SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Diane Alexander is the Communications and Research Director: dalexander@democracy21.org
WASHINGTON -
"For the Senate to preserve our democracy and protect the right to vote, and to be known again as the 'world's greatest deliberative body,' the Senate filibuster rules must be revised," Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer writes in the introduction to a new update to the Democracy 21 report: A Timeline Of The Senate Filibuster -- And Why The Filibuster Rules Must Be Revised To Save Democracy And Restore The Senate.
Attacks "on the right to vote and the integrity of our elections have put our democracy at grave risk," Wertheimer writes. "The need to revise the filibuster rules is of paramount importance."
Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) announced the Senate will consider changes to Senate rules as early as this week.
The Freedom to Vote Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act are essential voting rights measures that were blocked by multiple Republican filibusters in 2021.
These measures would override the state voter suppression laws triggered by Trump's Big Lie, protect against partisan election administration officials rigging federal election results, and prevent future voter discrimination laws in selected states and local jurisdictions.
"The moment of truth is here," Wertheimer says. "At stake is whether our democracy as we know it will be preserved."
The Democracy 21 report details the history of the Senate filibuster:
The Democracy 21 Timeline Of The Senate Filibuster is online here.
Democracy 21 is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans. Democracy 21, and its education arm, Democracy 21 Education Fund, work to eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics, prevent government corruption, empower citizens in the political process and ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections. The organization promotes campaign finance reform and other related political reforms to accomplish these goals.
(202) 355-9600The bill, noted one opponent, "has some egregious provisions that will have dramatic consequences beyond its stated goal of locking up undocumented individuals like the man who murdered Laken Riley."
A dozen U.S. Senate Democrats on Monday helped the GOP pass the Laken Riley Act—an immigration bill decried as a far-right power grab—just hours after Republican President Donald Trump was sworn in for a second term.
Those 12 Democrats are Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto (Nev.), John Fetterman (D-Pa.), Ruben Gallego (Ariz.), Maggie Hassan (N.H.), Mark Kelly (Ariz.), Jon Ossoff (Ga.), Gary Peters (Mich.), Jacky Rosen (Nev.), Jeanne Shaheen (N.H.), Elissa Slotkin (Mich.), Mark Warner (Va.), and Raphael Warnock (Ga.). Fetterman and Gallego co-sponsored the bill.
A version of the legislation—named for a 22-year-old woman murdered by a Venezuelan migrant in Georgia last year—was passed by the House of Representatives earlier this month in a 264-159 vote, with support from 48 Democrats. However, it must be approved by the chamber again before it will head to Trump's desk.
"I just voted against the Laken Riley Act," said Senate Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Dick Durbin (D-Ill.). "This bill won't accomplish its goals. I'm disappointed in its passage as it stands, and I'm deeply concerned about how it will be implemented."
Writing to members of Congress ahead of the Senate's 64-35 vote, over 70 national groups said that "the senselessness of the murder of Laken Riley does not justify making unprecedented changes to immigration detention laws that—like all mandatory incarceration provisions—will only result in more discrimination while doing little to increase public safety."
Urging lawmakers to oppose the bill the coalition explained:
S. 5 would require the mandatory detention—without any possibility of bond—of undocumented persons who are merely arrested for or charged with certain offenses, including misdemeanor shoplifting. It does not require conviction. There is no statute of limitations, and the bill does not specify any process by which a person might contest either their immigration detention or the underlying criminal charges (if charges are even pursued). Mandatory immigration detention on the basis of a mere arrest is unprecedented, and it would invite abuses that almost certainly would disproportionately impact people of color.
We are also concerned with language in the bill that would give states standing to sue the federal government over any allegation that the federal government is improperly implementing immigration laws, such as detention and removal provisions, visa provisions, or its discretionary parole authority. This language would open the floodgates to litigation, and it would enable individual states to shape federal immigration policies.
"Laken Riley should be with us today. Her murder is a tragedy, and the perpetrator should be held fully accountable," said Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) after the vote. "The Laken Riley Act, however, has some egregious provisions that will have dramatic consequences beyond its stated goal of locking up undocumented individuals like the man who murdered Laken Riley. Specifically, it requires mandatory imprisonment for undocumented children who have never been charged with or convicted of a crime. This is twisted."
"We've seen time and again the damage the federal government can cause our children with dangerous immigration policies like this," he added. "I will continue to champion proposals that keep all of us safe, fix America's broken immigration system, and strengthen our border security. Our families and communities demand nothing less."
The Senate vote came as Trump began imposing his anti-immigrant agenda with a slew of executive orders. The Republican, who campaigned on mass deportations and ending birthright citizenship, is expected to sign the Laken Riley Act once it reaches him.
"Trump's first actions as president show us exactly who he is and what he believes about America," said Congresswoman Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.). "While he talked about unity, he used his first moment in the office to stoke fear and fuel division. While he talked about a 'golden age,' he signed unconstitutional and un-American executive orders that gut equality initiatives, criminalize immigrants, end asylum, roll back climate protections, and endanger our national security. There is nothing great about an America that denies peoples' civil rights, refuses refuge to the persecuted, or denies future generations clean air and water."
"I believe America is greatest when we pursue justice, equality, and peace and honor our shared humanity," she added. "This daughter of immigrants, citizen by birthright, and congresista from a district that celebrates our diversity, stands ready to fight for the soul of our nation. Regardless of who is president, I will continue to fight for the policies working people demand: affordable housing and healthcare, good-paying jobs, clean air and water, public safety, and comprehensive immigration reform."One former Swedish prime minister called the Republican president's pledge to grow U.S. territory "a recipe for global instability."
While the global far-right cheered President Donald Trump's return to the White House on Monday, world leaders, elected officials, activists, and others from across the rest of the political spectrum reacted with trepidation as the Republican vowed to expand the nation's territory for the first time in nearly 80 years and threatened the sovereignty of a U.S. trade and security partner.
In his second inaugural address, Trump promised a foreign policy that "expands our territory," as well as the renewed pursuit of "Manifest Destiny"—the 19th-century belief that God intended the United States to control the continent from coast to coast—beyond Earth by "launching American astronauts to plant the stars and stripes on the planet Mars."
"That's a dangerous statement in itself, but then others around the world might also be inspired to do the same."
In the United States, Monday's inauguration coincided with the federal holiday honoring the assassinated civil rights champion Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., whom Trump mentioned in his speech. Some observers noted the incongruity of Trump's message with King's anti-war ethos.
"How dare Donald Trump invoke Dr. King," pan-African studies professor and Black Lives Matter Los Angeles co-founder Melina Abdullah fumed on social media. "Trump IS the embodiment of the three evils that MLK warned of: racism, materialism, and militarism."
Indigenous voices reminded listeners that belief in Manifest Destiny fueled genocidal violence against Native Americans.
"Trump is really going after Native Americans with references to Manifest Destiny, the frontier, Wild West, and erasing Denali's name," attorney Brett Chapman, a direct descendant of the Ponca Cshief White Eagle, said on social media. "This anti-Indigenous inaugural address sounds like one from the 1800s when presidents deployed the U.S. military on Native Americans seeking rights."
In his speech, Trump falsely accused China of "running the Panama Canal," said that Panama—which was last invaded by American forces in 1989—is overcharging U.S. ships to use the crucial waterway, and warned that "we're taking it back."
As angry demonstrators rallied outside the U.S. Embassy in Panama City, right-wing Panamanian President José Raúl Mulino issued a statement refuting Trump's threats and accusations and declaring that "the canal is and will continue to be Panamanian."
Trump's threat follows his refusal earlier this month to rule out the use of military force in order to conquer the Panama Canal or Greenland, a territory of NATO ally Denmark.
South American progressives were left stunned by parts of Trump's address.
"In his inauguration speech, Donald Trump made it clear that reality surpasses fiction," Carol Dartora, a leftist lawmaker in the lower chamber of Brazil's National Congress, said in a video posted online. "Then the U.S. president exuded machismo, imperialism, and xenophobia, especially against immigrants."
Across the Atlantic, former center-right Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt said: "Now we know that President Trump wants to 'expand our territory.' That's a dangerous statement in itself, but then others around the world might also be inspired to do the same. It's a recipe for global instability."
German author, filmmaker, and journalist Annette Dittert
responded to Trump's expansionist pledge with a popular three-letter internet acronym: "'We will become a nation that expands our territory?' WTF?"
"Tomorrow we'll get an explanation that it wasn't a Sieg Heil, he was just pantomiming his 'heart going out to the people.' Legacy media will basically accept this explanation. But you know what you saw and you know what he is," wrote one observer.
While concluding his remarks at a Washington, D.C. celebration rally following President Donald Trump's inauguration Monday, Tesla CEO and billionaire Elon Musk raised his right arm, with his palm facing down, in a gesture that appeared to resemble a salute associated with Nazi Germany. Musk can be seen making the gesture twice.
The Anti-Defamation League (ADL), a group that combats antisemitism, defines the Nazi salute as consisting of "raising an outstretched right arm with the palm down."
The ADL, however, released a statement on Monday saying that Musk's gesture was not a Nazi salute. "It seems that [Elon Musk] made an awkward gesture in a moment of enthusiasm, not a Nazi salute," the group wrote on the platform X, which is owned by Musk. "In this moment, all sides should give one another a bit of grace, perhaps even the benefit of the doubt, and take a breath," they wrote.
The ADL's comment engendered criticism, including from Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who wrote in response, "Just to be clear, you are defending a Heil Hitler salute that was performed and repeated for emphasis and clarity."
Former Rep. Cori Bush (D-Mo.) wrote: "Dang he meant that. Looks as if he's been holding that in for a while and finally was able to let it rip. Like he practiced in the mirror to hit that angle just right."
Others also weighed in on social media. "Did Elon Musk just hit the roman salute at his inauguration speech?” Twitch streamer Hasan Piker posted on X. "Why isn't Elon Musk doing two Nazi salutes at Trump's inauguration a lead story today?" asked political strategist Walid Shahid.
A Bluesky user wrote "Casual Nazi salute on live television."
"He accidentally did a Nazi salute... TWICE," wrote the journalist Mehdi Hasan. "He is who we think he is."
Musk, a GOP megadonor who is slated to play a key role in the Trump administration, has expressed his support for the Alternative for Germany party (AfD), a virulently ant-immigration party that has been designated by the German domestic intelligence service as a "suspected extremist" organization. Figures in the party have been accused of using Nazi slogans in speeches and downplaying the Holocaust. Musk held a live event on X with the leader of AfD, Alice Weidel, in early January.
Musk has also repeatedly attacked billionaire and philanthropist George Soros, who has been the target of antisemitic conspiracy theories, including by sharing social media posts that falsely claimed Soros "collaborated with the Nazis as a teenager" and describing him as a "psychopath trying to destroy the West," according to the Israeli newspaper Haaretz
Michael McCarthy, a PhD student at Indiana University wrote on X: "Tomorrow we'll get an explanation that it wasn't a Sieg Heil, he was just pantomiming his 'heart going out to the people.' Legacy media will basically accept this explanation."
"But you know what you saw," McCarthy added. "And you know what he is."
This article was updated with comments from the ADL and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.