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.
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts (right) sits next to Justice Clarence Thomas in this October 7, 2022 photo.
The cozy relationships between justices and high-profile, politically active billionaires who routinely bring business before the high court pose an existential risk to our democracy and core institutions.
Americans expect their judicial branch to serve as a fair arbiter of the law. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court matched that expectation, enjoying a unique level of trust with over two-thirds of Americans expressing faith in the institution.
But recent revelations exposing Supreme Court justices’ blatant disregard for ethics have culminated in a full-blown crisis, forcing public trust in the high court to plummet to record lows. From Justice Clarence Thomas’s undisclosed trips with GOP megadonors to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s shady real estate dealings, a clear culture of corruption has enveloped the court.
As scandals pile up and trust in the court sits at an all-time low, there is no shortage of suggested solutions – from congressional investigations to ethics reform. Calls for justices’ resignations continue to mount for the most egregious transgressions.
But with the first weeks of the Supreme Court session behind us and these same justices poised to issue decisions with wide-ranging implications, how can we re-instill trust in the short term?
Conflicted justices must recuse themselves from critical cases — especially those from which their billionaire buddies will benefit. If these justices refuse to recuse, they choose their wealthy pals over everyday Americans.
Ahead of the Court’s new term, Accountable.US partnered with over 40 watchdog and accountability organizations to demand that Chief Justice Roberts take control of his Court’s corruption crisis, urging him to ensure justices recuse themselves from critical cases where their billionaire friends stand to benefit.
Conflicted justices must recuse themselves from critical cases — especially those from which their billionaire buddies will benefit. If these justices refuse to recuse, they choose their wealthy pals over everyday Americans.
We highlighted recent revelations exposing Justice Samuel Alito’s undisclosed luxury Alaskan fishing trip with billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, whose interests routinely come before the Supreme Court — including in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association Of America (CFSA), one of the most high-stakes cases this session.
Singer’s investment management firm, Elliott Investment Management, has called for dismantling the CFPB and the reforms put in place following the 2008 recession brought about by a reckless financial sector. Calling Dodd-Frank provisions “dysfunctional dictates,” Singer’s hedge fund conveniently invests in numerous financial industry interests that would benefit from a Supreme Court decision crippling the CFPB.
Justice Alito’s billionaire buddy stands to benefit mightily from CFPB v. CFSA — but he refused to recuse himself from the critical case.
Alito isn’t the only justice whose close ties to billionaire buddies’ special interests threaten to erode trust in our Supreme Court further. Last month, ProPublica revealed a close relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and the infamous right-wing Koch network. Not only did Justice Thomas fail to disclose his attendance at Koch-sponsored fundraising retreats, but organizers also leveraged his participation to draw donations.
The Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity is supporting the same CFPB v. CFSA case.
But that’s not all.
Koch network staff attorneys also represent the plaintiffs in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the critical upcoming case challenging the longstanding Chevron doctrine.
The Kochs have worked for years to overturn the Chevron deference and erode the administrative state — challenging the longstanding precedent in the courts, lobbying Congress to pass a law nullifying the decision, and funneling millions of dollars in grants to law professors providing the legal backing for Chevron’s challenge.
Compounding conflicts of interest are explicit. Justice Thomas must recuse himself from Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, as he should have done for CFPB v. CFSA.
The cozy relationships between the justices and these high-profile, politically active billionaires who routinely bring business before the high court pose an existential risk to our democracy and core institutions.
As we stated in our letter to Chief Justice Roberts, “the federal recusal statute requires disqualification whenever a justice’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ including circumstances within which the justice ‘has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.’”
There is no doubt that in both cases — CFPB v. CFSA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — personal bias exists, and Justice Alito’s and Thomas’s impartiality can undoubtedly be questioned.
But today, weeks into the term, these justices have failed to even address the calls for recusal — let alone step aside. We cannot let up. The stakes are too high.
