These secretive decisions show a citizens' revolt against Trump is gathering serious pace

Robert Reich
February 12, 2026 
RAW STORY

Donald Trump gestures during remarks in Washington, D.C. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque


I wanted to highlight and give you context for some important news that broke on Wednesday.

The news is that Donald Trump’s federal prosecutors have failed to secure an indictment against six Democratic lawmakers — all veterans of the military or the intelligence community — who posted a video in November reminding active-duty members of the military and intelligence community that they were obligated to refuse illegal orders.

The video enraged Trump.

“SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH!” he wrote on his social media site.

He shared another post saying, “HANG THEM GEORGE WASHINGTON WOULD !!”

Days later, the six lawmakers disclosed that the FBI had contacted the House and Senate, requesting interviews with them, indicating that a criminal investigation was under way.

Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney for Washington, D.C. and a longtime Trump ally, promptly asked a grand jury to indict them.

But the grand jury refused.

I can’t emphasize enough how rare it is for a grand jury to refuse to issue an indictment that’s requested by a federal prosecutor, because prosecutors exert so much control over them.

Grand juries aren’t like juries in regular trials. They meet in secret — 16 to 23 citizens summoned from the community.

No judge is present. No lawyers who represent defendants are present. No witnesses appear. Prosecutors are in total command — presenting evidence of a crime and asking grand juries to indict.

And the evidentiary standard is not whether a crime occurred “beyond a reasonable doubt,” but merely whether there is “probable cause” of a federal crime.

It’s not surprising, then, that federal grand juries have issued indictments in more than 99 percent of cases prosecutors bring to them. (For example, in 2010, of 162,000 federal cases federal prosecutors presented to grand juries seeking an indictment, only 11 resulted in grand juries deciding not to indict.)

As Judge Sol Wachtler, the former New York jurist, famously said, prosecutors are in such complete control of grand juries that they could get them to indict a ham sandwich.

But in 2025, something odd began happening. Federal grand juries in Los Angeles, Washington, D.C., and Virginia refused to indict. At least seven of these cases involved clashes between protesters and federal officers. A grand jury in Virginia twice refused to indict New York Attorney General Letitia James.

Then came yesterday’s grand jury’s rejection of Trump’s demand that the six lawmakers he targeted be criminally prosecuted.

It’s an amazing spectacle. Ordinary people serving on grand juries are refusing to indict people who have become entangled in Trump’s viciousness. A citizen’s revolt.

Because of the secretive nature of grand juries, it’s impossible to know for sure why this has been happening. But the rejections suggest that grand jurors may have had enough of prosecutors seeking harsh charges in a highly politicized environment.

After the grand jury refused to indict him and five others, Sen. Mark Kelly (D-AZ) called out “an outrageous abuse of power by Donald Trump and his lackeys. Donald Trump wants every American to be too scared to speak out against him. The most patriotic thing any of us can do is not back down.”

He’s exactly right. The Justice Department and its federal prosecutors have abandoned any pretense at neutral justice. They’re now flagrant flaks for Trump.

On Wednesday, Republican senators weighed in against the regime.

Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) accused the regime of using “political lawfare” to try to lock up its perceived enemies: “Thankfully in this instance, a jury saw the attempted indictments for what they really were.”

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the Judiciary Committee Chair, said: “I think our law enforcement people ought to be spending their time on making our community safe and going after real law breakers.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) offered: “That’s the judicial system at work.”

At Trump’s insistence, Pirro has opened a criminal investigation of Jerome Powell, chair of the Federal Reserve. The DOJ is also pursuing a criminal investigations of Democratic officials in Minnesota who opposed Trump’s immigration crackdown. It arrested the journalist Don Lemon over his presence at a church protest in Minneapolis. Last week the FBI searched an elections office in the Atlanta area, based on debunked claims that the 2020 presidential election was stolen.

Not only are Senate Republicans rising up against this but so are ordinary Americans. They’re — we’re — saying no to Trump’s vicious prosecutions, and no to the federal prosecutors pursing them. We’re saying no to Republican candidates in special elections. We’re saying no to ICE and Border Patrol troops in our cities. We’re shouting “ICE OUT” and “F--- ICE” at sporting events. We’re saying no at marches and demonstrations.

A citizen’s revolt is occurring across America against the mad king, including places — such as grand juries — where revolts almost never occurred before.

Mark my words, friends: We will be stronger for having gone through this.

Robert Reich is an emeritus professor of public policy at Berkeley and former secretary of labor. His writings can be found at https://robertreich.substack.com/. His new memoir, Coming Up Short, can be found wherever you buy books. You can also support local bookstores nationally by ordering the book at bookshop.org

UBS grilled on Capitol Hill over Nazi-era probe

ByAFP
February 3, 2026


An ombudsman tasked with investigating funds stolen from Holocaust victims says Swiss banking giant UBS is withholding key documents - Copyright AFP/File Fabrice COFFRINI

A Senate panel grilled UBS officials Tuesday over withholding documents sought in a probe of Holocaust-era assets stolen by Nazis and held at Credit Suisse.

Neil Barofsky, an ombudsman tasked with investigating funds stolen from Holocaust victims, told the panel that 150 or more key documents are being withheld by the Swiss banking giant, which acquired Credit Suisse in 2023.

“What we’re talking about are documents that are relevant to the question of whether a Nazi had an account or didn’t have an account at Credit Suisse,” said Barofsky.

The former prosecutor has documented numerous previously unknown Credit Suisse accounts linked to Nazi officials and unearthed the financial trajectory of many Nazis who fled to Argentina.

The clash over documents represents the latest hurdle in the probe after Barofsky was ousted by Credit Suisse in 2022, before being reinstated by UBS in 2023.

Barofsky said the dispute began in November. “Up until that point UBS cooperation has been picture perfect,” he said.

He suspects the contested papers include information listing German clients, info on looted art and valuables, and other matters that are “very very core to the heart of our investigation.”

