SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
"Between the end of their payroll taxes for the year, and [Mick] Mulvaney's...confirmation, Thursday could turn out to be an especially pleasant day for millionaires," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow wrote in an op-ed. (Image: Social Security Works)
Defenders of Social Security Mobilize Against GOP Attack on Retirees
On "Valentine's Day for millionaires," U.S. Senate confirms safety-net opponent Mick Mulvaney for head of Office of Management and Budget
Feb 15, 2017
On the same day that U.S. millionaires stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year, President Donald Trump's pick to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--who wants to slash the safety net program--was confirmed to that post by the U.S. Senate.
| #SocialSecurity Tweets |
Citing his support for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, lawmakers and advocacy groups took to social media on Thursday to denounce Rep. Mick Mulvaney's (R-S.C.) nomination to head OMB. During his confirmation hearing last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voiced concern that Mulvaney's views were "way, way out of touch with what President Trump campaigned on." (Sanders elaborated in a tweet storm highlighting several instances in which the Tea Party Republican went on the record as wanting to slash funding for the programs and raise the retirement age.)
But Democrats' opposition (plus that of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain) wasn't enough to stop Mulvaney's confirmation with a 51-49 vote on Thursday morning (roll call here).
As with other cabinet confirmations, groups warned that Thursday's vote will have electoral consequences when Trump's campaign hypocrisies are inevitably exposed.
"Voters will be looking to see if Trump breaks one of his top campaign promises by allowing Mulvaney to push his radical plan to cut Medicare and Social Security--and force millions of American seniors into poverty," said Kait Sweeney, press secretary for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Any senator--Republican or Democrat--who sides with Mulvaney and Trump's radical agenda that benefits bankers and billionaires at the expense of working families should expect fierce opposition in 2018 from Trump's own voters."
Now, its up to members of Congress and senior advocates to hold the line against potential cuts, while continuing their push to strengthen Social Security.
"Voters will be looking to see if Trump breaks one of his top campaign promises by allowing Mulvaney to push his radical plan to cut Medicare and Social Security--and force millions of American seniors into poverty."
--Kait Sweeney,Progressive Change Campaign Committee
To that end, Sanders and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) will on Thursday introduce the Social Security Expansion Act, which they say would protect and expand Social Security and pay for it by eliminating the cap for payroll income above $250,000 as well as applying a 6.2 percent Social Security tax to investment income for high-income households.
The bill's introduction was pegged to the day some described as a late Valentine to millionaires. "Between the end of their payroll taxes for the year, and Mulvaney's...confirmation, Thursday could turn out to be an especially pleasant day for millionaires," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow wrote in an op-ed.
"After today, Thursday, February 16, people with million-dollar salaries will stop paying the Social Security payroll tax for the year," he explained. "The annually adjusted payroll tax cap is $127,200 this year. No one earning more than that pay Social Security taxes for the income they take home in excess of the cap. For bigger earners, including Trump himself, the tax holiday comes much earlier." (Trump stopped contributing just 40 minutes into New Year's Day," according to the Center for American Progress.)
"If they pay in at the same rate as everyone else, we can expand benefits," Social Security Works said to promote a day of action that will culminate at 2:00pm Thursday at the Dickson Senate Office Building, when Sanders and DeFazio will be joined by colleagues and leading progressive advocacy groups for a press conference.
Indeed, a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) released Thursday found that removing or raising the cap on earnings that can be taxed for Social Security would eliminate most future shortfalls in the program's trust fund. The paper shows:
- Roughly 1 in 18 people, or 5.4 percent of workers, earn more than the current cap and would be affected if it were eliminated;
- If workers who earn over $250,000 in wages paid the tax, the top 1.6 percent of workers would be affected; and
- If the cap applied to people who earn over $400,000 in wages, only the top 0.7 percent would be affected.
What's more, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP) also published Thursday:
Over the past several decades, a precipitous rise in income inequality--due in large part to policy choices that have concentrated ever-increasing shares of the nation's income in the hands of those at the top of the income ladder--has taken a huge toll on Social Security's finances. As a result of the growing share of earnings exceeding the payroll tax cap, for instance, millionaires and billionaires pay into the system for only a few weeks, days, or even hours each year, compared with the vast majority of workers, who contribute to Social Security all year long.