We are asking once again that Chief Justice Roberts ensure that the members of his court who continually violate ethical standards and have personal bias in upcoming cases do the same. The choice is simple: clean up the Court or oversee the most significant decline in trust in one of America’s most sacred institutions.
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. |
Americans expect their judicial branch to serve as a fair arbiter of the law. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court matched that expectation, enjoying a unique level of trust with over two-thirds of Americans expressing faith in the institution.
But recent revelations exposing Supreme Court justices’ blatant disregard for ethics have culminated in a full-blown crisis, forcing public trust in the high court to plummet to record lows. From Justice Clarence Thomas’s undisclosed trips with GOP megadonors to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s shady real estate dealings, a clear culture of corruption has enveloped the court.
As scandals pile up and trust in the court sits at an all-time low, there is no shortage of suggested solutions – from congressional investigations to ethics reform. Calls for justices’ resignations continue to mount for the most egregious transgressions.
But with the first weeks of the Supreme Court session behind us and these same justices poised to issue decisions with wide-ranging implications, how can we re-instill trust in the short term?
Conflicted justices must recuse themselves from critical cases — especially those from which their billionaire buddies will benefit. If these justices refuse to recuse, they choose their wealthy pals over everyday Americans.
Ahead of the Court’s new term, Accountable.US partnered with over 40 watchdog and accountability organizations to demand that Chief Justice Roberts take control of his Court’s corruption crisis, urging him to ensure justices recuse themselves from critical cases where their billionaire friends stand to benefit.
Conflicted justices must recuse themselves from critical cases — especially those from which their billionaire buddies will benefit. If these justices refuse to recuse, they choose their wealthy pals over everyday Americans.
We highlighted recent revelations exposing Justice Samuel Alito’s undisclosed luxury Alaskan fishing trip with billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, whose interests routinely come before the Supreme Court — including in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association Of America (CFSA), one of the most high-stakes cases this session.
Singer’s investment management firm, Elliott Investment Management, has called for dismantling the CFPB and the reforms put in place following the 2008 recession brought about by a reckless financial sector. Calling Dodd-Frank provisions “dysfunctional dictates,” Singer’s hedge fund conveniently invests in numerous financial industry interests that would benefit from a Supreme Court decision crippling the CFPB.
Justice Alito’s billionaire buddy stands to benefit mightily from CFPB v. CFSA — but he refused to recuse himself from the critical case.
Alito isn’t the only justice whose close ties to billionaire buddies’ special interests threaten to erode trust in our Supreme Court further. Last month, ProPublica revealed a close relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and the infamous right-wing Koch network. Not only did Justice Thomas fail to disclose his attendance at Koch-sponsored fundraising retreats, but organizers also leveraged his participation to draw donations.
The Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity is supporting the same CFPB v. CFSA case.
But that’s not all.
Koch network staff attorneys also represent the plaintiffs in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the critical upcoming case challenging the longstanding Chevron doctrine.
The Kochs have worked for years to overturn the Chevron deference and erode the administrative state — challenging the longstanding precedent in the courts, lobbying Congress to pass a law nullifying the decision, and funneling millions of dollars in grants to law professors providing the legal backing for Chevron’s challenge.
Compounding conflicts of interest are explicit. Justice Thomas must recuse himself from Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, as he should have done for CFPB v. CFSA.
The cozy relationships between the justices and these high-profile, politically active billionaires who routinely bring business before the high court pose an existential risk to our democracy and core institutions.
As we stated in our letter to Chief Justice Roberts, “the federal recusal statute requires disqualification whenever a justice’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ including circumstances within which the justice ‘has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.’”
There is no doubt that in both cases — CFPB v. CFSA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — personal bias exists, and Justice Alito’s and Thomas’s impartiality can undoubtedly be questioned.
But today, weeks into the term, these justices have failed to even address the calls for recusal — let alone step aside. We cannot let up. The stakes are too high.
We are asking once again that Chief Justice Roberts ensure that the members of his court who continually violate ethical standards and have personal bias in upcoming cases do the same. The choice is simple: clean up the Court or oversee the most significant decline in trust in one of America’s most sacred institutions.
