It’s possible that I shall make an ass of myself. But in that case one can always get out of it with a little dialectic. I have, of course, so worded my proposition as to be right either way (K.Marx, Letter to F.Engels on the Indian Mutiny)
Wednesday, January 14, 2026
Trump’s policies have cost the auto industry a staggering $25 billion so far
Two L3Harris employees at Advanced Manufacturing Facility in Huntsville, Alabama, U.S. October 9, 2024. L3Harris Technologies/Handout via REUTERS./File Photo
The American automobile industry is at risk thanks to President Donald Trump’s war against green energy.
Business journalist Bill Saporito wrote in The New York Times that most car companies had shifted to prioritizing electric vehicles (E.V.s) before Trump canceled efforts to support the industry. He likened the move to insisting that all music should only be accessible on vinyl rather than streamed digitally.
"Ford Motor has mothballed production of the all-electric version of its flagship F-150 pickup truck, and last month announced a $19.5 billion charge related to restructuring its E.V. business," Saporito wrote. "General Motors, citing the loss of tax incentives for E.V. buyers and laxer pollution regulations, switched production at its Orion, Mich., plant from E.V.s to full-size S.U.V.s and pickups powered by internal combustion engines (ICE, in industry parlance). In doing so, G.M. last week announced that it was taking a $6 billion loss in the fourth quarter — on top of a similar $1.6 billion hit the quarter before."
Ultimately, Trump has cost automakers $25 billion in losses.
The ordeal is a repeat of 2008, when car companies prioritized building giant S.U.V.s and trucks. Oil prices spiked so high that buyers began shifting to lower-fuel vehicles like Toyotas and Volkswagens. Then the housing market collapsed. The federal government swooped in with a $50 billion bailout for G.M. after it was forced into bankruptcy.
Meanwhile, Detroit was too slow to adapt when Tesla began to corner the E.V. market. Carmakers then fast-tracked their E.V. programs and joined the global shift to cleaner vehicles. Then Trump was reelected in 2024 and ushered in hefty tariffs on markets that are still promoting fuel-efficient vehicles and E.V.s.
Trump's "tariffs raised their manufacturing costs and scrambled a trilateral supply chain built on autos, parts and subassemblies flowing freely among the United States, Canada and Mexico," the report explained.
The main reason Trump opposed the fast-growing global push for E.V.s is that President Joe Biden championed it. The $1.2 trillion Infrastructure and Jobs Act funded projects to build and repair bridges and roads, but it also expanded the support structure for E.V.s with larger charging networks on major interstates.
"The vindictive, oil-loving Mr. Trump, who equates green with woke and views climate change as heresy, has worked assiduously to undo it, working to cancel consumer tax incentives and billions in funds for E.V. charging and battery manufacturing projects," the report continued.
The costs continue to mount for the business community. To make matters worse, Trump’s promises to increase U.S. manufacturing have fallen flat in his first year back in office. Job growth hit the brakes, with seven straight months of manufacturing job declines, according to recent federal data, as Politico reported last week.
Speaking to CNBC at the end of last year, Director of the National Economic Council Kevin Hassett was asked about the seven straight months of manufacturing job decline in the U.S. Hassett acknowledged the slump but promised that in the new year new plants would open and those numbers would turn around.
"Superior technology ultimately wins out. By the time the automobile industry is dominated by E.V.s, G.M. and Ford may have fallen well behind China, thanks to the Trump administration," Saporito wrote at the close of the story.
'Moral stain': Catholic outlet questions VP's faith after his Minneapolis shooting speech
President Donald Trump and Vice President JD Vance on January 20, 2025 (The White House/Wikimedia Commons)
In a Thursday column, National Catholic Reporter (NCR) digital editor John Grosso took Vance — who converted to Catholicism in 2019 — to task for saying that Good's death was "of her own making." Grosso also doubted Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's claim that Good — a widow and mother of three — was carrying out an act of "domestic terrorism."
"There is no evidence that Good was in any way involved in domestic terrorism. Video evidence seems to entirely contradict Trump's explanation of the situation," Grosso wrote. "The ICE officer does not appear to have been injured and is seen casually walking away after the shooting."
Grosso lamented that despite Vance expressing solidarity with ICE in multiple social media posts, the vice president has yet to show "any remorse, prayers or condolences regarding Good and her loved ones." He noted that Vance is instead "leaning into divisive, tribalistic language to demonize Democrats" rather than offering thoughts and prayers to Good's family.
"A leader might take the opportunity provided by a fresh day to soothe the broken heart of a nation and appeal to the better angels among us," he wrote. "JD Vance went in a different direction."
"As a Catholic, Vance knows better than to peddle this brand of gaslighting and agitation," he continued. "Vance knows that, by virtue of her humanity, Good was endowed with inherent dignity, made in the image and likeness of God. Vance knows that only God can take life. Vance knows that protesting, fleeing or even interfering in an ICE investigation (which there is no evidence that Good did) does not carry a death sentence. Vance knows that lying and killing are sins."
"The vice president's comments justifying the death of Renee Good are a moral stain on the collective witness of our Catholic faith. His repeated attempts to blame Good for her own death are fundamentally incompatible with the Gospel," Grosso added. "Our only recourse is to pray for his conversion of heart."
Click here to read Grosso's full op-ed in the NCR.
How Christian Reconstructionism influences US politics: scholar
A Christian chruch service on July 8, 2024 (Paul Shuang/Shutterstock.com)
Christian Reconstructionism is a theological and political movement within conservative Protestantism that argues society should be governed by biblical principles, including the application of biblical law to both personal and public life.