"President Trump campaigned on a promise to protect and preserve Social Security," CAP's Rachel West and Rebecca Vallas wrote. "That would be an important first step, but American workers need more. If Trump is serious about his promise to shield American families from the deep, damaging cuts proposed by his fellow conservatives--including several of his own cabinet picks--he should at least act to reverse rising inequality and strengthen Social Security."
A poll released this week by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare found overwhelming support for increasing Social Security benefits--and for funding that increase by having wealthy Americans pay the same rate into Social Security as everyone else.
"These results prove that Americans want Congress to honor the commitment to all working people who paid into Social Security and Medicare, and keep their hands off these programs," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, who spoke at Thursday's press conference. "This should be a warning to members of Congress that they tamper with our cherished social insurance programs at their peril."
An Unconstitutional Rampage
Trump and Musk are on an unconstitutional rampage, aiming for virtually every corner of the federal government. These two right-wing billionaires are targeting nurses, scientists, teachers, daycare providers, judges, veterans, air traffic controllers, and nuclear safety inspectors. No one is safe. The food stamps program, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid are next. It’s an unprecedented disaster and a five-alarm fire, but there will be a reckoning. The people did not vote for this. The American people do not want this dystopian hellscape that hides behind claims of “efficiency.” Still, in reality, it is all a giveaway to corporate interests and the libertarian dreams of far-right oligarchs like Musk. Common Dreams is playing a vital role by reporting day and night on this orgy of corruption and greed, as well as what everyday people can do to organize and fight back. As a people-powered nonprofit news outlet, we cover issues the corporate media never will, but we can only continue with our readers’ support. |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
bernie sanderscenter for american progresscenter for economic and policy researchpeter defazioprogressive change campaign committeesocial securityus congressus senate
On the same day that U.S. millionaires stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year, President Donald Trump's pick to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--who wants to slash the safety net program--was confirmed to that post by the U.S. Senate.
| #SocialSecurity Tweets |
Citing his support for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, lawmakers and advocacy groups took to social media on Thursday to denounce Rep. Mick Mulvaney's (R-S.C.) nomination to head OMB. During his confirmation hearing last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voiced concern that Mulvaney's views were "way, way out of touch with what President Trump campaigned on." (Sanders elaborated in a tweet storm highlighting several instances in which the Tea Party Republican went on the record as wanting to slash funding for the programs and raise the retirement age.)
But Democrats' opposition (plus that of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain) wasn't enough to stop Mulvaney's confirmation with a 51-49 vote on Thursday morning (roll call here).
As with other cabinet confirmations, groups warned that Thursday's vote will have electoral consequences when Trump's campaign hypocrisies are inevitably exposed.
"Voters will be looking to see if Trump breaks one of his top campaign promises by allowing Mulvaney to push his radical plan to cut Medicare and Social Security--and force millions of American seniors into poverty," said Kait Sweeney, press secretary for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Any senator--Republican or Democrat--who sides with Mulvaney and Trump's radical agenda that benefits bankers and billionaires at the expense of working families should expect fierce opposition in 2018 from Trump's own voters."
Now, its up to members of Congress and senior advocates to hold the line against potential cuts, while continuing their push to strengthen Social Security.
"Voters will be looking to see if Trump breaks one of his top campaign promises by allowing Mulvaney to push his radical plan to cut Medicare and Social Security--and force millions of American seniors into poverty."
--Kait Sweeney,Progressive Change Campaign Committee
To that end, Sanders and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) will on Thursday introduce the Social Security Expansion Act, which they say would protect and expand Social Security and pay for it by eliminating the cap for payroll income above $250,000 as well as applying a 6.2 percent Social Security tax to investment income for high-income households.
The bill's introduction was pegged to the day some described as a late Valentine to millionaires. "Between the end of their payroll taxes for the year, and Mulvaney's...confirmation, Thursday could turn out to be an especially pleasant day for millionaires," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow wrote in an op-ed.