Americans expect their judicial branch to serve as a fair arbiter of the law. For decades, the U.S. Supreme Court matched that expectation, enjoying a unique level of trust with over two-thirds of Americans expressing faith in the institution.
But recent revelations exposing Supreme Court justices’ blatant disregard for ethics have culminated in a full-blown crisis, forcing public trust in the high court to plummet to record lows. From Justice Clarence Thomas’s undisclosed trips with GOP megadonors to Justice Neil Gorsuch’s shady real estate dealings, a clear culture of corruption has enveloped the court.
As scandals pile up and trust in the court sits at an all-time low, there is no shortage of suggested solutions – from congressional investigations to ethics reform. Calls for justices’ resignations continue to mount for the most egregious transgressions.
But with the first weeks of the Supreme Court session behind us and these same justices poised to issue decisions with wide-ranging implications, how can we re-instill trust in the short term?
Conflicted justices must recuse themselves from critical cases — especially those from which their billionaire buddies will benefit. If these justices refuse to recuse, they choose their wealthy pals over everyday Americans.
Ahead of the Court’s new term, Accountable.US partnered with over 40 watchdog and accountability organizations to demand that Chief Justice Roberts take control of his Court’s corruption crisis, urging him to ensure justices recuse themselves from critical cases where their billionaire friends stand to benefit.
Conflicted justices must recuse themselves from critical cases — especially those from which their billionaire buddies will benefit. If these justices refuse to recuse, they choose their wealthy pals over everyday Americans.
We highlighted recent revelations exposing Justice Samuel Alito’s undisclosed luxury Alaskan fishing trip with billionaire hedge fund manager Paul Singer, whose interests routinely come before the Supreme Court — including in Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) v. Community Financial Services Association Of America (CFSA), one of the most high-stakes cases this session.
Singer’s investment management firm, Elliott Investment Management, has called for dismantling the CFPB and the reforms put in place following the 2008 recession brought about by a reckless financial sector. Calling Dodd-Frank provisions “dysfunctional dictates,” Singer’s hedge fund conveniently invests in numerous financial industry interests that would benefit from a Supreme Court decision crippling the CFPB.
Justice Alito’s billionaire buddy stands to benefit mightily from CFPB v. CFSA — but he refused to recuse himself from the critical case.
Alito isn’t the only justice whose close ties to billionaire buddies’ special interests threaten to erode trust in our Supreme Court further. Last month, ProPublica revealed a close relationship between Justice Clarence Thomas and the infamous right-wing Koch network. Not only did Justice Thomas fail to disclose his attendance at Koch-sponsored fundraising retreats, but organizers also leveraged his participation to draw donations.
The Koch-funded Americans for Prosperity is supporting the same CFPB v. CFSA case.
But that’s not all.
Koch network staff attorneys also represent the plaintiffs in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, the critical upcoming case challenging the longstanding Chevron doctrine.
The Kochs have worked for years to overturn the Chevron deference and erode the administrative state — challenging the longstanding precedent in the courts, lobbying Congress to pass a law nullifying the decision, and funneling millions of dollars in grants to law professors providing the legal backing for Chevron’s challenge.
Compounding conflicts of interest are explicit. Justice Thomas must recuse himself from Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo, as he should have done for CFPB v. CFSA.
The cozy relationships between the justices and these high-profile, politically active billionaires who routinely bring business before the high court pose an existential risk to our democracy and core institutions.
As we stated in our letter to Chief Justice Roberts, “the federal recusal statute requires disqualification whenever a justice’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned,’ including circumstances within which the justice ‘has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party, or personal knowledge of disputed evidentiary facts concerning the proceeding.’”
There is no doubt that in both cases — CFPB v. CFSA and Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo — personal bias exists, and Justice Alito’s and Thomas’s impartiality can undoubtedly be questioned.
But today, weeks into the term, these justices have failed to even address the calls for recusal — let alone step aside. We cannot let up. The stakes are too high.