It was born from the ideas of theologian R. J. Rushdoony, an influential Armenian-American Calvinist philosopher, theologian and author. In his 1973 book, “The Institutes of Biblical Law,” Rushdoony argued that Old Testament laws should still apply to modern society. He supported the death penalty not only for murder but also for offenses listed in the text such as adultery, blasphemy, homosexuality, witchcraft and idolatry.
The movement helped knit together a network of theologians, activists and political thinkers who shared a belief that Christians are called to “take dominion” over society and exercise authority over civil society, law and culture.
These ideas continue to resonate across many areas of American religious and political life. Origins of Christian Reconstructionism
Rushdoony’s ideas were born from a radical interpretation of Reformed Christianity – a branch of Protestant Christianity that follows the teachings of John Calvin and other reformers. It emphasizes God’s authority, the Bible as the ultimate guide and salvation through God’s grace rather than human effort.
Rushdoony’s ideas led him to found The Chalcedon Foundation in 1965, a think tank and publishing house promoting Christian Reconstructionism. It served as the movement’s main hub, producing books, position papers, articles and educational materials on applying biblical law to modern society.
It helped train Greg Bahnsen, an Orthodox Presbyterian theologian, and Gary North, a Christian reconstructionist writer and historian, both of whom went on to take key leadership roles in the movement.
At the heart of reconstructionism lies the conviction that politics, economics, education and culture are all arenas where divine authority should reign. Secular democracy, they argued, was inherently unstable, a system built on human opinion rather than divine truth.
These ideas were, and remain, deeply controversial. Many theologians, including conservatives within the Reformed tradition, rejected Rushdoony’s argument that ancient Israel’s civil laws should apply in modern states. Christian dominionism and different networks
Nonetheless, reconstructionist ideas grew as people who more broadly believed in dominionism began to align with it. Dominionism is a broader ideology advocating Christian influence over culture and politics without requiring literal enforcement of biblical law.
The broad network of those who believe in Christian dominionism includes several approaches: Rushdoony’s reconstructionism, which provides the theological foundation, and charismatic kingdom theology.
Charismatic kingdom theology, which emerged in Pentecostal and charismatic circles, teaches that believers – empowered by the Holy Spirit – should shape politics, culture and society before Christ’s return.
Unlike reconstructionism, it emphasizes prophecy and spiritual authority rather than formal biblical law; it seeks influence over institutions such as government, education and culture.
Taken together, I argue that these strands have reinforced one another, creating a larger movement of thinkers and activists than any single approach could achieve alone. From reconstructionism to the New Apostolic Reformation
Christian reconstructionist and dominionist ideas gained wider popularity through C. Peter Wagner, a leading charismatic theologian who helped shape the New Apostolic Reformation, or NAR, by adapting elements of Christian Reconstructionism. NAR is a charismatic movement that builds on dominionist ideas by emphasizing the use of spiritual gifts and apostolic leadership to shape society.
Wagner emphasized spiritual warfare, prophecy and modern apostles taking control of seven key areas – family, church, government, education, media, business and the arts – to reshape society under biblical authority. This is known as the “Seven Mountains Mandate.”
Wagner’s dominion theology, however, adapts Christian Reconstructionism to a charismatic context, transforming the goal of a Christian society into a spiritually driven movement aimed at influencing culture and governments worldwide. Doug Wilson and homeschooling
Another key bridge between reconstructionism and contemporary dominionist thought is Doug Wilson, a pastor and author in Moscow, Idaho.
He has promoted Christian schools, traditional family roles and living out a “Christian worldview” in everyday life, bringing reconstructionist ideas into new areas of society.
Through his writings, teaching and leadership within the Communion of Reformed Evangelical Churches – the CREC – network, Wilson encourages a vision of society shaped by Christian values, connecting reconstructionist thought to contemporary cultural engagement.
Wilson’s publishing house, Canon Press, and his classical school movement have brought these ideas into thousands of Christian homes and classrooms across the U.S. His local congregation – the Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho – numbers around 1,300.
The Christian homeschooling movement offers parents a curriculum steeped in reformed theology and resistance to secular education. Enduring influence
Some critics warn that the fusion of dominionist and reconstructionist theology with political action can weaken pluralism and democratic norms by pressuring laws and policies to reflect a single religious worldview. They argue that even moderated forms of these visions challenge the separation of church and state. They risk undermining the rights of religious minorities, nonreligious citizens and others who do not share the movement’s beliefs.
Supporters frame their mission as the renewal of a moral society, one in which divine authority provides the foundation for human flourishing.
Even among those unfamiliar with Rushdoony, the political and theological patterns he helped shape remain visible in modern evangelical activism and the ongoing debates over religion’s place in American public life.
MAGA claims of 'massive religious revival' meticulously debunked
CEO of Turning Point USA Erika Kirk reacts as she speaks during AmericaFest, the first Turning Point USA summit since the death of Charlie Kirk, in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S. December 18, 2025. REUTERS/Cheney Orr
Christian nationalist themes were alive and well at Turning Point USA's AmericaFest 2025 gathering at the Phoenix Convention Center, which found Vice President JD Vance declaring that the United States "always will be a Christian nation." But that claim was debunked by MS NOW's Steve Benen, who noted what the Founding Fathers had to say on the subject — for example, John Adams, in 1797, writing that "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion," and Thomas Jefferson saying, in 1802, that the U.S. Constitution created "a wall of separation between church and state."
Another prominent Christian nationalist theme at AmericaFest 2025 is that the U.S. is seeing a widespread evangelical renaissance, which is also what the Moral Majority's Rev. Jerry Falwell Sr. claimed during the 1980s. But Salon's Amanda Marcotte, in an article published on January 7, counters that the U.S. is moving in a more "secular" direction — not converting to evangelical Christian fundamentalism in huge numbers.