"After today, Thursday, February 16, people with million-dollar salaries will stop paying the Social Security payroll tax for the year," he explained. "The annually adjusted payroll tax cap is $127,200 this year. No one earning more than that pay Social Security taxes for the income they take home in excess of the cap. For bigger earners, including Trump himself, the tax holiday comes much earlier." (Trump stopped contributing just 40 minutes into New Year's Day," according to the Center for American Progress.)
"If they pay in at the same rate as everyone else, we can expand benefits," Social Security Works said to promote a day of action that will culminate at 2:00pm Thursday at the Dickson Senate Office Building, when Sanders and DeFazio will be joined by colleagues and leading progressive advocacy groups for a press conference.
Indeed, a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) released Thursday found that removing or raising the cap on earnings that can be taxed for Social Security would eliminate most future shortfalls in the program's trust fund. The paper shows:
- Roughly 1 in 18 people, or 5.4 percent of workers, earn more than the current cap and would be affected if it were eliminated;
- If workers who earn over $250,000 in wages paid the tax, the top 1.6 percent of workers would be affected; and
- If the cap applied to people who earn over $400,000 in wages, only the top 0.7 percent would be affected.
What's more, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP) also published Thursday:
Over the past several decades, a precipitous rise in income inequality--due in large part to policy choices that have concentrated ever-increasing shares of the nation's income in the hands of those at the top of the income ladder--has taken a huge toll on Social Security's finances. As a result of the growing share of earnings exceeding the payroll tax cap, for instance, millionaires and billionaires pay into the system for only a few weeks, days, or even hours each year, compared with the vast majority of workers, who contribute to Social Security all year long.
"President Trump campaigned on a promise to protect and preserve Social Security," CAP's Rachel West and Rebecca Vallas wrote. "That would be an important first step, but American workers need more. If Trump is serious about his promise to shield American families from the deep, damaging cuts proposed by his fellow conservatives--including several of his own cabinet picks--he should at least act to reverse rising inequality and strengthen Social Security."
A poll released this week by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare found overwhelming support for increasing Social Security benefits--and for funding that increase by having wealthy Americans pay the same rate into Social Security as everyone else.
"These results prove that Americans want Congress to honor the commitment to all working people who paid into Social Security and Medicare, and keep their hands off these programs," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, who spoke at Thursday's press conference. "This should be a warning to members of Congress that they tamper with our cherished social insurance programs at their peril."
Deirdre Fulton
Deirdre Fulton is a former Common Dreams senior editor and staff writer. Previously she worked as an editor and writer for the Portland Phoenix and the Boston Phoenix, where she was honored by the New England Press Association and the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies. A Boston University graduate, Deirdre is a co-founder of the Maine-based Lorem Ipsum Theater Collective and the PortFringe theater festival. She writes young adult fiction in her spare time.
On the same day that U.S. millionaires stop paying into Social Security for the rest of the year, President Donald Trump's pick to head the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)--who wants to slash the safety net program--was confirmed to that post by the U.S. Senate.
| #SocialSecurity Tweets |
Citing his support for cutting Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, lawmakers and advocacy groups took to social media on Thursday to denounce Rep. Mick Mulvaney's (R-S.C.) nomination to head OMB. During his confirmation hearing last month, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voiced concern that Mulvaney's views were "way, way out of touch with what President Trump campaigned on." (Sanders elaborated in a tweet storm highlighting several instances in which the Tea Party Republican went on the record as wanting to slash funding for the programs and raise the retirement age.)
But Democrats' opposition (plus that of Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain) wasn't enough to stop Mulvaney's confirmation with a 51-49 vote on Thursday morning (roll call here).
As with other cabinet confirmations, groups warned that Thursday's vote will have electoral consequences when Trump's campaign hypocrisies are inevitably exposed.
"Voters will be looking to see if Trump breaks one of his top campaign promises by allowing Mulvaney to push his radical plan to cut Medicare and Social Security--and force millions of American seniors into poverty," said Kait Sweeney, press secretary for the Progressive Change Campaign Committee. "Any senator--Republican or Democrat--who sides with Mulvaney and Trump's radical agenda that benefits bankers and billionaires at the expense of working families should expect fierce opposition in 2018 from Trump's own voters."
