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
Opinion
Trump and the Supreme Court Try to Return the US to the 19th Century
With the Supreme Court’s rulings against the Voting Rights Act and the Trump administration’s refusal to enforce the Civil Rights Act, they are trying to repeal the legacy of the civil rights movement.
May 26, 2026
On December 18 1865, Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, Republican from Pennsylvania, during debate on how to treat the traitorous Confederate states and on support for newly freed people who had been enslaved in the United States and in British North America for almost 250 years, warned, “If we fail in this great duty now, when we have the power, we shall deserve and receive the execration of history and of all future ages." The United States failed to rectify injustice in the past, and it is failing once again.
Nikole Hannah-Jones, a key contributor to The New York Times’ award winning The 1619 Project, recently wrote that “The Civil Rights Era Is Collapsing Before Our Eyes.” In Tennessee, the white-dominated Republican controlled state legislature eliminated the state’s only Black majority congressional district after the MAGA-dominated Supreme Court ruled that congressional maps that ensured political representation for African Americans and other racial minorities now violated the Constitution. Other white-dominated, Republican-controlled states are racing to make similar changes. It is as if the Republican Party, with the aid of the Supreme Court, is trying to return the United States to the level of racism that dominated the country in the 19th and first half of the 20th century.
After the Civil War, Congress passed and the states ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th Reconstruction Amendments to the United States Constitution. The 13th Amendment ended chattel slavery in the United States. The 14th Amendment defined citizenship to include people born in the United States with very limited exceptions and ensured that all persons, whether citizens or not, were entitled to legal due process. The 15th Amendment prevented states and localities from denying Black men the right to vote. Each amendment included a clause that “Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.” Rebelling Confederate states were required to approve the 14th and 15th Amendments to fully reenter the Union.
A right-wing dominated Supreme Court then proceeded to systematically emasculate the amendments and supporting legislation including the Civil Rights Act of 1866, the Reconstruction Acts of 1867, the Enforcement Acts of 1870 and 1871, and the Civil Rights Act of 1875. The first Civil Rights Act enforced the 13th Amendment after a number of Southern states passed "Black Codes" to limit the rights of freedmen, and the Reconstruction Acts required the former Confederate states to accept the 14th Amendment. The Enforcement Acts provided federal protection for voting rights that were being interfered with by organizations like the Ku Klux Klan. The Civil Rights Act of 1875 targeted racial segregation and guaranteed African Americans equal treatment in public accommodations including hotels and theaters and transportation and prohibited attempts to exclude them from juries. To put teeth in enforcement, violations were tried in federal, not state courts.
The Trump administration has launched a systematic campaign to undermine civil rights protections passed into law and approved by the Supreme Court in the 1950s and I960s.
In 1873, in the Slaughter-House Cases, the Supreme Court limited the ability of African Americans to sue in federal courts against discriminatory state laws. In 1876, in the United States v. Cruikshank, the court ruled that the 14th Amendment did not apply to private acts of violence, preventing federal authorities from prosecuting hate crimes, and in the 1883 United States v. Harris case the Court threw out the Enforcement Acts because Congress did not have the authority to punish private groups like the Ku Klux Klan for conspiring to violate the civil rights of African Americans.
The most damaging court decision was in a consolidated case known as the Civil Rights Cases. In 1883, by an 8-to-1 majority, the Supreme Court declared the Civil Rights Act of 1875 unconstitutional. The majority ruled that the 14th Amendment only applied to discrimination by state or local governments and did not permit the federal government to prohibit discrimination by private individuals. The only dissenting justice was John Harlan, who argued that government and individual actions often overlapped and the court was interpreting the 14th Amendment too narrowly. Harlan was also the only justice to vote against the majority decision in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) that established that the Constitution permitted racially segregated “separate-but-equal” facilities.
It was not until the 1950s and 1960s, in what has been called the Second Reconstruction, that Supreme Court decisions and federal legislation, under intense pressure from the African-American civil rights movement, restored civil rights for African Americans stolen by a conservative Supreme Court in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s. The best known Supreme Court decision was in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka in 1954. Brown combined five cases challenging the legality of school segregation pursued by the NAACP and the legal team headed by Thurgood Marshall. In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court under the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren ruled that segregated schools established a racial caste system and violated the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. In other decisions, the Warren Court ruled that Mexican Americans and all other racial groups had equal protection under the 14th Amendment (Hernandez v.Texas, 1954); that segregation in facilities serving interstate transport was illegal (Boynton v. Virginia, 1960); that election districts intended to prevent the election of Black representatives violated the 15th Amendment by disenfranchising Black voters (Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 1960); against segregation in public accommodations overturning the 1883 Civil Rights Cases decision (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 1964); the federal government had the authority to abolish discriminatory literacy testing for voter registration (South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 1966); state laws banning interracial marriages were unconstitutional (Loving v. Virginia, 1967); and that the Fair Housing Act of 1968 banning discrimination in the sale of rent of housing was constitutional (Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 1968).