"For decades now," Marcotte explains, "the Christian Right has been the most powerful and influential force in the GOP, and yet even by their standards, this marked a dramatic shift toward the theocratic impulse. From a purely rational perspective, this is bad politics. Only 23 percent of Americans identify as evangelicals. Trump was able to win in 2024 only by convincing large numbers of people outside of evangelical Christianity that he has a secular worldview. This was aided by the fact that he quite clearly doesn't believe all the Christian language, both coded and overt, his aides coax him to say."
The Salon journalist continues, "But none of that seems to register with MAGA leadership right now. They've convinced themselves — or at least are trying to persuade their donors and followers — that the U.S. is undergoing a massive religious revival. Right-wing media has been pushing the view that huge numbers of Americans, especially young Americans, are converting to fundamentalist Christianity."
Right-wing media, Marcotte observes, are claiming that the murder of Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk in September is fueling a "tidal wave of Americans, especially young Americans, discovering or returning to Christianity." But that "imaginary religious awakening," she stresses, isn't materializing.
"There is no evidence-based reason to believe there's a religious revival among the young that is about to create massive election windfalls for Republicans," Marcotte writes. "On the contrary, a December report from Pew Research found that, 'on average, young adults remain much less religious than older Americans. Today's young adults also are less religious than young people were a decade ago.'" Amanda Marcotte's full article for Salon is available at this link.
America Under Siege: Fear and the Unchecked Presidency
A republic cannot survive this indefinitely. The removal of Donald Trump from office—which is now imperative—is not about vengeance; it is about preservation.
US Border Patrol agents detain a person near Roosevelt High School during dismissal time as federal immigration enforcement actions sparked protests in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 7, 2026. (Photo by Kerem Yucel / AFP via Getty Images)
There are moments when the danger facing a nation is not announced by sirens or declarations of war, but by something quieter and more corrosive: fear—abroad and at home—paired with the normalization of lawlessness at the very top of power.
A growing number of economists, constitutional scholars, and foreign-policy experts—including Professor Jeffrey Sachs—have warned that the country is now operating under an effectively unchecked presidency, and this is very dangerous. What once sounded theoretical has become tangible. Executive conduct has crossed from aggressive policy into outright violations of constitutional structure, international law, and basic norms of human dignity—leaving Americans and foreign populations alike unsure where law ends and coercion begins.
Consider Venezuela. A sitting head of state was forcibly apprehended and remains detained despite long-established principles of head-of-state immunity recognized by both international law and US courts. No congressional declaration of war was issued. No authorization for the use of military force was granted. Yet naval deployments, explicit threats of escalation, and coercive demands have proceeded as if constitutional limits were optional.
This is not a policy disagreement. It is a rupture of the separation of powers.
A republic cannot survive this indefinitely.
Under the Constitution, Congress—not the President—decides when the nation enters hostilities. When force is used without that authorization, the injury is not foreign; it is domestic. It alters the legal obligations of service members, bypasses elected representatives, and establishes precedents that future presidents will inherit and may get to expand. What is done once without consequence becomes permissible forever.
The international consequences are equally severe. When restraint is publicly described as conditional on “cooperation,” the message is unmistakable: compliance is demanded under threat. Under international law, consent extracted through coercion is no consent at all. Agreements reached in such conditions are void, unstable, and corrosive to global order. They invite retaliation, miscalculation, and escalation.
Against this backdrop, the President’s own conduct has crossed from provocation into mockery.
Posting a mug-style image of himself online with the caption “Interim President of Venezuela” is not political satire—it is a display of contempt for a population already living under the shadow of military threat. Venezuelan civilians fear for their lives. Survivors of armed attacks have described, in horrific detail, the killing of guards and soldiers by US troops acting like mercenaries with no mercy, aligned with US objectives, sparing only the President and his wife to be taken alive. In that context, ridicule from the most powerful office on earth is not harmless. It is psychological warfare by indifference.
And the fear does not stop at the border.
Inside the United States, many citizens have grown quiet—not because they are indifferent, but because they are afraid. Afraid of retaliation. Afraid of being singled out. Afraid that the institutions meant to protect them are bending rather than holding. Silence, under these conditions, is not consent. It is duress.
That fear is reinforced when the President openly refuses to rule out acquiring foreign territory by force. When Greenland and Denmark rejected his demands, the response was not reassurance but continued ambiguity. Sovereignty, once treated as inviolable, was suddenly spoken of as negotiable—through pressure, leverage, or worse. This is not how democracies speak. It is how empires test boundaries.
The Constitution was designed precisely to prevent this concentration of power. War powers were placed in Congress to slow escalation. Immunities were recognized to prevent cycles of retaliation. Diplomacy was meant to replace force, not disguise it. When these guardrails fail, the danger is not merely to foreign nations—it is to the constitutional order itself.
The most alarming feature of the present moment is not outrage, but normalization. Each uncorrected violation lowers the threshold for the next. Each silence under fear teaches power that it need not explain itself.
America is now at a point where clarity is no longer optional. A President who acts beyond constitutional authority must be confronted with the limits of that authority. Violations of the Constitution and of international law must be acknowledged—not obscured, denied, or ridiculed—and immediately remedied through full and lawful redress (as guaranteed by the First Amendment’s right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances). The alternative is not ambiguity. It is consequence.
If redress is refused, if illegality is neither recognized nor corrected, the Constitution provides a final safeguard. Removal from office is not vengeance; it is a mechanism of preservation. It exists precisely for moments when power becomes unmoored from law.