Now, its up to members of Congress and senior advocates to hold the line against potential cuts, while continuing their push to strengthen Social Security.
"Voters will be looking to see if Trump breaks one of his top campaign promises by allowing Mulvaney to push his radical plan to cut Medicare and Social Security--and force millions of American seniors into poverty."
--Kait Sweeney,Progressive Change Campaign Committee
To that end, Sanders and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) will on Thursday introduce the Social Security Expansion Act, which they say would protect and expand Social Security and pay for it by eliminating the cap for payroll income above $250,000 as well as applying a 6.2 percent Social Security tax to investment income for high-income households.
The bill's introduction was pegged to the day some described as a late Valentine to millionaires. "Between the end of their payroll taxes for the year, and Mulvaney's...confirmation, Thursday could turn out to be an especially pleasant day for millionaires," Campaign for America's Future senior fellow Richard Eskow wrote in an op-ed.
"After today, Thursday, February 16, people with million-dollar salaries will stop paying the Social Security payroll tax for the year," he explained. "The annually adjusted payroll tax cap is $127,200 this year. No one earning more than that pay Social Security taxes for the income they take home in excess of the cap. For bigger earners, including Trump himself, the tax holiday comes much earlier." (Trump stopped contributing just 40 minutes into New Year's Day," according to the Center for American Progress.)
"If they pay in at the same rate as everyone else, we can expand benefits," Social Security Works said to promote a day of action that will culminate at 2:00pm Thursday at the Dickson Senate Office Building, when Sanders and DeFazio will be joined by colleagues and leading progressive advocacy groups for a press conference.
Indeed, a report from the Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) released Thursday found that removing or raising the cap on earnings that can be taxed for Social Security would eliminate most future shortfalls in the program's trust fund. The paper shows:
- Roughly 1 in 18 people, or 5.4 percent of workers, earn more than the current cap and would be affected if it were eliminated;
- If workers who earn over $250,000 in wages paid the tax, the top 1.6 percent of workers would be affected; and
- If the cap applied to people who earn over $400,000 in wages, only the top 0.7 percent would be affected.
What's more, according to a new analysis from the Center for American Progress (CAP) also published Thursday:
Over the past several decades, a precipitous rise in income inequality--due in large part to policy choices that have concentrated ever-increasing shares of the nation's income in the hands of those at the top of the income ladder--has taken a huge toll on Social Security's finances. As a result of the growing share of earnings exceeding the payroll tax cap, for instance, millionaires and billionaires pay into the system for only a few weeks, days, or even hours each year, compared with the vast majority of workers, who contribute to Social Security all year long.
"President Trump campaigned on a promise to protect and preserve Social Security," CAP's Rachel West and Rebecca Vallas wrote. "That would be an important first step, but American workers need more. If Trump is serious about his promise to shield American families from the deep, damaging cuts proposed by his fellow conservatives--including several of his own cabinet picks--he should at least act to reverse rising inequality and strengthen Social Security."
A poll released this week by the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare found overwhelming support for increasing Social Security benefits--and for funding that increase by having wealthy Americans pay the same rate into Social Security as everyone else.
"These results prove that Americans want Congress to honor the commitment to all working people who paid into Social Security and Medicare, and keep their hands off these programs," said Max Richtman, president and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, who spoke at Thursday's press conference. "This should be a warning to members of Congress that they tamper with our cherished social insurance programs at their peril."
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
LATEST NEWS
'Cruel and Dangerous': Trump Ends Protected Status for Afghans and Cameroonians
One advocate said the move was "yet another example of the Trump administration using immigration policy to target the most vulnerable among us."
Apr 12, 2025
The Trump administration announced on Friday that it was revoking the Temporary Protected Status—or TPS—for thousands of immigrants from Cameroon and Afghanistan who are currently living and working in the United States.
The move, the latest attempt by the administration to roll back protections for migrants in the U.S. who cannot safely return to their home countries due to conflict or natural disasters, comes despite the fact that advocates say conditions in both countries remain dangerous.