UBS General Counsel Barbara Levi told the Senate Judiciary Committee the bank was committed to openness over past actions, but said it faced an “active threat” of litigation from the Simon Wiesenthal Center and other NGOs.

“We believe that bringing to light this information is extremely important,” Levi said. “But at the same time, if the same organization threatens us of litigation, we are put in a very difficult situation.”

Both UBS and Credit Suisse were part of a longstanding $1.25 billion settlement between Swiss banks and more than a half-million plaintiffs over looted assets from the Holocaust.

Levi described the accord as providing “final closure to the parties,” covering both known and future claims.

“It cannot be that for every piece of information that comes to light, we get under the threat of litigation,” Levi said.

“Where is the incentive then for any financial institution or any other institution to look into the past and bring this information to light?”

UBS on January 28 asked US District Judge Edward Korman for an order “clarifying the scope of the settlement.”

Korman — who approved the $1.25 billion Swiss bank settlement in 2000 — set a hearing for March 12.

Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, a Rhode Island Democrat, said the dispute “seems like an unnecessary quarrel that is tainting both Mr. Barofsky’s ability to proceed and the reputation of the bank, which I think wants to be seen as cooperative and in good faith.”

Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who chaired the hearing, called UBS’s conduct an “historic shame that’ll outlive today’s hearing.”

GOP Senate Judiciary chair plays dumb on legality of no-warrant ICE raids: 'I'm a farmer!'

Matthew Chapman
January 27, 2026 
RAW STORY

U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) speaks as Kash Patel, U.S. President Donald Trump's nominee to be director of the FBI, testifies before a Senate Judiciary Committee confirmation hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., January 30, 2025. REUTERS/Evelyn Hockstein


Senate Judiciary Committee chair Chuck Grassley (R-IA) pleaded ignorance when questioned by reporters on Tuesday about whether Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents had legal authority to break into people's homes without a warrant from a judge.

According to Igor Bobic of HuffPost, when Grassley was posed the question, the answer he gave was, “Ask a constitutional lawyer. I'm a farmer.”

Grassley, age 92, has served multiple terms heading up the Judiciary Committee, where he has been responsible for, among other things, vetting and shepherding through the confirmation of President Donald Trump's judicial nominees.

Ironically, in 2014, the Iowa Senate race that went on to elect Grassley's junior colleague Joni Ernst was shaken up when her Democratic opponent, then-Rep. Bruce Braley, was raked over the coals by Republicans and the Iowa press for telling a room full of attorneys in Texas that Grassley's background as a farmer made him unqualified to chair the Judiciary Committee.

"If you help me win this race you may have someone with your background, your experience, your voice, someone who’s been literally fighting tort reform for 30 years, in a visible or public way, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. Or, you might have a farmer from Iowa who never went to law school, never practiced law, serving as the next chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee," said Braley at the time. He gave a lengthy apology when the remarks were leaked.

While Grassley deflected the question, other GOP senators are increasingly raising alarms about ICE tactics and Homeland Security leadership in general. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) told Bobic he objects to “the idea that you can write your own warrant,” while Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) have outright called for DHS Secretary Kristi Noem's resignation.

Top Republican sparks outrage after playing dumb about Trump's ICE: 'Coward'

Robert Davis
January 27, 2026 
RAW STORY


U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) speaks during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., U.S., September 16, 2025. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst


Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), sparked outrage on Tuesday after he seemed to play dumb about whether some of the actions of President Donald Trump's immigration forces are legal.

Igor Bobíc, senior politics reporter at HuffPost, posted on X that he tried asking Grassley whether it is appropriate for Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers to enter an American citizen's home without a judicial warrant. Last week, the Associated Press reported that ICE officers have been told they have the legal authority to enter people's homes without a warrant, sparking outrage from legal experts.

“Ask a constitutional lawyer,” said Grassley, who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee. “I'm a farmer.”

Grassley's comments happened at a time when Trump's immigration forces are facing increased scrutiny over their actions in Minneapolis. Over the last several weeks, immigration agents have shot multiple people while conducting immigration raids. Two shootings have led to high-profile deaths that caused calls for the Trump administration to reform its operations.

Political analysts shared their reactions on social media.


"This f------ chickens--- coward," writer Charlotte Clymer posted on X.


"Disgraceful," The Tennessee Holler posted on X.

"I see Chuck Grassley’s going with the 'I'm just a smol bean' defense here," progressive YouTuber Brian Tyler Cohen posted on X.

"To be fair, Chuck's 92, he started bending the knee to Trump back 10 years ago and just couldn't get back up," the anti-Trump group The Lincoln Project posted on X.

INSURRECTION ACT

'It's terror at this point': Explosive warning as Trump weighs nuclear option in Minnesota

Matt Laslo  Martin Pengelly
January 22, 2026

RAW STORY

Federal agents detain locals in Minneapolis, Minnesota. REUTERS/Leah Millis


WASHINGTON – As Vice President JD Vance prepared to visit Minneapolis on Thursday, a prominent Democratic congresswoman, herself a top target of Donald Trump’s racially tinged attacks, railed against federal immigration agents deploying “horrifying” and “terrifying” tactics in her home city.

“It’s occupation … it’s terror at this point,” Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) told Raw Story.

Omar was speaking at the Capitol on a day of drama around the passage of new funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which houses agencies including Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE.

Agents of ICE and other DHS bodies have been running amok in Minneapolis and other parts of Minnesota as the Trump administration implements its brutal immigration agenda.

On Jan. 7, in Minneapolis, an ICE agent shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three who was observing federal operations.

Trump, Vance, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, and other senior officials immediately attacked Good and praised the agent who killed her, Jonathan Ross.

Federal agencies refused co-operation with state and local investigators as fears spread that Good’s killing would be covered up, her killer not brought to justice.