“America Under Siege” does not mean tanks in the streets. It means a nation deciding whether constitutional limits still matter when they become inconvenient. And history is unforgiving to republics that delay that decision for too long.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Angel Gomez Mr. Angel Gomez is a researcher specializing in the societal impact of government policies. He has a background in psychoanalytical anthropology and general sciences. Full Bio >
How Will the Billionaires React If Trump Cancels the 2026 Elections?
We now know that most of the big money boys couldn’t care less about democracy, but it’s worth asking how the markets will react if the current US president tries to end American democracy.
Trump has made it clear that he considers both cancellation and ordering that some votes not be counted as serious options for midterm elections, warns Baker. (Photo: Getty Images)
The lack of market reaction to the news that Trump ordered his Justice Department to investigate criminal charges against Fed Chair Jerome Powell surprises many people. After all, everyone knows that the claims about cost overruns being the basis for the investigation is nonsense. Trump wants to threaten Powell with criminal charges because he ignored Trump’s demand that he lower interest rates.
This ordinarily would be seen as a very big deal. Ever since Nixon, presidents have been reluctant to be seen as pressuring the Fed. In fact, their concern on this issue often seemed absurd to my view. President Biden didn’t want his Council of Economic Advisors to even comment on interest rate policy, as though giving a view based on the economic data would be undue pressure.
But there is a big difference between presenting an economic argument and threatening to imprison a Fed chair who disagrees. And we now see which side Trump comes down on.
But apparently, the markets are just fine with this new threat. The major stock indexes all rose on Monday, although bond prices fell slightly, pushing long-term rates higher. The dollar also fell modestly.
The non-reaction of the stock markets might seem surprising. After all, the independent Fed is considered a sacred feature of US prosperity. There is no shortage of economists who will insist that a Fed that is subordinate to the whims of a president is quick route to double-digit or even triple digit inflation. (I’m more agnostic on this one, but the markets generally don’t listen to me.)
Anyhow, Trump is now not just looking to fire an insubordinate Fed chair, he’s looking to throw him in prison. And the markets just yawned.
This reaction should cause us to start asking how the markets might react if Trump just cancels or outright steals the 2026 elections in order to keep his lackeys in control of Congress. Under any other modern president, the fear of a cancelled or stolen election would be silly. While they might have used dubious tactics leading up to an election, we could be comfortable that the votes would be counted, and the outcome would be binding. (Florida in 2000 is a major exception.) No one ever suggested that an election would be cancelled.
But Trump has made it clear that he considers both cancellation and ordering that some votes not be counted as serious options in his recent New York Timesinterview. No one can be safe in assuming that we will have a normal democratic election this year.
Given this reality, we might want to speculate on how the markets would react in the event that Trump does decide to end American democracy. We now know that most of the big money boys couldn’t care less about democracy. Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg, and Tim Cook have been happy to cozy up to Trump in Mar-a-Lago, even as he violates one democratic norm after another. Elon Musk has made it clear that he has contempt for democracy, insofar as it means allowing non-white people to vote.
This gang would obviously have no moral issues with a cancelled or stolen election. But what about the economics?
Trump has already made it clear that he will favor businesses whose leaders praise him and punish those who criticize him. His most recent effort in this direction was saying that he intended to ban ExxonMobil from access to Venezuelan oil because its CEO said what every oil analyst has said since Trump became president of that country: it will be difficult for companies to profitably invest there.
The economies of countries where the leader can reward or punish companies on a whim tend to not do very well. The courts have provided a limited check on Trump’s whims as has even this pathetic Congress. However, if Trump is deciding who serves in Congress, the checks will be gone. We will have full-rule by our demented 79-year-old president.
Perhaps markets will be fine with that. With enough rear-end licking some companies may still do fine, but it would seem on the straight economics most people with money would probably prefer to invest in a serious country. Let’s hope we don’t have to find out.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Dean Bake is the co-founder and the senior economist of the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR). He is the author of several books, including "Getting Back to Full Employment: A Better bargain for Working People," "The End of Loser Liberalism: Making Markets Progressive," "The United States Since 1980," "Social Security: The Phony Crisis" (with Mark Weisbrot), and "The Conservative Nanny State: How the Wealthy Use the Government to Stay Rich and Get Richer." He also has a blog, "Beat the Press," where he discusses the media's coverage of economic issues. Full Bio >
Do the Democrats Have the Guts to Outflank Trump on Defense Industry Looting?
The Democrats could push Trump—or go around him to make better inroads with working people—but will they dare to take that leap? One would hope so, but don’t hold your breath. An employee at General Dynamics Scranton moves a mortar along the production line. The plant produces 155 mm shells. (Photo by Aimee Dilger/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)
Trump has decided that the government should not give money to defense contractors who then reroute our tax dollars via stock buybacks to stockholders and executives.
A stock buyback, for those unfamiliar, is when a corporation repurchases its own shares, thus boosting the share’s price, a legalized form of stock manipulation. CEOs, who are paid mostly in stock incentives, and large investors directly benefit from stock buybacks, and unlike with dividends, don’t have to pay taxes until they sell their shares.
In the weapons industry, this isn’t news. Studies show that defense contractors spent three times more on dividends and stock buybacks than on capital investments needed to fulfill their contracts over the last decade. In Europe, it was the other way around with defense companies spending twice as much on capital investments compared to dividends. (They don’t do stock buybacks.)
The New York Times cited a Department of Defense study during the Biden administration that “found that top US defense contractors spent more on returning cash to shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks between 2010 and 2019 compared to the previous decades, while spending on research and new or upgraded factories had declined.”
