations any longer.

"Show respect to America and our amazing Tech Companies or, consider the consequences!" he said.

The Wall Street Journal noted that Trump’s threat came just hours after he met with President Lee Jae Myung of South Korea, where lawmakers are weighing a proposal to regulate online tech platforms. The plan has faced opposition from U.S.-based companies and was previously criticized by Trump’s trade chief.

'Dangerous': Hate-fueled activist raises alarm as Meta sets him loose on AI

Jordan Green,

 Investigative Reporter
August 25, 2025 

RAW STORY


The Meta logo is seen in an illustration. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic


Meta’s announcement earlier this month that anti-trans activist Robby Starbuck “will work collaboratively” with the company to address bias in its AI products marks another step in the social media giant’s rapid shift to the right.

Starbuck is a former music video editor who repositioned himself as a conservative influencer, best known for leveraging social media to pressure companies such as Tractor Supply Co. to abandon commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion.

Starbuck has also spread anti-LGBTQ messaging, equating trans people with pedophiles through repeated use of the term “groomer.”

“Robby Starbuck pushes a dangerous anti-LGBTQ+ agenda, spreading disinformation and denying the very existence of transgender people,” Eric Bloem, Human Rights Campaign’s vice president for workplace equality, told Raw Story.

“There’s nothing unbiased about that. Coupled with its January rollback of protections against hate speech across its platforms, this decision calls into question Meta’s commitment to keeping LGBTQ+ people and others safe online.”

Starbuck gained a seat at Meta’s table by suing the company, which owns Facebook, Instagram, Threads and WhatsApp, over false claims by its AI chatbot that he was involved in the Jan. 6 2021 riot at the U.S. Capitol.


Starbuck said in an Aug. 8 post on X that after he filed a defamation suit, “Meta reached out to me immediately, which led to many very long calls with concerned executives and engineers.”

Starbuck and Meta said in a joint statement the same day that “since engaging on these important issues with Robby, Meta has made tremendous strides to improve the accuracy of Meta AI and mitigate ideological and political bias.”

The statement also said “Meta and Robby Starbuck will work collaboratively in the coming months to find ways to address issues of ideological and political bias.”

Starbuck described the settlement “as a win for everyone,” adding that it “produces a better product for Meta” and also “allows me to deliver on multiple fronts as a voice for conservatives.”

But in a statement to Raw Story, he insisted that while he’s made no secret of his political views, he’s not out to impose his beliefs on Meta’s users.

“That would be antithetical to my beliefs about AI, which are that it’s here to stay and needs to show no bias, not my bias, not your bias, not anyone’s bias,” he said. “It needs to be a neutral, fact-driven system.”

‘I hope this is a joke’

Over the past four years, Starbuck has made a string of posts on X labeling LGBTQ people, particularly trans people and people involved in drag performances as “groomers.”

One 2023 post attacked KitchenAid’s sponsorship of trans TikTok influencer Dylan Mulvaney, saying: “KitchenAid will forever be GroomerAid in my house from this day forward.”

In another post, Starbuck called Lil Nas X, whose real name is Montero Lamar Hill, “a groomer and a predator” in response to the rapper’s 2021 video simulating a lap dance with Satan.

“I don’t hate gay people,” Starbuck posted in May 2024. “I hate behaviors that hurt kids. I want people to stop pushing LGBTQ propaganda on kids and stop transitioning kids.”

Starbuck has also openly embraced the Great Replacement theory, a set of racist talking points on immigration closely associated with white supremacist agitation and mass shootings.

Brenton Tarrant, who livestreamed a slaughter of 51 Muslims at two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand in 2019, named his manifesto “The Great Replacement.”

In February 2024, Starbuck wrote on X: “You can’t call replacement theory racist when it’s literally out in the open now.

“I’m Latino and I’m telling you that the west is trying to replace existing citizens (mostly white) with migrants from 3rd world countries. It must end or the west will become third world!”

Asked about that post in the context of his new role helping Meta guard against bias in AI products, Starbuck told Raw Story: “I hope this is a joke because I’m Latino.

“Trying to associate me to white supremacy or mass shooters is as sick as it is devoid of intelligence.”




A Meta spokesperson declined to comment, other than to reference the joint statement previously issued with Starbuck.