Amid rising protests in Minneapolis, there has been another shooting, wounding a man in the leg, and multiple instances of protesters met with violence by federal agents.

The Trump administration has launched investigations into local Democratic leaders, including Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.


Trump has also floated invoking the Insurrection Act, a rarely used measure that allows the president to deploy regular army troops to deal with civil unrest.

Vance was due to speak in Minnesota on Thursday evening. The administration said he would “reinforce the White House’s unwavering support for federal immigration officials,” hold a roundtable discussion with community leaders, and stage a news conference.

Raw Story asked Omar if she was worried that Vance’s visit risked “tossing gasoline on an already burning fire?”

“Minnesotans have been very level-headed in their approach,” Omar said. “They understand the stakes, and they are not taking the bait in escalating this in any kind of way that would jeopardize the safety of their neighbors.”

In another high-profile incident in Minneapolis, federal agents recently took into custody a 5-year-old boy, seeking to gain access to family members.

“It's one of the most horrifying stories to come out of Minnesota,” Omar told Raw Story. “I mean, to have this child be used in a way to coerce others to come out is really terrifying. And you know, we've heard that they took him and his father to San Antonio [in Texas] before they took them to a more permanent place.”

“Does that show that they are escalating tactics?” Raw Story asked.

“They are,” Omar said. "It's an occupation, I think is a light word to use. It's terror at this point. I think they have a desperate need to show that they are able to do something there.”

Omar was born in Somalia and emigrated to the U.S. — making her a prime target for frequent racist attacks from the right, including from Vance and Trump.

Trump has said Omar should be jailed or deported.

Right-wing invective about Somali Americans and cases of childcare benefit fraud in Minnesota have added fuel to Trump’s attacks.

Omar said: “Obviously, the Somalis are not in the crossfire of [the ICE raids] because, you know, nearly 60 percent of Somalis in Minnesota are US-born. Almost 99 percent of us are citizens. So when they couldn't find Somalis, I think they're taking their anger out on the Latino and Asian community, and it is, like I said, pure terror.”

On Thursday, the House was considering a new funding measure for the Department of Homeland Security. If it does not pass, the House will risk another government shutdown, just two months after the end of the longest such funding pause in history.

Omar said: “The alternative is finding a way to pass legislation that reins in the terror that ICE and Border Patrol is causing in our communities. They have no business being in American cities. Their mission has been to occupy, to terrorize and to intimidate communities.”

Speaking of her Minneapolis constituency, she said, “I have businesses that are reporting severe losses. It is unjustifiable to shoot an American citizen in the face, to have masked men jumping out of unmarked cars, asking American citizens for their papers.

“And this is not just happening in Minneapolis, it's happening across Minnesota, and we cannot normalize this terror that our communities are feeling, and we have to take a stand.”

Omar called the DHS funding bill “a joke” and said, “Real accountability means that they follow what the laws of this country are, and they are moving the goal post every single minute.

“They have authorized for ICE agents to go into people's homes, violating the Fourth Amendment without a judicial warrant. You can now live with federal agents that are deputized by our government constantly violating the Constitution.”

Nonetheless, most observers said the DHS funding measure would pass, with swing-state Democrats likely to support Republicans in voting for the bill.

 
‘The Fourth Amendment Literally Exists to Prevent This’: Memo Claims ICE Can Forcibly Enter Homes Without Judicial Warrants

“Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, demanding congressional hearings.

US Immigration and Customs Enforcement and other federal officers approach a residential building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 13, 2026.
(Photo by Octavio Jones/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett
Jan 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS


“The United States government is looking for ways around that pesky Fourth Amendment,” an investigative journalist said of Wednesday reporting by the Associated Press on an internal US Immigration and Customs Enforcement memo claiming that ICE agents can forcibly enter a private residence without a judicial warrant, consent, or an emergency.

The Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution states, “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”




Hours After US Citizen Shot Dead by ICE, JD Vance Says ‘Door-to-Door’ Operations Are Coming



No, Says Rights Coalition, Recording ICE Agents Is Not Illegal

ICE’s May 12 memo, part of a whistleblower disclosure obtained by the AP, says that “although the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has not historically relied on administrative warrants alone to arrest aliens subject to final orders of removal in their place of residence, the DHS Office of the General Counsel has recently determined that the US Constitution, the Immigration and Nationality Act, and the immigration regulations do not prohibit relying on administrative warrants for this purpose.”

The January 7 disclosure was sent to the US Senate by the group Whistleblower Aid, which is “keeping the whistleblowers’ identities anonymous even from oversight investigators,” according to the document. It notes that despite being addressed to “All ICE Personnel,” the seemingly unconstitutional memo “has not been formally distributed to all personnel.”

Instead, it “has been provided to select DHS officials who are then directed to verbally brief the new policy for action. Those supervisors then show the memo to some employees, like our clients, and direct them to read the memo and return it to the supervisor,” the disclosure details. “Newly hired ICE agents—many of whom do not have a law enforcement background—are now being directed to rely solely on” an administrative warrant drafted and signed by an ICE official to enter homes and make arrests.

Asked about the May 12 memo, signed by acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin told the AP that everyone DHS serves with an administrative warrant has already had “full due process and a final order of removal,” and the US Supreme Court and Congress have “recognized the propriety of administrative warrants in cases of immigration enforcement.”

However, as Whistleblower Aid senior vice president and special counsel David Kligerman stressed in a Wednesday statement, “no court has ever found that ICE agents have such legal authority to enter homes without a judicial warrant.”

“This administration’s secretive policy advocates conduct that the Supreme Court has described as ‘the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed’—that is the warrantless physical entry of a home,” he noted. “This is precisely what the Fourth Amendment was created to prevent.”

“If ICE believes that this policy is consistent with the law, why not publicize it?” he asked. “Perhaps they’ve hidden it precisely because it cannot withstand legal scrutiny. Policies which impact fundamental constitutional rights, particularly one which the Supreme Court has called the greatest of equals among the Bill of Rights, should be discussed openly with the American people. It cannot be undone by hidden policy memos.”