We are asking once again that Chief Justice Roberts ensure that the members of his court who continually violate ethical standards and have personal bias in upcoming cases do the same. The choice is simple: clean up the Court or oversee the most significant decline in trust in one of America’s most sacred institutions.
"U.S. officials are escalating deadly attacks on one of the poorest and most devastated nations in the Middle East, while recklessly pushing the U.S. toward a wider regional war with Iran," said one peace group.
This is a developing news story... Please check back for possible updates.
U.S. President Donald Trump announced Saturday that he had ordered the military to "launch decisive and powerful" action against the Houthis in war-torn Yemen, a glaring contradiction of what critics have called the Republican's "anti-war charade."
The U.S. bombing follows Trump redesignating the Houthis—also known as Ansar Allah—as a terrorist organization shortly after returning to office in January and comes just days after the group renewed a blockade on Israeli ships.
Shuaib Almosawa reported earlier this week for Drop Site News that "the military spokesperson for the Houthi-led government in Yemen on Tuesday announced the resumption of the naval blockade targeting Israeli ships traversing Yemen's waterways, following the expiration of its deadline for Israel to allow aid into the besieged Gaza Strip."
"In a televised statement broadcast by Almasirah TV channel, Houthi spokesperson, Brigadier General Yahya Saree, said that the blockade on Israeli ships now covers Yemen's waterways in the Red Sea, Arabian Sea, Gulf of Aden, and the Bab el-Mandeb Strait," according to Almosawa, a freelance journalist based in the Yemeni capital Sanaa.
Trump's lengthy Saturday post on his Truth Social platform did not explicitly mention Israel or Gaza. He said in part that "funded by Iran, the Houthi thugs have fired missiles at U.S. aircraft, and targeted our Troops and Allies. These relentless assaults have cost the U.S. and World Economy many BILLIONS of Dollars while, at the same time, putting innocent lives at risk."
Almosawa reported Saturday that at least nine civilians have been killed in Trump's new bombing campaign.
According to The Associated Press:
The Houthi media office said the U.S. strikes hit "a residential neighborhood" in Sanaa's northern district of Shouab. Sanaa residents said at least four airstrikes rocked the Eastern Geraf neighborhood in Shouab district, terrifying women and children in the area.
"The explosions were very strong," said Abdallah al-Alffi. "It was like an earthquake."
The United States, Israel, and Britain have previously hit Houthi-held areas in Yemen. Israel's military declined to comment.
Trump noted the bombings under former U.S. President Joe Biden, saying Saturday that his predecessor's "response was pathetically weak, so the unrestrained Houthis just kept going."
The U.S.-based peace group CodePink called out another part of Trump's post, saying that he "claimed that the Houthis have waged an 'unrelenting campaign of piracy, violence, and terrorism' against America and other ships, aircraft, and drones. However, he conveniently ignores critical context behind these actions. The Houthis' attacks on foreign cargo ships began in response to the ongoing genocide in Gaza, aimed at deterring the continuation of Israel's ongoing plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine."
"This campaign ceased when a cease-fire was finally put in place, only to resume due to Israel's ongoing violations of the cease-fire agreement," CodePink continued, noting Israeli strikes that just reportedly killed aid workers and journalists in Gaza. "Instead of confronting the root causes of this violence, U.S. officials are escalating deadly attacks on one of the poorest and most devastated nations in the Middle East, while recklessly pushing the U.S. toward a wider regional war with Iran."
"CodePink and its allies demand an immediate halt to U.S. military intervention in Yemen and across the Middle East," the group concluded. "We call on the government to prioritize peace and justice by immediately ending all military aid and funds to Israel and holding Israel accountable for breaking the cease-fire."
Members of Congress across the political spectrum have a history of criticizing U.S. bombings of Yemen throughout its decadelong civil war as illegal. Justin Amash, a libertarian former Michigan congressman, slammed the Saturday strikes on social media.