You’ve got to wonder why the Biden administration didn’t try to stop this scam. Maybe it feared looking anti-military. Or maybe it thought such an action would be too upsetting to their Wall Street donors who feast on stock buybacks?
Now we have Trump doing what the Democrats should have done long ago, announcing he will stop buybacks and cap executive salaries at profligate defense contractors:His Executive Order directs the Secretary of War to take steps to ensure that future contracts prohibit stock buybacks and corporate distributions during periods of underperformance, non-compliance, insufficient prioritization or investment, or insufficient production speed. The Secretary shall further take steps to ensure that future contracts permit the Secretary to, upon determining that a contractor is experiencing such issues, cap executive base salaries at current levels (with inflation adjustments permitted) while scrutinizing executive incentives to ensure they are directly, fairly, and tightly tied to prioritizing the needs of the warfighter.
How about Preventing Mass Layoffs?
If the Democrats wanted to show more concern for working people they would jump all over this executive order and push legislation to expand it to include a prohibition of compulsory layoffs at all defense contractors. If a contractor wants to change staffing levels, they should offer voluntary financial buyout packages. No one should be forced to leave.
This is an easy case to make. Why should taxpayers give money to corporations that then lay off taxpayers so that they can shovel more and more of our tax dollars to the wealthy? If the problem is that these defense contractors fail to deliver products on time they need more workers, not fewer.
Instead of wallowing in the Epstein files, the Democrats should declare again and again that mass layoffs are the weapon of choice to enrich executives and Wall Street. Fight for the damn jobs!
In April, the Labor Institute, in cooperation with the Center for Working Class Politics, produced a YouGov survey of 3,000 voters in Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin. In the survey, we asked voters to evaluate a state ballot initiative we invented that read: “Corporations with more than 500 employees that receive taxpayer-funded federal contracts are prohibited from conducting involuntary layoffs of American workers. All layoffs during the life of a taxpayer-funded contract must be voluntary, based on employer financial incentives. No one shall be forced to leave.”
Overall, 42 percent supported the proposal, while 26 percent opposed it and 32 percent were not sure. The no-layoff proposal was brand new, unheard of by anyone before the survey was administered, yet it tied for fifth in popularity among 25 economic proposals. Furthermore, we reported that: “Respondents from key demographic groups that Democrats have struggled to reach in recent electoral cycles showed robust support for the policy, which was tied for fifth among respondents without a four-year college degree and those whose family income was less than $50,000 per year, and tied for sixth among respondents who reported a declining standard of living and those who live in rural areas and small towns.”
This no-layoffs policy would be a big winner for the Democrats leading up to the mid-terms. But it would not be a winner for the financial backers of the party who cherish their stock buybacks.
So here we are again. Trump outflanking the Democrats on a populist economic proposal, like cancelling NAFTA, one that the Democrats failed to address while in power. In this case, the Democrats could push Trump even further by tying job stability to federal defense contracts, something that working people would greatly value but would be upsetting to Wall Street.
The Democrats could push Trump, but will they dare to take that leap? One would hope so, but don’t hold your breath. The failure to rigorously defend working people over the last forty years against needless mass layoffs may be why so many voters right now are willing to consider a new political party, independent of the two billionaire parties.
Much more on that to come.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
No, Says Rights Coalition, Recording ICE Agents Is Not Illegal
“The First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public.” A man gestures at US Border Patrol agents as they detain an unidentified man of Somali descent in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 8, 2026. (Photo by Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images)
“We join together as nonprofit civil rights and free expression advocates to condemn the Trump administration’s statements that it is illegal to record videos of ICE agents. These claims are incorrect as a matter of law, directly contrary to our First Amendment values, and deeply troubling for democratic governance,” NCAC said in a statement.
“The ability to hold the government accountable is at the very core of our democracy. To preserve that ability, the First Amendment unequivocally protects the right to observe, monitor, and take pictures and video of government officials conducting their duties in public. This explicitly includes law enforcement officers engaged in their public duties,” the coalition continued, citing decisions from all federal appellate courts that have addressed the issue.
In a Wednesday appearance on KQED‘s podcast Close All Tabs, CJ Ciaramella, a criminal justice reporter at Reason, similarly highlighted that while the US Supreme Court “actually hasn’t put out a ruling saying there’s an unambiguous First Amendment right to film the police,” the circuit courts “that have considered the issue have pretty much said there is a First Amendment right to record the police and observe the police, and they’ve all decided that pretty unambiguously.”
“And this ranges from, you know, the 9th Circuit, which is traditionally a pretty liberal leaning court, to the 5th Circuit, which has a reputation as a more conservative circuit court,” Ciaramella explained. “The 5th Circuit looked at it and said, you know, based on the First Amendment tradition, the Supreme Court precedents, this seems pretty unambiguous to us.”
“So it’s not a completely like black and white issue, but it’s also not... a thorny or divisive First Amendment question. Every court that’s looked at it has said, yeah, based on our long First Amendment traditions. And in America, you have a right to record the police,” he added. “Now, Minnesota is in one of the circuits that hasn’t yet ruled on this.”
The NCAC statement comes amid a flurry of videos of violent and otherwise problematic ICE actions, especially in Minneapolis, where Trump has sent thousands of troops and ICE officer Johnathan Ross fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in the head last week. Ross was recording on his phone, and amid mounting calls for his arrest and prosecution, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has put out a “propaganda” video defending the actions of ICE agents.
Journalists and other critics of Good’s killing have debunked DHS claims in part by pointing to bystanders’ footage from the scene.
While the NCAC statement doesn’t point to any specific incidents with agents, it does sound the alarm about Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem’s suggestion last July that videotaping ICE operations is “violence” and anyone “doxing” agents will be prosecuted.
After playing a clip of Noem’s remarks on Close All Tabs, host Morgan Sung said: “Notice the use of the word doxing here. That’s the act of posting private information about someone to target and harass them, usually like their home address or personal phone number. The Trump administration has equated identifying and publicly naming ICE agents to doxing.”
NCAC argued that “statements such as Secretary Noem’s misinform the public about their First Amendment rights and chill constitutionally protected speech. As a policy matter, threats to punish those who monitor law enforcement increase the likelihood that people will be intimidated out of exercising their constitutional rights and lead to precisely the outcome such oversight is intended to prevent—law enforcement agents who act with impunity as transparency is demonized by political leaders.”
Like ICE, agents with Customs and Border Protection, another DHS agency, have been sent to various cities and recorded behaving violently in recent months, often while donning masks. After Ross killed Good, Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino—who is currently in Minnesota—sent a “legal refresher” to agents in the field stating that taking photos and recordings is protected activity under the First Amendment.
The coalition said that “regardless of one’s views on immigration policy, the increased budget and enforcement operations of ICE were a core campaign issue in the presidential election, and are a widespread topic of conversation and concern.”
“Recordings of law enforcement directly inform the public, shape policy discussions, and even serve as the catalyst for large-scale political movements across the political spectrum. They have helped to expose horrific and illegal acts by the government,” NCAC pointed out. “At the same time, they also protect law enforcement officers. If an officer is acting within the bounds of the law, a recording will help prove as much.”
“We stand behind the public’s well-established right to record public officials, law enforcement, and ICE agents engaged in their public duties. We jointly condemn this administration’s refusal to recognize the First Amendment right to record officers in public. And we call on this administration to recognize that constitutional rights are a feature, not a bug, of democratic governance,” the coalition concluded. “For our constitutional rights to be real, our public officials must uphold them—as they have sworn to do.”
The groups that signed on to the statement are the ACLU, Center for Democracy & Technology, Center for Protest Law & Litigation at the Partnership for Civil Justice Fund, Defending Rights & Dissent, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Freedom of the Press Foundation, Government Information Watch, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, People for the American Way, Public Citizen, Tully Center for Free Speech, and Woodhull Freedom Foundation.
Joining them as individuals are writer and historian Pat McNees, and three experts from Yale Law School: David A. Schulz, Stacy Livingston, and Tobin Raju.
Trump's DOJ now argues filming police not protected by First Amendment
An observer uses a mobile phone to document Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino and his convoy, days after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis, as Bovino stops at a gas station in Columbia Heights, Minnesota, U.S., January 13, 2026. REUTERS/Tim Evans
President Donald Trump's Department of Justice (DOJ) is now claiming that Americans do not have a Constitutional right to film law enforcement officers.
NOTUS reported Tuesday that the DOJ made the claim during a hearing in U.S. District Judge Katherine Menendez's courtroom. The hearing was the result of ongoing litigation by Minneapolis residents over claims that U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents pepper-sprayed and arrested them without cause. While the initial complaint was filed prior to the fatal shooting of U.S. citizen Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross, the plaintiffs cited Good's death as reason to issue a temporary restraining order against federal agents.
DOJ attorney Jeremy Newman defended the recent trend of ICE agents drawing their weapons on civilian vehicles following them, saying that "following" can lead to "dangerous activity," and that it was "reasonable for officers to be concerned about their safety. NOTUS further reported that Newman cited the 2023 Molina v. Book case to support his argument that "observing and recording police is not a clearly established First Amendment right."
"It’s very clear that this is an ongoing emergency," Newman said.
However, other court cases decided at the federal appellate court level have ruled that Americans do indeed have the right to document police officers in the course of their duties. In the 2022 Irizarry v. Yehia case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit ruled that the First Amendment guaranteed the right to film police officers "subject to reasonable time, place and manner restrictions."
Judge Menendez – an appointee of former President Joe Biden — reportedly chided ICE agents for not including copies of any police reports, body camera footage or statements from agents involved in altercations with plaintiffs. Newman responded that the agency "did the best we could" as their response to the litigation was cobbled together over the holiday season.
Menendez also told plaintiffs she would rule on their petition for emergency relief by Thursday or Friday, and hinted that any ruling would pertain to their specific case, rather than a broader decision impacting all protesters in Minneapolis. Click here to read NOTUS' article in its entirety.
THIN SKINNED TRUMP
‘He Believes in Freedom of Speech’: UAW Stands Behind Michigan Worker Flipped Off by Trump
“We stand with our membership in protecting their voice on the job.”
US President Donald Trump, alongside Ford CEO Jim Farley, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and plant manager Corey Williams, tours Ford Motor Company’s River Rouge complex in Dearborn, Michigan, on January 13, 2026. (Photo by Mandel NGAN / AFP via Getty Images)
TJ Sabula, the Michigan auto worker who was suspended from his job at Ford after calling President Donald Trump a “pedophile protector,” has the backing of the largest US auto union.
United Auto Workers (UAW) on Wednesday pledged to support Sabula, whom it described as “a proud member of a strong and fighting union,” further noting that “he believes in freedom of speech, a principle we wholeheartedly embrace, and we stand with our membership in protecting their voice on the job.”
UAW vowed that Sabula will receive “the full protection of all negotiated contract language safeguarding his job and his rights as a union member.”
Sabula on Tuesday accused Trump of being a “pedophile protector”—in reference to the president’s reluctance to release files related to the criminal investigation of late sex offender Jeffrey Epstein—while the president was visiting a Ford truck plant in Dearborn, Michigan.
Trump responded by giving Sabula the middle finger, while appearing to mouth or yell “fuck you” back at the auto worker.