Other lawyers, journalists, and critics responded similarly to the AP‘s reporting on social media. Alejandra Caraballo of the Harvard Law Cyberlaw Clinic declared that “the Fourth Amendment literally exists to prevent this.”

Bradley P. Moss, an attorney specializing in litigation related to national security, federal employment, and security clearance law, said, “Remember when the Fourth Amendment was still a thing?”

American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick wrote: “It has been accepted for generations that the only thing which can authorize agents to break into your home is a warrant signed by a judge. No wonder ICE hid this memo!”

“This is the Trump administration trashing the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution in pursuit of its mass deportation agenda,” he continued, highlighting a footnote that suggests “they won’t even rule out authorizing home invasions with no judicial warrant for people not even ordered removed!”

“In short, this secret memo explains SO MUCH of what we’ve been seeing over the last months, including this raid of a home in Minneapolis where ICE officers presented no judicial warrant before breaking in the door,” he said. “Turns out they were secretly told they don’t need one!”

While Reichlin-Melnick shared photos of a scene in which armed immigration agents used a battering ram to enter a Minneapolis home and arrest a Liberian man, federal agents also recently broke down the door of a residence in neighboring Saint Paul, Minnesota, and arrested ChongLy “Scott” Thao, a US citizen who was later freed.



The AP reporting and responses to the leaked memo came as the Trump administration on Wednesday surged immigration agents to Maine for what it dubbed “Operation Catch of the Day,” mirroring the federal deployment to not only Minnesota—where ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good, a US citizen, in her vehicle earlier this month—but also Illinois and California.

US Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), ranking member of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, opened an inquiry into reports of unconstitutional detentions of US citizens by immigration agents in October and on Wednesday demanded answers about the new whistleblower disclosure.

Blumenthal sent lists of questions and requests for records to Lyons and US Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem as well as Benjamin C. Huffman, director of the Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers. The senator also wrote to Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Judiciary Committee Chair Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), urging them to call the ICE and DHS leaders to testify before their panels.

“Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door and storm into your home,” Blumenthal said in a statement. “It is a legally and morally abhorrent policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time.”

“In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without a judge giving a green light,” he continued. “Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire. I am deeply grateful to brave whistleblowers who have come forward and put the rights of their fellow Americans first.”

“My Republican colleagues who claim to value personal rights against government overreach now have an opportunity and obligation to prove that rhetoric is real,” the senator added. “They must hold hearings and join me in demanding the Trump administration answer for this lawless policy.”

Expert Who Ran Simulations on ‘How Civil Wars Start’ Warns Minnesota Is Exactly What It Looks Like

“If we keep having these crises, one of them is going to get really ugly.”


Federal immigration officers confront protesters outside Bishop Henry Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 15, 2026.
(Photo by Mostafa Bassim/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Brad Reed
Jan 21, 2026
COMMON DREAMS

Experts are warning that the Trump administration’s ongoing crackdown in Minnesota could quickly get out of hand and could even result in a second US civil war.

Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School, wrote in a Wednesday column published by the Guardian that she and her colleagues at the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law (CERL) conducted a tabletop exercise in October 2024 that simulated potential outcomes if a US president were to carry out law enforcement operations similar to the ones being conducted by the Trump administration with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers in Minnesota.



‘Minneapolis Is the Test Case’: Trump Threatens Insurrection Act to Put Down Protests


“In that exercise, a president carried out a highly unpopular law-enforcement operation in Philadelphia and attempted to federalize the Pennsylvania’s National Guard,” Finkelstein explained. “When the governor resisted and the guard remained loyal to the state, the president deployed active-duty troops, resulting in an armed conflict between state and federal forces.”

Finkelstein noted that such a scenario is alarmingly close to what’s currently going on in Minnesota, where Gov. Tim Walz has placed his state’s National Guard on standby and President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would give him broad powers to deploy the military on US soil.

The simulation also projected that the judiciary would be of little help to any state that found itself in the president’s crosshairs.

“We concluded that in a fast-moving emergency of this magnitude, courts would probably be unable or unwilling to intervene in time, leaving state officials without meaningful judicial relief,” Finkelstein explained. “State officials might file emergency motions to enjoin the use of federal troops, but judges would either fail to respond quickly enough or decline to rule on what they view as a ‘political question,’ leaving the conflict unresolved.”

Steve Saideman, a political scientist at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, argued that the situation now is even more dire than the one Finkelstein and her colleagues imagined in their simulation.

In a post on Bluesky, Saideman argued that the US is “hours or days away from civil war.”

“This might sound extreme,” he acknowledged, “but if Walz has the Minnesota National Guard blocking ICE operations, the usual response of the federal government to governors using National Guard against feds is to call out the Army... What happens if the Army confronts Minnesota National Guard? We have no idea. But one real possibility is: bam.”

Saideman added that, given the nonstop chaos of Trump’s presidency, it’s only a matter of time before it eventually boils over into real civil conflict.

“If we keep having these crises, one of them is going to get really ugly,” he said. “Crises under Trump are street cars—there is always another one coming along. We have gotten lucky thus far, but if a citizen shoots at ICE or if the Minnesota National Guard tussles with ICE, things may escalate very quickly.”

In a New York Times column published on Monday, Lydia Polgreen argued it was no longer a stretch to equate what is going on in Minnesota with a war being waged by the federal government against one of its own states.

“It might not yet be a civil war, but what the White House has called Operation Metro Surge is definitely not just—or even primarily—an immigration enforcement operation,” wrote Polgreen. “It is an occupation designed to punish and terrorize anyone who dares defy this incursion and, by extension, Trump’s power to wield limitless force against any enemy he wishes.”