"I'll say it again. It is unconstitutional for President Trump to engage in acts of war in Yemen," Amash explained. "It doesn't matter how appropriate you think it is for the U.S. to take on Houthis or terrorists or anyone. Congress has not authorized war in Yemen. Engaging in war there is unlawful."
"It underscores that his critiques of white supremacy in the Age of Trump are perceived as threatening for one simple reason: He's right."
U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has faced a flood of condemnation since announcing on social media Friday that "South Africa's ambassador to the United States is no longer welcome in our great country."
"Ebrahim Rasool is a race-baiting politician who hates America and hates President Donald Trump," the secretary claimed. "We have nothing to discuss with him and so he is considered PERSONA NON GRATA."
In the post on X—the social media site owned by Elon Musk, Trump's South Africa-born billionaire adviser—Rubio linked to an article by the right-wing news site Breitbart about Rasool saying during a Friday webinar that the U.S. president is leading global a white supremacist movement.
As examples of Trump's "Make America Great Again" movement exporting its "supremacist assault," Rasool pointed to Musk elevating Nigel Farage, leader of the far-right Reform U.K. party, and Vice President JD Vance meeting with the leader of the neo-Nazi Alternative for Germany party.
Responding to Rubio on X, North Carolina State University assistant teaching professor Nathan Lean said: "Ebrahim Rasool is a man of genuine decency, moral courage, and is a friend. This makes me absolutely embarrassed to be an American. And it underscores that his critiques of white supremacy in the Age of Trump are perceived as threatening for one simple reason: He's right."
The Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC) similarly responded: "Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool is a principled leader who fought alongside Nelson Mandela against apartheid and has dedicated his career to democracy, interfaith cooperation, and justice. Baseless attacks like this only serve to divide. We stand by him and his lifelong commitment to building a more just and inclusive world."
Laila Al-Arian, executive producer of Al Jazeera's "Fault Lines," declared that "this administration is virulently and unabashedly Islamophobic, not even trying to hide how unhinged they are as they go after people for speech."
Rasool previously served as ambassador during the Obama administration and returned to the role shortly before Trump began his second term. Earlier this week, Semafor reported on his difficulties dealing with the current administration:
He has failed to secure routine meetings with State Department officials and key Republican figures since Trump took office in January, Washington and South African government insiders told Semafor, drawing frustration in Pretoria.
Rasool is likely to have been frozen out for his prior vocal criticism of Israel, a South African diplomat, based in Washington, told Semafor. "A man named Ebrahim, who is Muslim, with a history of pro-Palestine politics, is not likely to do well in that job right now," said one of them. While South Africa brought a case against Israel to the International Court of Justice in December 2023, accusing it of genocide in Gaza, Rasool is nevertheless widely considered to be among the government's most ardent pro-Palestine voices.
South African political analyst Sandile Swana told Al Jazeera on Friday that the "core of the dispute" with the diplomatic was the genocide case against U.S.-armed Israel. In the fight against apartheid, the U.S. "supported the apartheid regime," said Swana. "Rasool continues to point out the behaviour of the United States, even now is to support apartheid and genocide."
Other critics also pointed to the ongoing court battle over Israel's utter destruction of Gaza and mass slaughter of Palestinians.
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) national executive director Nihad Awad told Rubio: "Your declaration of Ambassador Ebrahim Rasool as persona non grata is a racist, Islamophobic, transparent act of retaliation for South Africa's opposition to Israel's genocide in Gaza."
Imraan Siddiqi, a former congressional candidate in Washington who now leads the state's branch of CAIR, said that "he stood up firmly against apartheid, so it's no coincidence you're punishing him in favor of an openly apartheid state."
South African President Cyril Ramaphosa's office said in a statement Saturday that "the presidency has noted the regrettable expulsion of South Africa's ambassador to the United States of America, Mr. Ebrahim Rasool.
"The presidency urges all relevant and impacted stakeholders to maintain the established diplomatic decorum in their engagement with the matter," the office added. "South Africa remains committed to building a mutually beneficial relationship with the United States of America."