Sabula has received an outpouring of support since heckling Trump. A GoFundMe campaign aimed at raising money in support of the suspended auto worker has so far raised more than $350,000.
In a Tuesday interview published by the Washington Post, Sabula said he had “no regrets whatsoever” about yelling at the president, despite the uncertain future he now faces at his job.
“I don’t feel as though fate looks upon you often, and when it does, you better be ready to seize the opportunity,” Sabula told the Post. “And today I think I did that.”
Ford Worker Trump flipped off has now been suspended
President Donald Trump talks with workers at Ford’s F-150 factory in Dearborn. Jan. 13, 2025 | White House photo
A union-backed auto worker at Ford Motor Co. was caught on video heckling President Donald Trump as a “pedophile protector” when he visited a Dearborn factory on Tuesday ahead of his address to the Detroit Economic Club. The video that has now gone viral shows Trump responded in kind by mouthing an expletive at the worker, twice, and displaying a middle finger as he walked away.
Now, the union says the worker has been suspended while Ford looks into the matter.
A representative from the UAW told Michigan Advance that they could confirm that he was suspended but the length of the suspension was unknown. The union was also uncertain about the process that would follow to investigate the matter.
A message seeking comment from Ford to confirm if the worker was fired or suspended was not immediately returned on Tuesday evening.
In a statement to the Advance, White House communications director Steven Cheung called the worker “a lunatic” who was “wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage.”
“And the president gave an appropriate and unambiguous response,” Cheung said.
U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) said she spoke to a well placed source in the worker’s local union who said he was facing disciplinary action.
“Ford said they can’t talk about it because it’s a human resources issue,” Tlaib said. “In the past, when President Obama (went) onto the plant floor and other times people have said some terrible things, they didn’t get fired.”
U.S. Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Ann Arbor) also told the Advance that the union confirmed that the confrontation meant the man was facing disciplinary action.
Dingell also said she was inquiring with Ford about the status of the man’s employment, and if he was being suspended and investigated in violation of his free speech rights.
“When you’re on a factory floor with union members that have strong feelings, you need to be prepared for whatever they’re gonna say, and I hope they’re not firing him because I believe in free speech,” Dingell said in an interview. “The UAW worker was expressing his right to free speech, and I’m asking questions as to what has happened.”
The video, which was first published by Distill Social shows Trump walking around a raised portion of the Dearborn F-150 plant when the worker, who is not seen on screen, yells to Trump and calls him a “pedophile protector,” a reference to Trump’s widely reported connections to deceased pedophile and sex trafficker Jeffery Epstein and the Trump administration’s bungling of a new law that ordered the FBI to release all of the files that the department had available to them.
Some have seen the constant delays from the FBI and the slow walk to release the files as Trump protecting either himself or his wealthy elite friends from scrutiny or a clear connection to Epstein.
In response to the confrontation, the Democratic National Committee denounced Trump for being “more concerned with his ego than his spiraling economy, where job cuts are skyrocketing, hiring has slowed, unemployment remains high, and prices continue to soar.”
“As working families struggle to make ends meet in Trump’s economy, the Trump family and their wealthy donors keep getting richer — there’s no bigger ‘F-you’ than that,” said DNC Senior Advisor for Messaging, Mobilization and Strategy Tim Hogan in a statement. “The real question is: Why does the mere mention of Epstein set him off?”
Tlaib echoed that point.
“The worker could have said anything, but this worker felt compelled to say you’re protecting a pedophile. I feel very strongly that Ford Motor Company is sending a message that people can’t stand up for sexual abuse survivors,” Tlaib said.
'Put your big boy pants on': Ex-RNC chair tears into Trump after wild meltdown at heckler
President Donald Trump debased his office when he lost control and flipped the bird at a heckler in Detroit who called him a "pedophile protector," MS NOW anchor and former Republican National Committee chief Michael Steele observed in a discussion with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) on Tuesday's edition of "The Weeknight."
"So we all know we have a very, in my estimation, a very underdeveloped man sitting in the White House," said Steele to Khanna, one of the main sponsors of legislation to compel the White House to release the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking case files, which have still not been released in full despite legal deadlines.
"That was just a punkish move," Steele continued. "I don't know who he thinks he was impressing. I guess it's more impressive if the President of the United States flips you off. But put your big boy pants on, Mr. President, the country is a big country, and we have opinions. We have opinions about you. We have opinions about your actions. So that's all I want to say about that."
Furthermore, Steele added, "The fact that the White House response was 'a lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage,' their overdramatization of stuff is another bit of crap we have to put up with."
"Look, it's not a coincidence of what sets him off," said Khanna. "What set him off is the heckler saying you're a protector. I was just on a podcast with Shawn Ryan. Shawn Ryan is the number two podcaster in the country. He was all in on Trump, and he said, what lost [him] is Trump is protecting — that's what this Epstein issue is about. It has gotten under his skin because he knows he's losing the MAGA base on this. He was elected to expose the corruption, to hold these people accountable. Instead, every move they made is to protect people who raped underage girls."
"And now you have, today, a federal judge who responded to Marcy and my motion, quite a breakthrough, where he's now ordered the Department of Justice to brief him on whether he should appoint a special master to actually get these documents released," said Khanna.
Gavin Newsom's Press Office blasts Trump for 'attacking fellow American' at Ford factory
U.S. President Donald Trump visits a Ford production center in Dearborn, Michigan, U.S., January 13, 2026. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstei
Donald Trump has come under fire from Gavin Newsom's Press Office after the president was seen flipping off a factory worker.