 

'It's a talent tax': AI CEOs fear demise as they accuse Trump of launching 'labor war'

Alexandria Jacobson,

 Investigative Reporter
October 6, 2025 7:02AM ET





Donald Trump and Melania Trump host tech leaders at the White House.

 REUTERS/Brian Snyder

Flanked by Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg and Microsoft co-founder Bill Gates, President Donald Trump and First Lady Melania Trump hosted a White House dinner with some of the richest and most powerful leaders of the world’s tech giants.

To Fraser Patterson, CEO and founder of Skillit, an AI-powered construction hiring platform, it was no coincidence that after the meeting last month of more than 30 Silicon Valley power players and Trump advisers, the administration unveiled a plan to charge $100,000 one-time application fees for H-1B visas, which tech companies typically use to employ highly skilled foreign workers.

“It can appear as though, rather than it being an improvement to immigration policy, it feels a little more like a labor war strategy,” Patterson said.

“Isn't one of the great tenets of the American way of life and Constitution the separation of church and state? Wouldn't that extend to business, too, between business and state?”

Patterson’s New York-based company employs eight — an infinitesimal fraction of the workforce at giants like Amazon, with more than a million employees and nearly 15,000 H-1B visa holders.

“The largest technology companies are going to be able to hoard the best global talent, and I think it's easy to be able to draw a straight line between that and shutting out the smaller startups and the smaller firms that can’t enforce that price tag,” Patterson said.


“I think it scales back the competitiveness of the technology industry, broadly speaking.”
‘Global war on talent’

The Trump administration says the current H-1B visa program allows employers “to hire foreign workers at a significant discount to American workers,” and the program has been “abused.”

Last week Sens. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and Dick Durbin (D-IL) reintroduced bipartisan legislation, The H-1B and L-1 Visa Reform Act, to close loopholes in programs they say tech giants have used while laying off Americans.

But, Patterson said, limiting H-1B visas will effectively end up “closing the door on skilled workers” and “gift Europe the best possible opportunity to label itself as the tech talent hub.

“The general consensus is this is going to narrow the pool,” Patterson said.

“There's going to be just fewer nationalities represented, fewer ideas. The U.S. becomes less of a magnet.”

Rich Pleeth, CEO and founder of Finmile, an AI-powered logistics and delivery software, agreed that the fee might tilt the scales of tech dominance away from the U.S., where places like San Francisco and New York have long been considered global hubs for innovation.

“The global war on talent is real,” Pleeth said. “Europe has a golden opportunity … Canada, Singapore, Berlin, they're all going to benefit.”


Rich Pleeth (provided photo)

Finmile employs 15 people in the U.K., seven in Romania and two in the U.S.

“It's very challenging for smaller companies like us,” Pleeth said.

“Talent is everything, and if the U.S. makes it harder to bring in the world's best talent, where do you set up headquarters?”

While the Trump administration says the new H1-B fee will help American workers, particularly recent college graduates seeking IT jobs, Patterson said it would have the opposite effect, likely leading to “greater offshoring.”

Thanks to Trump’s array of trade tariffs, which he says will bring jobs back to the U.S., many American small businesses are already struggling to survive as they face increased costs.

“In reality, it's probably going to lead to labor shortages,” Patterson said. “You can't just turn on a faucet overnight to really highly skilled local workers.”

Nicole Whitaker, an immigration attorney in Towson, Md., said the proposed $100,000 fee sends the message to foreign workers seeking job opportunities in the U.S. that "our doors are closed ... find another country."

"This is a part of a bigger and broader push by this administration — even if things don't go into effect— to make it look like we are shutting down our borders. We are not open, and we're not welcoming toward immigrants," Whitaker said.

‘The next Googles’

Pleeth, a former marketing manager at Google, pointed to tech leaders including Microsoft CEO Satya Nadella and Google CEO Sundar Pichai, who were born in India but came to the U.S. for college and to work.

“If you suddenly make it hard for talented people to come in, the next Googles are not going to be built in the U.S.,” Pleeth said.

“Talent is the oxygen for the tech industry. For decades the U.S. had an open pipeline … we don't expect the $100K toll to hit the tech companies who are the ones who can afford it the most.”

Skillit currently does not have any employees sponsored through the H-1B visa program but Patterson said he had used it when the fees were more reasonable, around $2,500.

Patterson, who was born in Scotland, came to the U.S. on an O-1 visa for foreign workers of “extraordinary talent.” He is now close to becoming a U.S. citizen.


Fraser Patterson (provided photo)

“Very onerous, nerve-racking, even to get here … but I would say it wasn't disproportional to the value of coming here,” he said.

Pleeth wants to move from the U.K. to the U.S. with his wife, two daughters and dog, a process he expects some challenges with but is hopeful will “eventually move forward.”

“It's just going to become a lot harder for junior people who can share cultures, can come in with new ideas,” Pleeth said.

“It's a talent tax.”

Alexandria Jacobson is a Chicago-based investigative reporter at Raw Story, focusing on money in politics, government accountability and electoral politics. Prior to joining Raw Story in 2023, Alex reported extensively on social justice, business and tech issues for several news outlets, including ABC News, the Chicago Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune. She can be reached at alexandria@rawstory.com. More about Alexandria Jacobson.

'Anxiousness and frustration' hits red state as Trump serves 'bitter pill': rural leader

Cami Koons,

 Iowa Capital Dispatch
October 4, 2025 



Tom Adam, Iowa Soybean Association president, farms near Harper, Iowa, in Keokuk County.

 (Photo by Joclyn Kuboushek/Iowa Soybean Association)

Iowa Soybean Association President Tom Adam urged the Trump administration, in a statement Thursday, to prioritize a trade deal with China and to support soybean farmers who are without their biggest market.

China typically buys 60% of global soybean exports, and the U.S. used to be China’s preferred supplier until it turned to Brazil during the trade wars of the first Trump administration.