Federal civil rights legislation passed in the Second Reconstruction included the Civil Rights Act of 1957. It was the first federal civil rights law passed by Congress since 1875. This law established the United States Commission on Civil Rights and a Justice Department Civil Rights division to investigate charges of racial discrimination. A 1960 law established federal penalties for interfering with someone’s ability to vote. Federal courts were authorized to appoint officials to assist African Americans in registering to vote in states and localities with a documented history of discrimination, and the 24th Amendment, ratified in 1964, outlawed poll taxes.
The two most important pieces of federal legislation during this period were the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. The Civil Rights Act outlawed segregation in public accommodations including hotels, restaurants, and theaters; ended discrimination in employment based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin; and created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to enforce these regulations. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act established the “disparate impact” legal standard which was upheld by the Supreme Court in Griggs v. Duke Power Co. (1971). The disparate impact standard prohibits policies that disproportionately impact protected groups and does not require proof of discriminatory intent. It was later codified in the Civil Rights Act of 1991.
The Voting Rights Act included a number of key provisions. It allowed people to sue to overturn discriminatory laws and voter registration and candidate nomination procedures and provided for federal legal assistance. It also required states and localities with histories of discrimination to obtain prior approval from the Department of Justice or a federal court before changing voting rules. As a result of the Voting Rights Act, the racial disparity in voting registration rates declined from about 30% to 8% 10 years later. As a result of the Voting Right Acts, In addition, the number of Blacks serving in Congress increased from four in 1960 to 62 in 2023. In 2006, the Voting Rights Act was reauthorized by Congress with wide bipartisan support.
However, since 2013, the Supreme Court has whittled away at voter protection for minority groups. In a 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, the court eliminated the pre-clearance requirement of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. In 2021 the Supreme Court made it more difficult to bring lawsuits challenging discriminatory voting rules, and in 2026, in Louisiana v. Callais, the court further gutted the Voting Rights Act, allowing state governments to redraw election districts dividing up Black communities so it would be more difficult to elect Black officials.
The Trump administration has launched a systematic campaign to undermine civil rights protections passed into law and approved by the Supreme Court in the 1950s and I960s. In an attack on the Civil Rights Act of 1964, President Donald Trump issued an executive order in April 2025 ordering federal agencies not to support or enforce disparate impact claims, arguing that it was discrimination against white people and violated its interpretation of the equal protection of the law. The administration has cut funding for enforcement of fair housing laws, equal employment opportunities, and environmental justice for minority communities disprotortionately impacted by climate change and pollution.
With the Supreme Court’s rulings against the Voting Rights Act and the Trump administration’s refusal to enforce the Civil Rights Act, they are trying to repeal the legacy of the Second Reconstruction and return the United States to the era of Jim Crow segregation and racism institutionalized in the 19th century.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Do US War Crimes Doom the World to Endless War and Chaos?
The supposedly unlimited freedom of action attained by disdaining and trampling international law and institutions has proved to be a double-edged sword.
May 26, 2026
On May 24, Iran rejected President Trump’s latest fake peace deal, confirming that he had misrepresented what Iran had agreed to and that the two sides are still very far apart, on nuclear enrichment, on control of the Strait of Hormuz, on peace in Palestine and Lebanon, and on lifting US sanctions, paying war reparations, and Iran’s $100 billion in frozen assets.
Iran’s conditions for a peace agreement are necessarily uncompromising, in response to the US record of using negotiations as cover for sneak attacks, and the charade of one-sided “ceasefires with Israeli characteristics,” in which the US and Israel routinely ignore and violate every ceasefire they agree to, including the present ones in Gaza, Lebanon, and Iran.
Since no agreement with the United States or Israel is worth the paper it’s written on, it’s hard to imagine an agreement that would really protect Iran from future attacks. Without a more radical change in US policy, the United States and Israel will keep attacking Iran, in open violation of the UN Charter, no matter what they all agree to.
The only effective ways Iran has found to protect its land and its people are to build strong military defenses, including the capacity for devastating retaliation, and to retain control of the Strait of Hormuz, regardless of the impact on the world’s oil and gas supply and the global economy. By attacking Iran, the United States and Israel forced it to defend itself and triggered a war that is reshaping the Middle East and possibly the world.