Footage of Trump's trip to a Ford factory in Michigan went viral yesterday and was denounced by politicians and political analysts. Gavin Newsom's Press Office, in a now viral post to X, blasted the president for rising to the crowd's heckles. A factory worker appeared to yell "pedophile president" as Trump walked by on a walkway above.
The president reacted by giving the middle finger to the factory worker, while also reportedly shouting "f**k you". Footage of the incident has since gone viral, with Gavin Newsom's Press Office sharing the clip. They added, "Why is the President attacking a fellow American?"
Trump was touring a Ford F-150 plant in the Motor City just before his speech on the United States economy at the Detroit Economic Club when a worker started shouting at him as the president walked above the workers.
White House spokesperson Steven Cheung said of the incident, "A lunatic was wildly screaming expletives in a complete fit of rage, and the president gave an appropriate and unambiguous response."
A statement from a Ford spokesperson added that they do not condone "anyone saying anything inappropriate". They added, "When that happens, we have a process to deal with it but we don’t get into specific personnel matters."
The worker was calling Trump out for his association with Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier and convicted child sex offender — a former friend — who he said he cut ties and threw Epstein out of his Mar-a-Lago club when he had a falling out about poaching and recruiting his staff.
Trump has not been charged with any crime or involvement with Epstein's sex trafficking ring. He has denied any wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.
ICE protester permanently blinded after feds shoot him point blank with 'nonlethal weapon'
A protester claims immigration agents taunted and laughed at him after blinding him by firing a non-lethal weapon directly at his face at close range during a confrontation in southern California.
Video shows a Homeland Security agent grab a protester and drag them away, and then another federal officer fires a non-lethal weapon point blank at 21-year-old Kaden Rummler as he steps forward from the group holding a megaphone, reported the Los Angeles Times.
The demonstrators had gathered Friday outside a federal building in Santa Ana to protest the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good two days before in Minneapolis by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer.
Rummler was permanently blinded in his left eye, he told the newspaper, and he said his tear duct was destroyed and the “flaps of my eye are barely holding on."
“[Doctors] pulled a piece of plastic the size of a nickel from my eye,” Rummler said, and he said they also found pieces of plastic and glass in his skull, metal in his stomach lining and metal lodged millimeters way from his carotid artery. "[I'll have to live with metal pieces there for the rest of my life."
“I focused on the voices of the people, the voices of my friends and comrades,” Rummler added. “I believe that’s what kept me alive, hearing them continue the fight despite how aggressive our oppressors were.”
Rummler said he begged federal agents to call an ambulance, but he said said they instead taunted him, “laughing at the fact that I would never get to see out of my left eye again,” he said.
The first protester, Skye Jones, was taken into custody during the incident and held for nearly three days until his release Monday.
“When confronting those who enforce ICE terror, they will snatch us out of a crowd, they will shoot us point blank with pepper-ball bullets, and they will throw us to the ground,” Jones said. “Repression is inevitable when demanding justice, so we must not cower at it.”
Santa Ana police said demonstrators tossed orange cones at federal agents, but said they were unaware of any other violence at the event, and Homeland Security assistant secretary Tricia McLaughlin disputed accounts by Rummler and Jones.
“This is absurd. DHS law enforcement took this rioter to the hospital for a cut and he was released that nigh," McLaughlin said. "Make no mistake: Rioting and assaulting law enforcement is not only dangerous but a crime.”
Pentagon accused of 'participating in a strategic suicide pact' with Trump as war looms
General Dan Caine, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth attend a press conference following a U.S. strike on Venezuela where President Nicolas Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, were captured, from Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., January 3, 2026.
REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst
While the focus of most Americans in on the invasion of Minnesota by lawless masked agents of the Department of Homeland Security who are grabbing U.S. citizens off the streets, former conservative campaign advisor Rick Wilson raised the alarm that the Pentagon appears to be going full steam ahead with plans for a Greenland invasion.
Wilson warned on his Substack platform that the Joint Chiefs of Staff appear supportive of military action, at the expense of the NATO alliance.
Wilson wrote that the Joint Chiefs, tasked with preventing military adventurism and unnecessary conflicts, are instead "trying to figure out how to drape a flag over an impending crime of such sweeping malice, stupidity, and toxicity that it will shame this nation for generations."
He criticized military participation in what he characterized as a "colonial land-grab" demanded by Trump. "Here is the terrifying part: the Joint Chiefs of Staff, men who have spent four decades wearing the uniform, men who talk endlessly about 'honor,' 'integrity,' and the 'rules-based international order,' are currently sharpening the knives."
Wilson dismissed assessments that Greenland poses any strategic threat, noting that neither China nor Russia harbors territorial ambitions there despite Trump's claims.
Rather than characterizing the proposal as merely "controversial," Wilson warned of catastrophic consequences. "They are participating in a strategic suicide pact that will dismantle seventy-five years of American alliances in a single afternoon," enabling China to invade Taiwan and Russia to seize Baltic states while continuing its war against Ukraine, the ex-strategist added.
Wilson argued that a U.S. military presence in Greenland without invitation would effectively end NATO. "The moment an American boot hits Greenlandic soil without an invitation, NATO, the most successful military alliance in the history of the world, is dead. Article 5 becomes a cruel joke, a relic of a time when America's word actually meant something."
He concluded with stark warnings about geopolitical consequences: "In Moscow, Vladimir Putin is salivating. He has worked for a quarter-century to fracture the West, and Trump is handing him the pieces on a silver platter. A U.S. invasion of a NATO ally is the ultimate 'Go' signal for Russian tanks to roll into Tallinn, Riga, and Vilnius. If America won't respect the borders of its friends, why should Russia respect the borders of its 'near abroad'?"