Now, China appears to have turned to Argentina for its soybeans, and U.S. farmers worry they’ll be stuck with a bountiful harvest and nowhere to sell it.

China placed an order with Argentina shortly after the U.S. agreed to a $20 billion bailout deal with the South American country. According to the American Soybean Association, China typically purchases soybeans from the U.S. before harvest begins. A couple weeks into the harvest season in Iowa, and China has not placed an order, presumably in protest of U.S. tariffs on Chinese goods.

“Agriculture thrives when America leads on trade,” Adam said in the statement. “We can’t afford to let uncertainty and political maneuvering erode the markets farmers have spent decades cultivating.”

Adam said the mood in rural Iowa is one of “anxiousness and frustration” because of “trade policy that’s severely straining relationships” with key trade partners.

Adam, who also farms near Harper, said President Donald Trump’s current trade policies are a “bitter pill” for farmers, despite the fact that many farmers voted to elect Trump.

“With strong yields and a nearly ideal harvest season underway across Iowa and large sections of rural America, grain bins will soon be filled with quality U.S. soy that needs to find a home,” Adam wrote.

An Iowa State University report from July estimated that reciprocal tariffs – where the country places the same tariff amount on U.S. goods as the U.S. has placed on their goods — could cause losses between $191 million and $1.49 billion to the Iowa soybean industry.

While soybeans stand to lose the most, according to the report, the corn, ethanol and hog industries in Iowa were also projected to lose hundreds of millions because of the reciprocal tariffs.

ISA urged the administration to broker a trade agreement with China that “immediately expedites soybean purchases.”

President Trump has expressed plans to meet with Chinese President Xi Jinping at a trade summit at the end of October, but Adam said every day without a Chinese trade deal “closes the window tighter” on the “critical” sales period for soybeans between October through February.

The release from Iowa Soybean Association said this year, Iowa farmers are set to harvest about 550 million bushels of soybeans across 9.3 million acres.

With no soybean sales to China currently on the books, farmers are worried they’ll have to find a place to store their crops, or find a different market.

Adam also urged Congress to “provide immediate trade mitigation funding” to farmers to tide them over until a deal can be reached.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley said Tuesday that farmers would rather have a market to sell into than rely on a government payout. He also said the administration might find a solution using tariff money instead of congressionally allocated funds.

Adam said a federal farm payment was “not ideal” but that it would “enable many farmers to survive another year.”

Finally, the Iowa Soybean Association president asked the administration to finalize Renewable Volume Obligations – something EPA proposed earlier this year – to boost the biofuels industry. A boost in this industry would give farmers another soybean market to sell into.


“The crop is here,” Adam said. “The quality is proven. The demand exists. What’s missing is the resolve to reconnect America’s farmers with a world of buyers who want to purchase our soybeans.”

This story was originally produced by Iowa Capital Dispatch, which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network that includes Missouri Independent, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

'We've lost a lot of contracts': GOP senator admits Trump trade policy now hurting farmers

Alexander Willis
October 3, 2025 

Screengrab / Newsmax

China’s recent boycott of American soybeans may end up costing American farmers billions of dollars, and, according to one Republican senator, blame should be placed directly on President Donald Trump’s trade policy.

“China is just not budging on this, and unfortunately, we've lost a lot of soybean contracts due to these... elongated negotiations,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-IA) admitted Friday while appearing on Newsmax.

China announced the boycott following Trump’s on-and-off again tariffs on the Asian nation, which in April were raised to as high as 125% before being brought back down as a temporary tariff truce. Given China is, by far, the largest importer of American-grown soybeans, the boycott has left farmers enraged, with Trump, reportedly in panic, considering providing farmers with a $10 billion bailout.

Asked about the potential bailout for farmers, Ernst said farmers were not happy with the offer, and stressed the need to find a way to end China’s boycott, rather than subsidize American crop growers.

“Unfortunately, our farmers do need that assistance,” Ernst said. “They don't like it, they do consider it welfare, they want trade not aid, and so we really need to see some of these new markets opening up around the globe. We need to see additional domestic consumption of our commodities like soybeans and corn.”

Ernst has had a tumultuous relationship with the MAGA movement, with critics accusing the Iowa Republicans of “trying on a MAGA suit” to mixed results. She’s demonstrated a strong allegiance to Trump and frequently votes in accordance with his agenda, though has faced scrutiny from MAGA figures for being insufficiently loyal to the president, particularly after reports that she was skeptical of Trump’s pick for Defense secretary, Pete Hegseth.

Perhaps in an effort to signal her continued loyalty to Trump, Ernst’s parting words on the matter of the potential bailout for farmers were ones of praise for the president.

“But if there's anybody that can make a deal, it's President Trump, so we'll continue to hope for the best and we'll help our farmers where and how we can,” Ernst said.

US farmers hit by trade war to get ‘substantial’ aid: Treasury chief

TOO LITTLE, TOO LATE, IF AT ALL

By AFP
October 2, 2025


Farmers are a key political support base for President Donald Trump, but have been caught in the crossfire as Washington and Beijing traded barbs - Copyright AFP/File JIM WATSON

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent signaled Thursday that “substantial support” for farmers would be announced next week, particularly for those growing soybeans, as they struggle with fallout from President Donald Trump’s trade conflicts.

Worries have been growing for weeks of a major hit to farmers, a key part of Trump’s political base, as exports to China dry up over tariffs instituted by Beijing in retaliation to US levies.

“You should expect some news on Tuesday on substantial support for our farmers, especially the soybean farmers,” Bessent told CNBC early Thursday.

The Wall Street Journal also reported Thursday that President Donald Trump is mulling $10 billion or more in aid to American farmers as the trade tensions take a toll.

The Trump administration is considering using revenue collected from the president’s tariffs to fund much of this support, the Journal reported, with the money potentially distributed in the upcoming months.