Alejandra Carballo, a clinical instructor at Harvard Law School’s Cyberlaw Clinic, told Raw Story that Meta engaging Starbuck in “any advisory capacity” was “pretty egregious.”

“It’s so incredibly far from where Meta was a few years ago, where Meta was holding stakeholder meetings with LGBTQ groups,” Carballo said.

“It fits in with their tack to the right since the election. They view anti-LGBTQ content as something they’re not only able to tolerate, but something they’re actively greenlighting.”

In January, less than two weeks before Donald Trump’s inauguration, Meta rolled out changes to eliminate third-party fact-checking and weaken policies against hate speech.

Meta’s new policy on Hateful Conduct carved out an exception for LGBTQ people, allowing allegations of mental illness, in contrast to other groups with protected characteristics.

The policy also lifted a prohibition against the anti-trans slur “t----y.”

‘

Anti-trans sources’

Among 7,000 Meta users in 86 countries surveyed by the LGBTQ advocacy group GLAAD, along with Ultra Violet and All Out, 72 percent reported that harmful content targeting protected groups has increased since Meta relaxed regulation of hate speech.

Ninety two percent said they felt less protected from being exposed to, or targeted by, harmful content, and 77 percent said they felt less safe expressing themselves freely.

Caraballo said Meta’s Llama chatbot stands out among its competitors “for incorporating far more anti-trans sources.”

Noting that Facebook, Meta’s predecessor, was accused of amplifying hate against the Rohingya people in Myanmar, culminating in a 2017 massacre, Caraballo said she worries that WhatsApp, a platform owned by Meta and popular in the global South, could magnify hate and instigate violence against trans people.

“I can imagine someone like Starbuck being brought in and saying trans people don’t even qualify as a group or people or they’re mentally ill,” Caraballo said.

“The implicit bias in the Llama model could be made even worse.”

At the same time, Caraballo said she saw Meta’s arrangement with Starbuck as more a function of gauging the political winds than pursuing a political agenda.

“Maximizing engagement and minimizing political liability” is the social media giant’s ultimate aim, Caraballo said.

That fits with the decision by Meta in April 2024 to hire Dustin Carmack, chief of staff to the director of national intelligence in the first Trump administration, as director of public policy for the Southern and Southeastern U.S.

Carmack, who was also a senior advisor for the presidential campaign of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, authored a chapter of Project 2025, a policy blueprint for the second Trump administration.

In his contribution to the 900-page document, Carmack accused some CIA employees of “promoting divisive ideological or cultural agendas,” and said the new CIA director — who turned out to be John Ratcliffe, his old boss as Director of National Intelligence — “should direct resources from any activities that promote unnecessary and distracting social engineering.”

In July, Meta promoted Carmack to a new job in Washington: director of public policy for the executive branch.

Trump's Gestapo-Style Raids Mimic Nazi Dictatorship Playbook

As with Trump’s march to autocratic power, the parallels with Hitler and Nazi Germany are unmistakable and should be chilling to everyone.


National Guard Members patrol 14th street on August 24, 2025 in Washington, DC. An increased presence of law enforcement has been seen throughout the nation's capital since U.S. President Donald Trump ordered in federal officers and the US National Guard.
(Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images)

Chuck Idelson
Aug 25, 2025

Common Dreams


In April, Jesús Escalona Mújicas, a 48-year-old construction worker near Bryan, Texas was grabbed, detained, and ultimately deported in shackles to Venezuela under false charges that he was a member of the Tren de Aragua gang.

His story was detailed last week by the Texas Observer. He’d worked for the same employer, a Venezuelan Pepsi affiliate, for nearly two decades, and had no criminal history or record of gang activity. They claimed his Air Jordans—a brand 24 percent of sneaker wearers in the U.S. reportedly own—were a symbol of gang membership.

Federal agents in President Donald Trump’s high profile military occupation of Washington, DC are zeroing in on food delivery drivers, many of them on mopeds, making them easy targets for abduction, the Washington Post reports. Gabriel Ravelo Torrealba, 22, needed hospital treatment for hand and leg injuries inflicted in his arrest. Christian Carías Torres, shot with a stun gun during his arrest, was branded a “suspected gang member,” an allegation, the Post noted, “the Trump administration has repeatedly used without providing evidence.”