"TPS exists for a reason: to protect people whose return to their country would place them in grave danger. Afghanistan today is still reeling from Taliban rule, economic collapse, and humanitarian disaster. Nothing about that reality has changed," president and CEO of Global Refuge Krish O'Mara Vignarajah said in a statement. "Terminating protections for Afghans is a morally indefensible betrayal of allies who stood shoulder-to-shoulder with us to advance American interests throughout our country's longest war."
"We cannot afford to lose this protection; our lives depend on it."
President Donald Trump made his promise to deport millions of undocumented immigrants a central plank of his 2024 campaign. However, since taking office, he has consistently moved not only to crack down on undocumented immigration but to revoke the status of migrants who are in the country legally. This has included attempting to strip TPS from other nationalities, revoking visas and even green cards from immigrants from certain countries or who voice opinions the administration dislikes, and ordering nearly 1 million people who entered the country using a Biden-administration app to leave "immediately."
Friday's decision would impact more than 14,600 Afghans and 7,900 Cameroonians, who would now have to leave the country by May and June respectively, according to Al Jazeera.
TPS means that immigrants from certain countries undergoing conflict or hardship—who may not qualify for asylum—will not be deported and will be able to work legally in the U.S. until the situation in their home country improves.
Cameroonians have been grated TPS due to civil conflict between the government and separatists that sparked in 2017. The violence has collapsed the economy and forced almost 1 million people to flee their homes within the country. More than 1.8 million people there urgently need humanitarian assistance.
"TPS has been a lifeline that has allowed me to live in safety and dignity," Amos, a Cameroonian TPS holder and member of CASA—a group that organizes working class Black, Latino, African-descendant, Indigenous, and immigrant communities—said in a statement. "Returning to Cameroon would put me and thousands of others in grave danger, as violence and government attacks continue to devastate our communities back home. With the protection of TPS, I have been able to build a stable life in the U.S., contribute meaningfully to my community, and pursue a future full of promise. We cannot afford to lose this protection; our lives depend on it."
CASA executive director Gustavo Torres said: "By ending TPS for Cameroon, President Trump has again prioritized his instincts for ethnic cleansing by forcibly returning people to violence, human rights violations, and a humanitarian crisis in Cameroon that continues to place its citizens at severe risk. Cameroon clearly meets the statutory basis for the redesignation of TPS. This termination of TPS is a xenophobic attack that targets our families and neighbors and endangers the economy of the U.S."
In Afghanistan, the Taliban government continues to violate human rights, arresting Afghans who worked with the U.S.-backed government and severely limiting the freedom of women and girls.
"For Afghan women and girls, ending these humanitarian protections means ending access to opportunity, freedom, and safety," Vignarajah said. "Forcing them back to Taliban rule, where they face systemic oppression and gender-based violence, would be an utterly unconscionable stain on our nation's reputation."
In addition, the Biden administration determined in 2023 that conflict in the country contributed to internal displacement and economic instability, making it difficult for people there to access food, water, and healthcare.
Council on American-Islamic relations-California CEO Hussam Ayloush said:
Ending TPS for Afghans and Cameroonians is a cruel and dangerous escalation of the Trump administration's anti-immigrant agenda and a shameful betrayal of our moral and humanitarian obligations. These individuals have fled war, persecution, and instability—and, in the case of many Afghans, risked their lives to support U.S. operations. This decision will separate families and force people into the shadows. For some of them, TPS may be their only option for protection from deportation. It's yet another example of the Trump administration using immigration policy to target the most vulnerable among us. Decisions such as these deepen fear in our communities and erode trust in our government's commitment to protecting human rights.
There is a good chance, however, that the administration's decision will not stand up in court. A federal judge has already temporarily blocked its attempt to end protections for Venezuelans, saying the order was "motivated by unconstitutional animus."
"We will closely examine the terminations to determine whether the government complied with the TPS statute in determining Afghanistan and Cameroon are now safe to accept returns of their nationals as required by the TPS statute," Ahilan Arulanantham, an attorney who helped bring the case challenging the ending of TPS status for Venezuelans, told The New York Times.
'Bloodless Coup': NC Supreme Court Partially Upholds GOP Vote-Tossing Effort
"It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election," one dissenting justice said.