Asked about the matter, White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said Trump and Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins “are always in touch about the needs of our farmers, who played a crucial role in the President’s November (election) victory.”

“He has made clear his intention to use tariff revenue to help our agricultural sector, but no final decisions on the contours of this plan have been made,” she told AFP.

Bessent did not provide figures in his interview with CNBC either, but said: “They’ve had President Trump’s back, and we’ve got their back.”

Farmers have been particularly caught in the crossfire as Washington and Beijing imposed tit-for-tat tariffs on each other’s exports.

On Wednesday, Trump said that he planned to push Chinese President Xi Jinping on purchases of US soybeans when they meet in the coming weeks.

The leaders of the world’s two biggest economies are expected to speak in around four weeks, on the sidelines of an Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in South Korea.

The American Soybean Association warned in August that Beijing’s retaliatory tariffs were shutting US farmers out of their biggest export market going into the 2025 harvest — with China being a top global buyer of soybeans.

But Beijing’s counter tariffs, after Trump targeted Chinese goods with fresh duties, has stunted sales to the country. Instead, Chinese buyers have relied more on other exporters like Brazil and Argentina.

“Nobody wants to trade with us,” said Jonathan Driver, a soybean farmer in Arkansas.

While farmers can still sell their crops, he warned that many are selling them for a loss.

“It’s going to put several people out of business,” he told AFP. “And we’ve had prices of everything continue to go up.”

LATAM BLOG: Friends till the end? Trump's costly loyalty to Latin America's strongmen

Trump may genuinely believe that ideological friends will be friends "right till the end.” But in the unforgiving world of international economics, bills come due regardless of personal affection.

FacebookTwitterLinkedInTelegramFlipboardFeedly

By Marco Cacciati September 28, 2025

As the US administration shifts its focus away from Europe and Asia (though for how long remains anyone’s guess) back to its Monroe Doctrine backyard, South America's two largest economies find themselves on opposite sides of Donald Trump's ideological ledger. Argentina basks in the glow of unprecedented American financial support, whilst Brazil weathers punitive tariffs imposed purely to protest the prosecution of the president's political ally. The disparity betrays a troubling truth: Washington's Latin America policy has devolved into a personality contest, where economic logic takes a back seat to political theatre.

Just as Argentine authorities burned through $1bn in reserves within 48 hours defending the peso from politically-driven turmoil, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent last week announced America would deploy "all options on the table", including a proposed $20bn currency swap and direct purchases of sovereign bonds, to prop up what he called a "systemically important ally." Meanwhile, Brazil faces 50% tariffs on its exports to America – from beef to coffee – despite running a consistent trade deficit with the United States. The stated reason? Retaliation for Brazil's Supreme Court convicting former president Jair Bolsonaro on charges of attempting a coup d'état.

Perhaps unsurprisingly, Trump's approach echoes a certain rock-ballad romanticism: the belief that ideological friends will be friends “right till the end,” holding out hands when all hope is lost. But international relations rarely follow the script of stadium anthems. Banking on personal chemistry to override economic realities is a dangerous gambit. And while warmongering against Venezuela, an oil-rich failed state under leftist autocracy, plays well across the US political spectrum, Trump's contradictory posturing towards Brazil and Argentina presents a harder sell. How does one explain bailing out Buenos Aires and punishing Brasília, when both policies harm American wallets?

The Bolsonaro factor

Trump's intervention on behalf of his “mini-me of the Tropics”, whom he apparently believes is suffering a witch hunt at the hands of leftist judges, represents an extraordinary breach of diplomatic protocol. In fact, the Brazilian judiciary's methodical prosecution of Bolsonaro and seven co-conspirators, including generals and cabinet ministers, consecrated the nation's institutional maturity. For the first time in Brazil's history, a failed coup has been tried in civilian courts rather than swept aside. The 27-year sentence handed down in September sent an unmistakable message: democratic institutions will no longer tolerate attempts to subvert the popular will.

But far from being impressed by this textbook application of democracy, Trump has responded with economic warfare, deploying tariffs as a cudgel to interfere with Brazil's judicial process. The irony is rich: these measures harm American consumers more than Brazilian producers. From January to July, Brazil exported 199.7 thousand tons of beef to America – around 23% of the US’ total beef imports – underlining the country's crucial role in feeding American consumers whilst the domestic beef industry stumbles due to drought and cyclical herd decline. The bottom line is, Trump's tariffs threaten to inflate grocery bills for his red-meat-loving base.

Brazil, for its part, has responded with equanimity. Foreign Trade Secretary Tatiana Prazeres announced plans to accelerate diversification efforts, prioritising markets in Mexico, Canada and India whilst deepening ties with China and other BRICS partners. The episode merely reinforces a trend already well underway: the US share of Brazilian exports has steadily declined as Latin America’s biggest market pivots towards Asia and Europe.

The economic illogic becomes even more apparent when considering America's actual trade relationship with Brazil. Despite Trump's claims to the contrary, official data show America runs a consistent surplus with the world's fourth-largest democracy. The tariffs appear driven in large part by Jair Bolsonaro's son Eduardo's relentless lobbying in Washington, combined with Trump's personal sympathy for a fellow strongman who, like him, refused to accept electoral defeat and inspired a violent mob of supporters to storm government buildings.

Milei's moment

Argentina presents the inverse scenario. President Javier Milei, the self-styled anarcho-libertarian who consults his dead dogs through a medium, has become Trump's favourite Latin American leader. The mutual admiration society reached peak absurdity when Trump adopted the slogan "Make Argentina Great Again" and offered what he termed his "full endorsement" for Milei's 2027 re-election campaign.

To be fair, Milei has delivered impressive early results. Annual inflation has plummeted from over 200% when he took office in December 2023 to 39.4% by June. He achieved a fiscal turnaround of five percentage points of GDP in just two months—a feat economists describe as previously unthinkable in Argentina. Monthly inflation has remained below 2% for four consecutive periods, whilst the government has maintained primary surpluses.