Those rounded up by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal policing agencies are far from the “worst of the worst” boasted by Trump in his campaign mass deportation pledge. ICE’s own data shows 72 percent of those detained “have no known criminal convictions or pending criminal charges,” as Fortune magazine conceded in July.

To meet his arbitrary quota of seizures, deportation fanatic Stephen Miller scuttled any emphasis on the “worst” by racially profiling ordinary working people at Home Deport parking lots, farms, other work sites, and outside court hearings they’d attended to meet legal obligations. Numerous legal immigrants and even citizens continue to be grabbed. “The President does not want to see Haitians, Nicaraguans, Cubans, or Venezuelans here,” Escalona Mújicas said one of his arresting agents told him.

Similarly, in the DC operation, ICE and other federal agents are avoiding “the city’s high-crime areas,” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote this week. “There are soldiers patrolling the National Mall; armored vehicles parked at Union Station; and ICE agents manning checkpoints on U Street, an area known for its bars, restaurants, and nightlife. They’re not there for safety, but for show.”

“If Trump is genuinely concerned about the safety of DC residents, I would see National Guard in my neighborhood. I’m not seeing it, and I don’t expect to see it,” one resident of DC’s Congress Heights neighborhood told Times reporter Clyde McGrady. “I don’t think Trump is bringing in the National Guard to protect Black babies in Southeast.”

Corollary consequences for the Gestapo-style raids and domestic military campaigns extend to the distortion of federal budget priorities. The DC occupation alone is costing $1 million a day, according to an analysis by Hanna Homestead of the National Priorities Project.

One less publicized provision of Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” was the gift of $75 billion in extra funding for ICE, “making it by far the highest-funded law enforcement agency in the federal government,” CBS News reported.

National Nurses United researchers found far more useful ways to allocate that funding rather than on terrorizing immigrant families and communities. For the same $75 billion, we could eradicate all medical debt accrued by 31 million people, cover over two years of universal pre-K for all 3 and 4 year olds in the US, pay for nearly all tuition and fees for students in public universities across the U.S., and substantially reduce the costs of child poverty in the nation or most of the homeless crisis in California. The same amount could also end both extreme and chronic hunger around the world for two years.

The militarization has a deeper, malevolent purpose, wrote Monica Potts in The New Republic this week. “Trump isn’t actually worried about crime. He’s not trying to make the district safer for its residents, and he’s certainly not weighing the data and evidence when he calls on governors to send guardsmen. Parading troops through an American city is a brazen authoritarian power grab.”

"There is not a crime crisis in D.C.," former DC Metropolitan reserve police officer Rosa Brooks who now teaches at Georgetown Law School told NPR, which reiterated Justice Department data that crime in Washington has plummeted with violence reaching a 30-year low last year. "This is police state territory, banana republic police state territory," Brooks said.

“This is what it means to learn to live in an authoritarian police state, and people are using the only tools they have: cell phones and sandwiches," notes Potts. “The longer ICE raids and military takeovers go on, the more they will inspire protests around the country, which may be the only excuse Trump is waiting for to claim that cities are full of disorder and then crack down even harder.”

Trump says he is targeting Chicago and New York next for his next Democratic majority-city occupations. He may also have in mind “an intimidation tactic to try to suppress voters in cities ahead of the 2026 midterm,” Potts observes. “It’s definitely part of Trump’s only true and unwavering project: consolidating power (Italics added). Even as he’s posting on Truth Social about crime in D.C., he’s cheering efforts in Texas to redraw district maps to elect more Republicans to the House next year and launching an effort to get rid of mail-in ballots.”

As with Trump’s march to autocratic power, the parallels with Hitler and Nazi Germany are unmistakable and should be chilling to everyone. Within two months of being handed power by the conservative old guard Weimar Republic in January 1933, Hitler made two major moves, as Peter Fritzsche describes in Hitler’s First Hundred Days.