Apr 12, 2025
In what North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein called a "dark day" for the state, the North Carolina Supreme Court on Friday delivered a partial victory to Republican Judge Jefferson Griffin, who is challenging some 65,000 votes in his bid to overturn the narrow win of his Democratic opponent and incumbent state Supreme Court Justice Allison Riggs.
The Supreme Court, ruling 4-2, partially overturned an appeals court decision earlier this month that gave all the challenged voters 15 days to affirm their identities. Instead, the state's highest court ruled that around 60,000 ballots with registration inconsistencies would not be challenged, but approximately 5,000 overseas or military voters would have to verify their identities within 30 days. Riggs said she would challenge the ruling in federal court, and asked the court to temporarily block the order.
"I'm the proud daughter of a 30-year military veteran who was deployed overseas, and it is unacceptable that the court is choosing to selectively disenfranchise North Carolinians serving our country, here and overseas," Riggs said in a statement. "While I'm gratified to see the Court of Appeals reversed on the erroneous decision to potentially disenfranchise the more than 60,000 North Carolinians whose registration my opponent has recklessly challenged, I will not waiver in my fight to protect the fundamental freedoms for which our military service members and their families have sacrificed so much."
"This shocking decision abandons the judiciary's most basic role, to protect the rights of the people, and sanctions an outright attempt to steal an election."
Riggs won the November contest to remain on the state Supreme Court by 734 votes, but Griffin has challenged several thousand votes, predominantly on two grounds: Around 60,000 of the challenged votes are from in-state voters whose driver's license or social security numbers were missing from a state database of registered voters, while another approximately 2,000 to 7,000 are overseas or military voters who did not show ID when voting absentee. A significant number of the votes he challenged belonged to people living in Democratic-leaning counties.
The state Supreme Court on Friday ruled that the 60,000 in-state voters should not be challenged because their rights should not be denied due to “mistakes made by negligent election officials in registering citizens who are otherwise eligible to vote," as The New York Times reported.
However, the court allowed the challenge to the overseas votes to stand, even though overseas voters have never before been required to show ID since a state-voter ID law went into effect.
"Republicans are surgically targeting military voters from six counties and forcing them to re-prove themselves or be disenfranchised," Anderson Clayton, the chairwoman of the North Carolina Democratic Party, said in a statement reported by the Times.
Finally, the court also allowed the votes of nearly 300 voters who had never lived in North Carolina—often the children of North Carolina residents who turned 18 while living abroad—to be tossed.
If the state Supreme Court's ruling stands and the military and overseas votes are rejected, Griffin has said he expects it will be enough to tip the election in his favor, WRAL News reported.
The two dissenting justices vehemently condemned the majority decision.
"It is no small thing to overturn the results of an election in a democracy by throwing out ballots that were legally cast consistent with all election laws in effect on the day of the election," Democratic Justice Anita Earls wrote. "Some would call it stealing the election, others might call it a bloodless coup, but by whatever name, no amount of smoke and mirrors makes it legitimate."
Justice Richard Dietz, a Republican, broke with his party and agreed that the court should not alter election laws after the fact. He also criticized his colleagues for not hearing arguments before making their decision.
"By every measure, this is the most impactful election-related court decision our state has seen in decades," Dietz wrote. "It cries out for our full review and for a decisive rejection of this sort of post hoc judicial tampering in election results."
State and national Democratic Party leaders also spoke out against the court's decision.
"Today is a dark day for our courts and our state," North Carolina Gov. Josh Stein wrote on social media. "The North Carolina Supreme Court ruled that certain active duty military voters serving our nation must jump through hoops that other voters don't. All voters have a constitutional right to be treated equally under the law—it is foundational to our democracy. It's unconscionable, and this decision cannot stand."
Former Attorney General Eric Holder called the ruling "both a disgrace and legacy defining for those who put their names behind it."
"This shocking decision abandons the judiciary's most basic role, to protect the rights of the people, and sanctions an outright attempt to steal an election," he said in a statement. "The North Carolina Supreme Court's Republican majority has, for naked partisan reasons, cherrypicked whose votes count and whose do not. It is the height of political arrogance to tell military members who serve and sacrifice for our country, and other voters, that their votes and those of their family members are questionable."