Yet these achievements came through brutal recession and wage compression, with many workers and pensioners experiencing declining purchasing power compared to early 2023. Milei's party suffered a devastating defeat in Buenos Aires provincial elections in September, whilst his sister – and political mistress – Karina faces corruption allegations. Legislative rebellions have successfully overturned presidential vetoes on spending measures, sparking capital flight, investor distress and a run on the peso.

This is where American support becomes crucial – and controversial. Bessent's promise of a $20bn swap line and bond purchases amounts to a massive bet on Milei's political survival. Yet the Treasury Secretary hedged carefully, stating that "immediately after the election, we will start working with the Argentine government on its principal repayments", suggesting Washington wants to see October's midterm results before opening the cheque book.

Senator Elizabeth Warren has already fired warning shots, lambasting plans "to use significant emergency funds to inflate the value of a foreign government's currency" whilst "cutting health care for millions of Americans at home."

But opposition crosses party lines. Republican Senator Chuck Grassley complained that America would “bail out Argentina while they take American soybean producers' biggest market,” adding that “family farmers should be top of mind” in any negotiations.

The criticism resonates because it highlights an uncomfortable truth: Trump is simultaneously harming two key constituencies, using taxpayer money to bail out Argentine bondholders whilst his Brazilian tariffs drive up prices for American consumers

The China conundrum

Both relationships are complicated by Beijing's growing foothold in South America. Despite fierce campaign rhetoric about distancing from China, Milei quietly renewed a $5bn currency swap with the People's Bank of China. Trade with Beijing has actually expanded under his administration, with volumes doubling in some categories. Brazil has gone even further, accelerating its pivot towards the Asian superpower and other BRICS partners in response to American tariffs − a relationship Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi now calls “the best in history.”

The contradictions deepened last week when Argentina's emergency tax holiday for grain exports backfired spectacularly on American interests. Buenos Aires had eliminated its 26% soybean levy to encourage farmers to liquidate much-needed dollar holdings, but the move triggered such intensive Chinese buying that Argentina hit its $7bn sales threshold in just three days. The buying frenzy redirected Chinese demand away from American suppliers already struggling with retaliatory tariffs, prompting Bessent to hastily announce that Washington was “working with the Argentine government to end the tax holiday.” Having reached its revenue target whilst heeding Washington's grievances, the Milei administration promptly reinstated the levies.

Trump has thus achieved the opposite of his intentions: his ideologically rooted policies are pushing both countries closer to Beijing, undermining his administration's stated goal of reducing Chinese influence in Latin America.

Electoral arithmetic

The sustainability of both approaches faces imminent tests. Argentina's October midterms will determine whether Milei can secure the legislative majority needed for his ambitious reform agenda. Current projections suggest his La Libertad Avanza party will struggle to overcome the combined opposition of Peronists emboldened by recent provincial victories.

In Brazil, meanwhile, Trump's intervention has paradoxically boosted President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's flagging popularity ahead of next year's election. The tariffs have united even moderate conservative Brazilians against perceived American bullying. Tarcísio de Freitas, São Paulo's governor and the emerging centre-right presidential candidate, has distanced himself from both Bolsonaro and his American patron.

When hope is lost

How long can ideology trump economics? Market realities suggest not very long. Reuters reports that Trump's recent softening stance towards Lula, a prelude to a possible meeting in the coming weeks, may have been prompted by warnings from American agribusiness about the impact of Brazilian beef tariffs on domestic prices. The president who promised to protect American workers can hardly afford to be blamed for inflating their grocery bills.

Similarly, Argentina's fundamental vulnerabilities persist despite American promises. The country maintains an $18bn currency swap with China and carries a renegotiated IMF programme requiring strict conditionality, with peak exposure to the fund expected to reach some $58bn by 2026. Government bond yields remain between 16% and 26%: levels that effectively lock it out of international capital markets. Even massive American support may prove insufficient if October's elections confirm legislative gridlock.

The deeper question is whether Washington can afford to conduct Latin America policy as an ideological beauty contest. China stands ready to fill any vacuum left by American caprice, offering infrastructure investment without political strings attached. European and Asian partners offer enticing alternatives to countries tired of Washington's mood swings. Most importantly, the region's voters have repeatedly shown they prioritise economic stability over ideological purity – the very reason why Milei triumphed in 2023 over the free-spending Peronists whose interventionist policies had plunged Argentina into yet another crisis.

But that pragmatism cuts both ways. Bessent’s dollars and IMF praise may not save Milei from the harsh judgment of Argentines next month, as many face declining living standards from his sweeping austerity measures. In Brazil, voters are distancing themselves from the toxic far-right narrative embodied by Bolsonaro and amplified by Trump's intervention. The likely result? Both countries gravitating towards the centre, whether through Tarcísio de Freitas in Brazil or, ironically, a Peronist revival in Argentina led by Axel Kicillof. Despite his disastrous tenure as Kirchner's finance minister, Kicillof has successfully rebranded himself as the pragmatic governor of Buenos Aires province. Voters, it seems, have remarkably short memories when desperation sets in.

Ultimately, Trump's erratic interventionism reveals the poverty of treating complex economies as simple morality plays. Brazil's democracy deserves respect for prosecuting an attempted coup, not punishment for following the rule of law. Argentina's pro-market reforms merit conditional support based on economic fundamentals, not personal chemistry between presidents. Until the MAGA administration learns to separate personality from policy, it risks accelerating America's loss of influence in its own backyard to more pragmatic rivals.

Trump may genuinely believe that political friends will be friends "right till the end.” But in the unforgiving world of international economics, bills come due regardless of personal affection. When American consumers face higher prices and Argentine reforms falter despite American largesse, ideological bromance will provide cold comfort. Reality, as always, will have the last word.

Marco Cacciati is the regional editor for Latin America at bne Intellinews.