The diplomat's expulsion follows Trump signing an executive order last month that frames South Africa's land law as "blatant discrimination" against the country's white minority. Writing about the order for Foreign Policy in Focus, Zeb Larson and William Minter noted that "his actions echo a long history of right-wing support in the United States for racism in Southern Africa, including mobilization of support for white Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) as well as the apartheid regime in South Africa."
##
"It's increasingly clear that we're entering a modern McCarthy moment," said the head of the ACLU.
U.S. President Donald Trump's campaign-like speech at the Department of Justice on Friday sparked a fresh wave of alarm over the Republican's attacks on his critics, disrespect for the rule of law, and plans for his second term.
Trump—who was convicted of 34 felonies in New York before returning to the White House—slammed his perceived opponents as "scum" and "thugs," called efforts to hold him accountable for alleged criminal activity "bullshit," and declared: "We will expel the rogue actors and corrupt forces from our government. We will expose... their egregious crimes and severe misconduct."
Trump's appearance with U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi and props promoting drug enforcement displayed his intent to remake the federal judiciary and fueled speculation that he will appoint Florida-based District Judge Aileen Cannon, who dismissed the classified documents case against him, to the nation's Supreme Court.
"Some of the most hallowed halls of justice in America were disgraced by the president of the United States, who has inappropriately installed his personal lawyers and other loyalists into leadership roles at the Department of Justice," said Lena Zwarensteyn, senior director of the fair courts program and an adviser at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.
"This reinforces what we knew: The independence of the department has been compromised. During his remarks, the president sought to undermine faith in our judicial system, attacked lawyers who support due process and the rule of law, and made it clear that he expects the attorney general and other leaders to use the full force and resources of the Justice Department to roll back our civil and human rights, target his enemies, and operationalize a worldview that perpetuates white supremacy," she said. "The anti-immigrant rhetoric that both he and the attorney general used was reprehensible and unacceptable."
Zwarensteyn stressed that "in our democracy, Justice Department lawyers—including the attorney general—are the people's lawyers, not the president's lawyers, and they have a sacred duty to enforce our nation's laws without prejudice and with an eye toward justice. The DOJ must be seen by the public—every member, from every community—as fair and independent arbiters of our legal system. Today's appearance at the DOJ by the president, during which he thanked and called out his appointees and personal lawyers, will further tarnish the public's trust of the department and undermine our democracy."
"This cannot be the way that the DOJ—the nation's signature agency for the enforcement of our federal civil rights laws—functions moving forward. We need a DOJ that is working for the people, not the president, and we demand better of our federal government and its leaders," she concluded, calling on the Senate to reject his nomination of Harmeet Dhillon to a key department post.
One of Trump's targets during the speech was Norm Eisen, who was involved with the president's first impeachment and previously served as White House special counsel for ethics and government reform, U.S. ambassador to the Czech Republic, and board chair of the watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Eisen responded with a video on social media, highlighting his work with State Democracy Defenders Action, which he co-founded.
ACLU executive director Anthony Romero said in a statement that "Ambassador Norman Eisen is a great American patriot, with an extraordinary career in public service. He has served the American people for decades inside and outside of government. He has worked to defend democracy at home and abroad."
"It is a sad day when the president of the United States personally attacks an individual of such character," Romero continued. "When charitable organizations like CREW, the ACLU, and others sue the federal government to uphold the law, we are playing a vital role in upholding American values."
The ACLU leader also warned that "it's increasingly clear that we’re entering a modern McCarthy moment. When the government is targeting a former ambassador, a legal permanent resident, law firms, and even universities and treating them like enemies of the state, it is a dark day for American democracy."
Since Trump returned to power in January, his administration has not only empowered billionaire Elon Musk to dismantle the federal government but also targeted news outlets, student protesters, and education institutions while signaling a willingness to ignore court orders—fueling calls for Congress to hit him with a historic third impeachment.