The final sinking of the neocon dream in the troubled waters of the Persian Gulf provides the US and the world with a historic chance to recommit to a more peaceful and democratic international order.
Losing this war is forcing the United States to finally start reevaluating the neoconservative tactics it has blindly substituted for a rational US foreign and military policy since the 1990s: sanction; threaten; bomb; kill; destroy; occupy; escalate; leave countries mired in violence and chaos—in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Ukraine, Palestine and Lebanon—never admit defeat; never question American exceptionalism or superiority.
The systematic US disdain for the rule of international law that undergirds this policy appears to make peace impossible in today’s world. But the final sinking of the neocon dream in the troubled waters of the Persian Gulf provides the US and the world with a historic chance to recommit to a more peaceful and democratic international order.
Since the end of the Cold War, the United States has effectively exempted itself from the entire system of treaties, international laws and agreements that are supposed to govern international affairs, starting with the UN Charter, which prohibits the threat or use of force between countries, and the Geneva Conventions, which protect civilians, prisoners-of-war and wounded soldiers and sailors from the impacts of war.
These treaties were drawn up and universally adopted in the wake of the Second World War, to “save succeeding generations from the scourge of war,” as the UN Charter says in its preamble. President Roosevelt returned from his Yalta conference with Churchill and Stalin in 1945 to tell a joint session of Congress that they were designing the United Nations as a “permanent structure of peace.”
“It ought to spell the end of the system of unilateral action, the exclusive alliances, the spheres of influence, the balances of power, and all the other expedients that have been tried for centuries—and have always failed,” FDR told Congress. “We propose to substitute for all these, a universal organization in which all peace-loving Nations will finally have a chance to join.”
The UN Charter codified and strengthened the age-old common law prohibition against international aggression, and the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy in the 1928 Kellogg Briand Pact, which German leaders tried at Nuremberg were sentenced to death for violating.
However, amid overblown Western triumphalism after the end of the Cold War, a new generation of US leaders, like Madeleine Albright and Dick Cheney, came to see the UN Charter and Geneva Conventions as obstacles to their ambitions to further expand US global power by more widespread and unrestricted use of military force.
Believing that the new imbalance in military power freed them from compliance with post-1945 treaties and conventions based on the hard-earned wisdom of past leaders in two world wars, the US and its allies unleashed their armed forces to attack and invade other countries, torture, rape and kill prisoners, and massacre civilians.
US officials assumed that the new military imbalance so greatly favored the United States that neither the UN, international courts, other powerful countries, nor even the entire people of the world could enforce the rules of international law and the laws of armed conflict on the United States if it chose to ignore them.
It is ironic, and deeply frustrating and confusing to US officials, to find out that what they hailed as a position of overwhelming power and impunity has led them to squander America’s day in the sun and waste the chance that its great good fortune provided to improve the quality of life for Americans and their neighbors.
The supposedly unlimited freedom of action attained by disdaining and trampling international law and institutions has proved to be a double-edged sword. There is no such thing as unlimited military power, short of the mass suicide of nuclear war. The idea that America’s virtually unlimited investment in weapons and war would give it the final word in every dispute was a mirage, as even Trump is now finding out.
As Americans reexamine the state of the world and the conflicts by which warmongering US leaders have tried to define it, it is obvious that war and military power do not lead to peace or prosperity, for Americans or anyone else. The more countries the Pentagon and the CIA take aim at, the more people they kill, and the more resources our leaders throw at them, the more other people all over the world rightly come to see the United States as a threat to their own lives and futures.
Governments around the world face difficult choices between meeting the needs and aspirations of their own people or complying with the hegemonic and undemocratic demands of the United States.
After holding itself up as the champion of democracy and freedom for 250 years, the United States is only accelerating its own decline by wasting trillions of dollars, and what little is left of the world’s good will, on this failed, ill-fated bid for global imperial power.
When the United States rose to great power in the first half of the 20th century, its leaders were wise enough to recognize that exercising naked imperial power would not succeed in a world still fighting to free itself from the ravages of European colonialism. So FDR and his colleagues based the UN system on sovereign equality between nations, and created a framework for international relations that the whole world could agree to.
While the United States and Israel commit systematic and barbaric war crimes, presuming themselves immune from accountability, the world is slowly—too slowly—coming to grips with the international cooperation needed to enforce the “permanent structure of peace” that all countries have agreed to live by.