First, he persuaded his conservative coalition partners to call for new elections by early March. Then, the Nazis engineered or at least exploited a fire in the Reichstag in late February, Germany’s Capitol building, to invoke emergency decrees. They served, Fritzsche notes, to “suspend civil liberties, expand protective custody” and other authoritarian powers that “symbolized the death of representative government and the rule of law.” It also gave the Nazis the opening to complete a takeover of German policing to engage in arrests, detention, and violent assaults on all political opposition.

Coupled with the election, in which the Nazis increased their political power through domination of the media, mobilization of state resources, demonization of their version of “enemies from within” (mainly Jews and Communists), and the traumatizing impact of an increased militarization, Hitler and the Nazis had the means to manufacture mass consent, silence dissent, and cement fascist rule.

Potts is unimpressed with much of the Democratic Party leadership response. She cites Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer’s dismissal of Trump’s takeover of DC as a “political ploy” and an “attempted distraction” from problems like the tariffs and Epstein files. But, she emphasizes, “the federal agents and troops are not the distraction. They are the whole point—quite literally the spear in Trump’s increasingly fascist assault on American democracy.”

Democratic leaders, Potts added on the Daily Blast podcast with Greg Sargent, “should start calling things like they see them and they should say, you’re not coming to our cities, you’re not coming to our towns with the military, you’re not going to turn this country into a dictatorship. The idea that there’s still time is really critical. And voters like it when elected leaders fight for them.”

That is the immediate challenge we face with Trump and Trumpism today.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Chuck Idelson, retired, is the former Communications Senior Strategist for National Nurses United, the nation's largest union and professional organization of registered nurses with 225,00 members.
Full Bio >

As Trump Threatens News Outlets, Experts More Concerned About Capitulation of Corporate Owners

"The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures," warned one scholar.


Brad Reed
Aug 25, 2025
COMMON DREAMS


As US President Donald Trump late on Sunday lashed out against the American media and threatened to pull broadcasting licenses from networks for their alleged "biased" coverage of him, media experts said the danger to the news media lies partially in corporate outlets' potential capitulation to the Trump administration.

In a post on his Truth Social platform, the president railed against NBC and ABC, which he called "two of the absolute worst and most biased networks anywhere in the world."

He then said the networks should "lose their licenses for their unfair coverage of Republicans and/or conservatives, but at a minimum, they should pay up BIG for having the privilege of using the most valuable airwaves anywhere at anytime!!!"

The president concluded his angry rant by declaring that "crooked 'journalism' should not be rewarded, it should be terminated!!!"

Trump did not point to any specifics regarding his claim that the networks' coverage of him is unfair, but asserted that they "give [him] 97% bad stories."

This is not the first time that Trump has called on the Federal Communications Commission to strip broadcasters' licenses for producing news he doesn't like, although so far no network has had its license revoked by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC).

Even so, some experts were alarmed at Trump's latest attacks, which they feared could lead to more capitulation from major media corporations similar to the $16 million settlement that CBS parent company Paramount agreed to earlier this summer, which stemmed from what experts called a meritless lawsuits over a "60 Minutes" interview with 2024 Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris.

Victor Pickard, professor of media policy and political economy at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication, described the president's angry rants as "yet more worrying signs that Trump knows no limits in exerting dictatorial power over our news media."

"The commercial news media, which helped elevate Trump to power, have proven repeatedly that they are ill-equipped to withstand such pressures since they typically privilege their profit motives over democratic needs," he said. "Some individual journalists have shown much courage despite Trump's attacks, but the corporate media institutions themselves too often capitulate."

Tim Karr, senior director of strategy and communications at Free Press, echoed Pickard's point about the media being responsible for the president's political rise, and he singled out NBC's decision to air Trump's reality TV show, "The Apprentice," which he said gave Americans the false impression that he was a "successful and decisive businessman."

He also expressed concerns that broadcasters would offer the president more concessions in an attempt to avoid retaliation.

"What should be more worrying to anyone who appreciates a free press is the degrees to which these massive media conglomerates are capitulating before the president," he said. "If we've learned anything about the media from the past eight months, it's that massive media companies are far too beholden to the political elite to speak truth to power."

He then accused the major networks of cowering before Trump despite having the First Amendment clearly on their side.

"NBC and ABC are protected under the First Amendment from the sort of government meddling proposed here by Trump—and enacted by his obsequious FCC chairman, Brendan Carr," he said. "The problem is that big media conglomerates like these two would rather cave to the president than stand up for their constitutional rights."

Trump threatens to defy law on renaming Defense Department: 'We're just going to do it'

 rename the Pentagon to the Department of War 

David Edwards
August 25, 2025 

RAW STORY


C-SPAN/screen grab

President Donald Trump threatened to rename the Department of Defense without obtaining permission from Congress, even if it would run afoul of the law

At an Oval Office event on Monday, Trump said he would "probably" rename the Pentagon to the Department of War in the coming days.

A reporter later pointed out that changing the name would require congressional approval.

"It requires an act of Congress to rename the Defense Department to the Department of War," the correspondent noted during an afternoon event at the White House.

Watch the video below from C-SPAN.

 

"We're just going to do it," Trump replied. "I'm sure Congress will go along if we need that. I don't think we even need that. But if we need that, I'm sure Congress will go along."

"You know, that was the name when we were, we won World War I, we won World War II, we won everything," he added. "And just to me seems like just a much more appropriate. The other is defense is too defensive. And we want to be defensive, but we want to be offensive too if we have to be. So it just sounded to me, but really like a better name.

'Preys on poor people': Trump makes major criminal justice moves despite expert warnings

Stephen Prager,

 Common Dreams
August 25, 2025 7


U.S. President Donald Trump holds up an executive order after signing it in the Oval Office at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., August 25, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY


President Donald Trump signed a pair of executive orders on Monday aimed at ending the policy of cashless bail for people accused of crimes, a move criminal justice reform advocates say will heighten the already massive inequality within the system while doing little to stop lawbreaking.

One order requires Washington, D.C., which the president currently controls under "emergency authority," to end its cashless bail program. The other directs Attorney General Pam Bondi to identify other jurisdictions around the country with cashless bail so that they can have their federal funds restricted or suspended.

Several states, including Illinois, New York, California, and New Jersey, have moved to significantly reduce or eliminate the use of cash requirements for those accused of crimes to be released pretrial. D.C., meanwhile, was one of the first cities to implement the policy.

Jeremy Cherson, communications director for the Bail Project, told Common Dreams that cash bail creates a "two-tiered system of justice—one where people with money, regardless of risk, can pay bail and be released, whereas people without money will be detained, maybe unnecessarily, just because they can't afford to pay a bail amount."

More than 70% of the people currently held in jails—over 400,000 people—have not been convicted of a crime and are instead awaiting trial, according to the Prison Policy Institute. In 2022, a report by the US Commission on Civil Rights found that 60% of them were there because they could not afford to pay bail.

People in pretrial detention are disproportionately racial minorities and those in poverty. A 2021 study by the Brookings Institution found that the average person in pretrial detention loses $30,000 on average during the process.

"Cash bail is a system that preys on poor people," Wanda Bertram of the Prison Policy Institute, told Common Dreams. "They can lose their jobs and their housing. They can get disconnected from critical medical care that they might need. It's a very destabilizing experience."

Trump has claimed that cashless bail allows criminals to get out of jail without punishment and has caused cities to become cesspools of criminality.

"Somebody kills somebody, they go and don't worry about it," Trump told reporters on Monday as he signed the order. "No cash. Come back in a couple of months. We'll give you a trial. You never see the person again."

In a press conference earlier this month, Trump claimed that "every place in the country where you have no cash bail is a disaster."

"That's what started the problem in New York, and they don't change it," he said. "That's what started it in Chicago. I mean, bad politicians started it, bad leadership started it. But that was the one thing that's central, no cash bail."

But as Cherson explained, cashless bail policies are not a "get-out-of-jail-free card."

"They are often measured, calculated approaches that create a system and processes where people are evaluated for risks of flight or risks to other individuals if they're released, and a series of conditions are set against them, or they're detained pretrial," he says. "They're not all let out. So that's often misunderstood about what bail reform is."

Instead of using financial means, judges determine who will remain in detention based on an individual's flight risk or the danger they may pose to the community.

The key, Cherson says, is that "they need to have individualized hearings where we are making determinations about what happens if we release somebody based on more than a hunch."

According to an investigation by FactCheck.org, across all the states that have ended or limited cash bail, only one person charged with murder has ever been released without bail. A Rockville, Illinois, judge released the defendant in 2024 because the case against him was exceptionally weak, and the judge still required him to meet "fairly strict requirements" while awaiting trial.

"There is nothing to suggest that cashless bail makes cities less safe," Bertram said.

In 2023, PPI examined four states and nine cities and counties that had ended cashless bail. They found that every single one of these jurisdictions had "decreases or negligible increases in crime or rearrest rates after implementing reforms."

Many of the other major cities Trump has threatened with a federal military takeover, including Chicago and New York, have experienced massive drops in crime over the past year, contrary to Trump's claims.

Bertram said that in Washington, D.C., where Trump has directly ended cashless bail, the program had been "extremely effective."

In 2022, the last year for which data is available, 93% of those released without bail were not rearrested. In 2019, the most recent year with data, 99% of those who were released for violent crimes were not rearrested.

According to its website, the Bail Project has provided free bail to 34,000 people across the country. Despite the lack of financial incentive, in 2024, 95% of its clients still returned to court, and 64% of them had their cases dismissed.

"Absent our intervention," Cherson says, "many of those people would have likely taken a guilty plea just to go home. They would have been overwhelmed by the circumstances that they're in."

"Crime is something that's very complicated," Bertram said. "It's caused by a lot of different things, including a lot of social determinants."

She noted that the Trump administration has instituted dramatic cuts to programs to reduce gun violence, investigate crimes, and provide services to victims, and to "all of the things that we know to be related to the social determinants of crime"—social safety net programs like Medicaid, investments in affordable housing, and services for those dealing with homelessness, addiction, and mental health issues.

Bertram said, "It is a useful distraction from the president's disinvestment in all those things to put this order in place about cash bail as if it's going to make any difference, which it's not."

"All these states, localities, and jurisdictions that have pursued efforts to minimize or eliminate the use of cash bail have done that in service of the core principles of our justice system," Cherson said. "Principles of equity and fairness and safety and the presumption of innocence."

'No chance': Economist scoffs at CBO's eyebrow-raising new Trump tariff projection

TRUMP CBO PRODUCES FAKE FIGURES

Robert Davis
August 25, 2025
RAW STOR


CNN screenshot

A prominent economist criticized estimates released on Monday that projected President Donald Trump's tariff policies could reduce the federal deficit by trillions over the next decade.

Justin Wolfers, economics professor at the University of Michigan, joined CNN's Jake Tapper on "The Lead" to discuss estimates from the Congressional Budget Office showing Trump's tariffs could reduce the federal deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. As of Aug. 25, the U.S. national debt exceeds $37 trillion, according to the Treasury Department.

"What are the chances the tariffs last through 2035, which the CBO based its estimates on?" Tapper asked Wolfers.

"Close to no chance, and that's one of the biggest problems," Wolfers replied. "The whole idea of tariffs is that you provide an incentive for people to set up shop, but the tariffs are going to change before the shop gets set up."

"As a result, I'm not sure we're going to get much out of this," he added.

Trump has increased tariffs against U.S. trading partners like the European Union, South Korea, and Japan. He's also claimed that the tariff revenue will be paid by foreign countries, which Wolfers said is untrue.

Instead, Wolfers argued that the tariffs are really acting as an additional tax on American consumers.

"It's a tax, and when you charge people a tax, the government gets revenue," Wolfers said. "That's how it works."

Watch the entire clip below or by clicking here.

'Ridiculous': Trump's 'illegal' firing of Fed governor blasted as an 'autocrat move'

TRUMP THREATENS TO SEND HER TO UGANDA

Carl Gibson

August 25, 2025

ALTERNET

On Monday, President Donald Trump announced on social media that he was firing Lisa Cook from the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (who was appointed by former President Joe Biden in 2022). But multiple journalists, elected officials, commentators and legal experts are pointing out that Trump is overstepping the bounds of his authority.

In a letter Trump posted to his Truth Social account, he cited the Federal Reserve Act and Article II of the U.S. Constitution to claim that he had the authority to remove Cook from her position "for cause." In order to justify the firing, Trump noted that Federal Housing Finance Authority head Bill Pulte had sent a criminal referral to the Department of Justice for alleged mortgage fraud, relating to two of Cook's mortgage applications.

"At a minimum, the conduct at issue exhibits the sort of gross negligence in financial transactions that calls into question your competence and trustworthiness as a financial regulator," Trump wrote in the letter.

READ MORE: 'Frog in boiling water': Nicolle Wallace says Trump plunging US into 'authoritarianism'

According to CNN, Cook listed a home in Ann Arbor, Michigan as her primary residence in one mortgage document, and then listed a condominium in Atlanta, Georgia as her primary residence on another mortgage document just weeks later. Because a primary residence has certain tax benefits, Cook is being investigated for potential mortgage fraud by listing two primary residences. However, she has yet to be charged with any crime, and even if she were charged, a conviction is unlikely as prosecutors would have to prove actual malice, whereas Cook could argue the listing of two primary residences was a simple oversight.

Trump's claim that he is firing Cook due to the mortgage application issue didn't hold water with several journalists, commentators and others who weighed in on social media. Rep. Seth Magaziner (D-R.I.) tweeted Cook has not been convicted of any crime, and that a president could only fire a Fed governor under "extreme circumstances." Economist Dean Baker questioned the president's authority. noting Trump couldn't fire Cook any more than Baker could fire Cook. Pennsylvania-based political activist Rowan Gehman called Trump's attempted firing of cook "very f------ illegal." Ron Filiipkowski of the liberal group MeidasTouch blasted Trump's attempted firing of cook as an "autocrat move to take over the Fed." And Attorney John Aravosis argued Trump committed a significant error of his own when he wrote in the letter that Cook "may have made false statements on one or more mortgage agreements."

"May have made? Doesn’t sound terribly convincing when you’re hedging," Aravosis wrote.

"Trump cannot legally make up cause to fire a Fed Governor," tweeted Aaron Fritschner, who is the deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) "The current Supreme Court held earlier this year that the Fed is a 'quasi-private entity' whose members are protected from political interference, which is plainly what Trump is doing here on a ridiculous pretext."

'Nobody is safe': Paul Krugman reveals the real motive behind Trump’s war on Fed governor

Matthew Chapman
August 25, 2025 

RAW STOR


FILE PHOTO: Lisa Cook testifies before a Senate Banking Committee hearing on her nomination to be a member of the Federal Reserve Board of Governors (for a second term), on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., June 21, 2023. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst/File Photo

President Donald Trump's threats to fire Federal Reserve governor Lisa Cook are proof that "nobody is safe" from the new era of "weaponized government," Nobel Prize-winning economist turned political pundit Paul Krugman wrote for his Substack on Monday.

This follows Trump's housing finance chief, Bill Pulte, leveling an unsubstantiated "mortgage fraud" claim against Cook, who happens to be one of the Fed officials who opposed Trump's demanded rate cuts.

"I am not going to lead with a discussion of what Cook may or may not have done," wrote Krugman. "That would be playing Trump’s game. Clearly, he’s just looking for a pretext to fire someone who isn’t a loyalist — and who happens, surprise, to be a black woman. If you write about politics and imagine that Trump cares about mortgage fraud — or for that matter believe anything Trump officials say about the affair without independent confirmation — you should find a different profession. Maybe you should go into agricultural field work, to help offset the labor shortages created by Trump’s deportations."

In truth, he wrote, "You should think about the attack on Cook in the same context as mortgage fraud accusations made against California Senator Adam Schiff and New York Attorney General Letitia James. Or you should look at the attacks on Jerome Powell, the Federal Reserve chair, over the cost of renovations at the Fed’s headquarters. Or the still mysterious raid on the house of John Bolton, who at one time was Trump’s national security adviser." In reality, he argued, Trump doesn't care at all about fraud, which he has been found liable for himself — the real message is, “If you get in our way we will ruin your life.”

More generally, Krugman warned, "What we’re witnessing is the authoritarian playbook in action. Tyrannies don’t always get their way by establishing a secret police force that arrests people at will — although we’re getting that too. Much of their power comes not from overt violence but from their ability to threaten people’s careers and livelihoods, up to and including trumped-up accusations of criminal behavior."

It remains to be seen whether any criminal charges will actually materialize for Cook, Krugman wrote — mortgage fraud actually is common, but rarely prosecuted and requires proof that someone purposely falsified records.

But that's not the point, he concluded. The point is, "we are all Lisa Cook. You may imagine that your legal and financial history is so blameless that there’s no way MAGA can come after you. If you believe that, you’re living in a fantasy world. Criticize them or get in their way, and you will become a target."

Trump blasted over 'blatantly unconstitutional' Federal Reserve ouster: 'Autocrat move'

Robert Davis
August 25, 2025 
RAW STORY


U.S. President Donald Trump and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer arrive by helicopter at Trump International Golf Links, in Aberdeen, Scotland, Britain, July 28, 2025. Jane Barlow/Pool via REUTERS

President Donald Trump's decision to fire a Federal Reserve governor on Monday sparked outrage online.

Trump posted on Truth Social that he is firing Governor Lisa Cook, the only Black woman to ever serve as a Federal Reserve governor, because his administration alleged she committed mortgage fraud.

"There is sufficient evidence to believe that you submitted false information on one or more mortgage applications," reads a letter Trump shared on Truth Social announcing Cook's firing.

Cook was thrust into the spotlight recently after Trump's Justice Department accused her of committing mortgage fraud. She has denied all wrongdoing.

Several analysts shared their thoughts about the move on social media.

"Trump makes his autocrat move to take over the Fed," journalist Ron Filipkowski posted on Bluesky. "Hopefully she will challenge this in court."

"Yes, the stakes are large. Very large," University of Michigan economist Justin Wolfers wrote in a post on X, sharing a graph of inflation under Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan after he fired the country's central bank authorities.

"This is exactly how you lose your country," Spencer Hakimian, founder of Tolou Capital Management, posted on X.

"Trump knows he’s tanking the economy, and he’s looking to blame everyone other than himself," Democratic Wins Media posted on X.

Democrat influencer Harry Sisson described Cook's firing on X as "blatantly unconstitutional and authoritarian."

"This should be challenged in court ASAP!" Sisson added.

'Tear that letter!’ Stunned expert makes dramatic protest of Trump’s Fed firing on MSNBC

Daniel Hampton
August 25, 2025

RAW STORY

(Screengrab via MSNBC)

A legal expert lost his cool on MSNBC on Monday night after President Donald Trump announced he fired Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook, effective immediately, citing mortgage fraud allegations from his administration.

Norm Eisen, the founder and chair of the Democracy Defenders Fund, joined "The Weeknight" to discuss Cook's firing, a historic and unprecedented move that is expected to trigger court challenges, as Federal Reserve governors can only be removed “for cause."

Cook previously denied wrongdoing and said she had no intention of resigning.\

MSNBC host Michael Steele, former chair of the Republican National Committee, noted Trump's decision to "summarily fire a Fed board member" comes in the "face of the fact that this body relates its history back to the early days of the founding of this country."

"Alexander Hamilton, Mr. President, you may recall him ... very bright lines were drawn with respect to the banking relationship between the Reserve and the government," said Steele.

Eisen said this firing was unlike other cases pending final disposition at his organization.

"We’re litigating some of them about the extent of the president’s firing power. And the Supreme Court said so in the Gwynne Wilcox case that the Fed is different," he emphasized, referring to a major legal battle over Trump's attempt to oust a member of the National Labor Relations Board without showing cause.

Eisen attacked the president in a fiery takedown.

"But Donald Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution! He doesn’t care that Congress has said you can only fire somebody for cause! He doesn’t care that he has no cause here!" he exclaimed.

Eisen asserted Cook's firing was based on a social media post by one of his "most-sharp partisans," Bill Pulte, head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency.

"This is irrelevant to him. You have somebody in the White House who himself is a convicted felon. Thirty-four counts. No wonder the federal courts have shot him down 200 times for illegal actions. This is another one," Eisen continued.

Eisen then asked Steele to hand over his copy of Trump's letter to Cook announcing her termination.

"And you know what? Remember — can I have that letter? This is Donald Trump’s letter," he said. "Do you know what Lisa Cook should do? What Nancy Pelosi did. She should tear that letter."

Eisen tore the letter in half and handed it back to Steele.

"Now you’ll need to tape it for the rest of the segment," he concluded.


Watch the clip here or at this link.