Democratic National Committee (DNC) Chair Ken Martin said: "Jefferson Griffin doesn't get to pick and choose whose votes count in an election—no politician does. The men and women serving in our military will not allow their voices to be silenced by a desperate loser like Griffin."
"The nation is watching North Carolina," Martin continued. "Meanwhile, the DNC and Democrats across this country stand ready to marshal resources and manpower to ensure every vote cast in this election is counted. The people's voices will be heard, and Justice Allison Riggs will take her rightful place on the North Carolina Supreme Court."
'No One Voted to Slaughter Hummingbirds': Trump's DOI Guts Bird Protections, Again
"Trump is breaking the law and flouting a court order by handing the fossil fuel industry and polluters this blank check to kill millions of migratory birds," one advocate said.
Apr 12, 2025
The Trump administration moved on Friday to weaken protections for migratory birds threatened by industrial activities, including oil and gas operations.
Acting Solicitor of the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) Gregory Zerzan restored an opinion from the first Trump administration that the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) "does not apply to the accidental or incidental taking or killing of migratory birds," despite the fact that this opinion was already ruled illegal in federal court.
"Trump is breaking the law and flouting a court order by handing the fossil fuel industry and polluters this blank check to kill millions of migratory birds," said Tara Zuardo, a senior campaigner at the Center for Biological Diversity. "The United States has lost billions of birds over the past 50 years, and that decline will accelerate horrifically because of this callous, anti-wildlife directive. No one voted to slaughter hummingbirds, cranes, and raptors, but this is the reality of Trump's illegal actions today."
"We're not going to succeed in addressing the crisis facing birds and other wildlife if we let this and other historic rollbacks stand."
The new directive comes as birds in the U.S. are under threat, with their numbers falling by around 30% since 1970. A number of factors are responsible for this decline, among them the climate emergency, habitat loss, falling insect populations, window strikes, and outdoor cats. However, conservationists told The New York Times that industrial activities would be a greater threat if not for the protection the law provides.
For example, Zuardo told the Times that if U.S. President Donald Trump's interpretation of the law had been in effect following BP's Deepwater Horizon oil spill in 2010—which likely killed over 1 million birds—the company would not have been charged the around $100 million in fines that went to support bird conservation after the disaster.
Friday's directive is part of an ongoing effort over the course of both Trump administrations to weaken the MBTA so that it only targets the purposeful killing of birds, dropping enforcement against accidents such as as oil spills, drownings in uncovered oil pits, trappings in open mining pipes, and collisions with power lines or communication towers.
In 2017, lead Interior Department lawyer Daniel Jorjani issued an initial legal opinion claiming the MBTA only covered purposeful killings. This interpretation was struck down by a federal court in 2020, which argued that the act's "clear language" put it in "direct conflict" with the Trump opinion.
This didn't stop the Trump administration from issuing a final rule attempting to enshrine its interpretation of the MBTA at the end of Trump's first term, which was widely decried by bird advocates.
"We're not going to succeed in addressing the crisis facing birds and other wildlife if we let this and other historic rollbacks stand," Erik Schneider, policy manager for the National Audubon Society, said at the time.
However, months into the presidency of Joe Biden, DOI principal deputy solicitor Robert T. Anderson withdrew the initial 2017 Trump administration opinion after an appeals court, following the request of the U.S. government, dismissed the Trump administration's earlier appeal of the 2020 court decision.
"The lower court decision is consistent with the Department of the Interior's long-standing interpretation of the MBTA," Anderson wrote.
Later, the Biden administration also reversed the formal Trump-era rule weakening the MBTA.
Now, in his second term, Trump is coming for the birds again. The Biden-era withdrawal was one of 20 Biden-era opinions that the Trump DOI suspended in March. It was then officially revoked and withdrawn on Friday.
In justifying its decision, Trump's DOI cited the president's January 20 executive order "Unleashing American Energy," which calls on federal agencies to "suspend, revise, or rescind all agency actions identified as unduly burdensome," making it clear the weakening of protections is largely intended to benefit the fossil fuel and mining industries.
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.