Like all legal and political systems, the success or failure of the UN system rests on whether the most powerful countries will agree to live by the same rules as the others. The veto is a poison pill that corrupts the system, as Albert Camus predicted when it was unveiled in 1945.
“If this report is accurate, … it would effectively put an end to any idea of international democracy,” Camus wrote in Combat, the underground French Resistance newspaper he edited. “The world would be ruled by a directorate of five powers… The Five would thus retain forever the freedom of maneuver that would be forever denied the others.”
However, the UN has developed the “Uniting For Peace” process, which allows the General Assembly to hold Emergency Special Sessions (ESS) on international problems when a veto prevents the Security Council from acting to resolve them. The General Assembly used that process to resolve the Suez Crisis in 1956, and it has been using it, albeit intermittently and inadequately, to address the crisis in Palestine since 1997.
In response to a request from the General Assembly in its Emergency Special Session on Palestine, the International Court of Justice ruled that the Israeli occupation is illegal and must end without delay. And so, the General Assembly passed a resolution demanding that Israel must bring “to an end without delay its unlawful presence in the Occupied Palestinian Territories… and do so no later than” September 2025.
Israel did not comply, so the General Assembly must take further steps, such as an arms embargo and an economic boycott. But it does have the means to do so and just needs to muster the political will.
While the United States and Israel commit systematic and barbaric war crimes, presuming themselves immune from accountability, the world is slowly—too slowly—coming to grips with the international cooperation needed to enforce the “permanent structure of peace” that all countries have agreed to live by, and on which the lives of millions of vulnerable people and the future of humanity depend.
While US leaders are finally realizing that they do not have the power to intimidate and conquer the whole world, the American people are gradually understanding that we have an even greater power, the power to refuse to fight their criminal wars, and to insist on making peace and cooperating with all our neighbors on this small planet that we all share.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump's Lawless, Insidious Insurrection Continues
Creation of a $1.776 billion fund to compensate individuals who claim to have been victims of the government’s “weaponization” of law represents the culmination of the president’s six-year effort to claim that he won an election that he so clearly lost.
May 26, 2026
During the past week, the Trump administration announced three separate but connected decisions that are so outrageous they may lead to his comeuppance. Collectively, they reward lawlessness and undermine the very foundations of our democracy.
The first of these was the announcement by the Department of Justice that a $1,776,000,000 fund was being established to compensate “victims” of the previous administration’s “weaponization” of the law by “unfairly investigating and punishing them.” As a quid pro quo, Mr. Trump agreed to drop his questionable $10 billion lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service for what he charged was their role in failing to stop a contractor from leaking one of his tax returns to the media in 2019. To cap off the president’s trifecta, the DOJ added an amendment to the “victims’ fund” stating: “The United States releases, waives, and forever discharges [Trump, his family, his business] and is hereby forever barred and precluded from prosecuting or pursuing, any and all claims [that] have been or could have been asserted [by the IRS against them or] related or affiliated individuals.”
As problematic as each of the three may be, it’s the ways they are connected that is most troubling. The Trump lawsuit against the IRS was set to be dismissed by the judge who was hearing the case. She had argued that it was improper for the White House to sue a federal agency it controlled, as this put the administration in the position of being both plaintiff and defendant. The decision was to be announced by May 20th, forcing the White House to act to drop their suit before it was dismissed. It was, therefore, no coincidence that the DOJ announced on May 18th and 19th both the “victims’ fund” and the ban on any future IRS action against the president.
But the story doesn’t end there as serious questions must be asked about the entire IRS affair. The contractor who leaked the document has already been arrested and convicted for his crime. There was no connection between his admittedly criminal act and the IRS as an institution. Therefore, the president’s lawsuit against the institution and the $10 billion award in damages he was seeking was both unwarranted and excessive. Like many of Mr. Trump’s previous suits against media outlets, it was meant to intimidate in order to seek some sort of settlement.
The DOJ’s handling of the matter validated the judge’s concern that the head of government couldn’t sue an agency he oversees (not to speak of trying to secure a massive payout from that agency). It simply didn’t pass the smell test. Finally, the DOJ addendum giving the president, his family, and business a free pass from any further tax audits, investigations, or prosecution for any claims against them raises the obvious question: What tax problems are they covering up?
The creation of the $1.776 billion fund to compensate individuals who claim to have been victims of the government’s “weaponization” of law represents the culmination of the president’s six-year effort to go beyond just defending the violent insurrectionists of January 6th, 2021. This is important to Mr. Trump, because by defending them he is defending his claim that he won the 2020 election and, therefore, the violent mobs that stormed the Congress weren’t lawbreakers. They were heroes and persecuted martyrs who deserve compensation.
In this regard, it’s important to examine what Trump has done.
Just over six years ago we witnessed the horrifying scenes of violent mobs storming the US Capitol in an effort to stop Congress from certifying outcome of the 2020 election. They struck out at Capitol police who were doing their jobs protecting the members of Congress and the building itself. Some were injured; a few died. The scenes of what these rioters did were broadcast to a shocked nation.
Because the president egged on the mob, he was impeached by Congress. Ten Republican members of Congress voted to impeach Trump and seven Republican senators voted to convict and remove him from office.
After Mr. Trump’s relentless campaign mobilizing his supporters to demand loyalty, most of the 17 senators and representatives who voted against him are gone. They either resigned because the heat was too great or were defeated by Trump loyalists.
And the polls tell this story. In 2021, most Republicans were outraged by the mob violence. A poll from January of 2021 found that 78% of Trump supporters disapproved of the insurrection. A more recent poll reveals a dramatic shift that has taken place. When asked to describe the events of January 6th, 2021, 60% of Republicans say they were “people participating in legitimate political discourse.” Only 18% said that it was “people participating in a violent insurrection.”
Believing that he had set the stage to allow for his complete rewriting of history, the president, who had already commuted the sentences and/or pardoned more than 2,000 of the insurrectionists, now felt emboldened to have the government reward them for their blind loyalty to him. But in doing so, he may have pushed too far. Republican senators who consider themselves law-and-order, fiscal conservatives recoiled in horror over what a few called “utterly stupid,” “morally wrong,” and an abuse of power. Instead of acting to pass some of Mr. Trump’s legislative priorities, they criticized the president’s actions and took an early recess.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In California, Vote Against the Forces Destroying Democracy
Tom Steyer, despite being a billionaire himself, is dedicated to protecting our democracy from the forces that are working overtime to undermine it. The same cannot be said of the other candidates in the race.
May 26, 2026
Like the rest of the country, California is in a hugely consequential fight for the future. Will we protect our democracy and build a sustainable future where we can all afford to live well? Or will victory go to the forces that are undermining democracy to protect their ability to profit from destroying the planet? Will we elect a Governor who supports the forces tearing our country apart? Or will we elect one who is dedicated to protecting democracy and building a world that works for all of us? The stakes could not be higher.
As inequality grows at an unprecedented pace, life is becoming precarious for more and more people. The rich aren’t just getting richer, they are also becoming more powerful. And the fossil fuel and tech sectors are at the leading edge of those devastating changes to our society.
The fossil fuel industry is the single largest funder of right-wing extremism in this country. It supports ultra-right think tanks, including the Heritage foundation which gave us Project 2025. It is also the biggest spender in California politics. As the world moves away from dependence on its products, the industry is in a fight for survival. It is ready to take the whole world, and democracy itself, down to remain profitable. Those are the forces we need to challenge if we want to make our country work for those of us not in the 1%.
There are three pieces of evidence we can use to see which side of that great divide the candidates are on: What is their relationship to fossil fuel money? What is their position on the Billionaire’s Tax? And what is their position on AB 1790 Water’s Edge which would close a $4 billion a year tax loophole that was fought for by the fossil fuel industry in the 1980’s.
Clearly both of the Republicans front runners for the California governorship are ready to undermine democratic institutions to help serve the interests of the fossil fuel industry and tech oligarchs.
There is one Democratic front runner who passes all three tests with flying colors. It is painful that the one person who has spent the past decades aggressively supporting democracy, fighting for immigrant rights, fighting the tendency toward oligarchy in our politics, and challenging the fossil fuel industry is himself a billionaire. But the facts are that Tom Steyer will not veto the billionaire’s tax, has pledged to support closing the Water’s Edge Tax loophole, and has pledged to not take fossil fuel money.
The same cannot be said for the other Democratic contender, Xavier Becerra. Becerra has taken the largest legal contribution from Chevron and he publicly said “I need Chevron. My people of the state of California need Chevron.” He has publicly opposed the Billionaires Tax. He has not publicly declared his support for the Water’s Edge bill. The California Resources Corporation spent $500,000 supporting his campaign
Steyer is dedicated to protecting our democracy from the forces that are working overtime to undermine it. Becerra plans to continue us on the path of business as usual which is heading us for a train wreck with the future of democracy and of the climate. In spite of the fact that he is a billionaire, I am excited to support Tom Steyer for governor.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular