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
Operation Withdrawal Scam
Aug 01, 2005
few days ago, the White House launched a new phase of its propaganda siege for the Iraq war.
The opening salvo came on July 27, when the commander of American forces in Iraq said that continuation of recent trends would make possible "some fairly substantial reductions" of U.S. troop levels in the spring and summer of 2006. Those reductions, Gen. George Casey proclaimed, will happen "if the political process continues to go positively and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going."
Gen. Casey's statement, which made big news, was the start of a media offensive likely to last for the next 15 months, until the congressional elections. We might call it Operation Withdrawal Scam.
Overall, the strategy is double-barreled: Keep killing in Iraq while hyping scenarios for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
President Bush has always made a show of rejecting calls for a pullout timetable. Yet the current media buzz about possible withdrawal from Iraq is not without precedent. Some appreciable publicity along similar lines came last fall -- from a journalistic source who has eagerly done some of Karl Rove's dirtiest work.
"Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year," Robert Novak wrote in a column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. "This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go."
Novak's column did not stop there. With a matter-of-fact tone, it reported: "The military will tell the [U.S. presidential] election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials."
That assessment from "well-placed sources in the administration," trumpeted by Novak's column at the start of the fall campaign, received some media pickup at the time. And Novak didn't let it rest. He followed up with an Oct. 7 piece that asserted: "Nobody from the administration has officially rejected my column." In no uncertain terms, Rove's most useful columnist stood behind his claim that Bush's policymakers believed "U.S. troops must leave Iraq" in 2005.
While the Bush campaign denied Novak's claim, it was helpful to the president. He continued his resolute warrior posturing, while the deniable "leak" falsely signaled flexibility and fresh thinking that could lead to a U.S. exit strategy for the Iraq war.
Still pledging not to "cut and run," the White House can gain from spin that indicates withdrawal is much more likely and more imminent than previously believed. A double-barreled approach -- continuing the war effort while suggesting that a pullout is on the horizon -- aims to provide a wishful Rorschach blob to commentators and voters.
During the next 15 months, political benefits will beckon for the Bush administration to keep saying things that seem to foreshadow a drastic reduction of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Floated withdrawal scenarios will be part of an enormous hoax.
As the war drags on and U.S. public opinion polls show widespread unhappiness about it, Republicans in Congress will be eager for media coverage to become more reassuring before next year's November elections. That's where Operation Withdrawal Scam comes in.
The Bush administration has already boosted or lowered U.S. troop strength in Iraq for military or political purposes. And it has acknowledged plans to make such adjustments again later this year. "Any troop reduction isn't likely to start soon; in fact, overall troop numbers are likely to go up somewhat before they begin to head down," the Wall Street Journal reported on July 28, in connection with a referendum on an Iraqi constitution set for October and national elections scheduled for December.
Spinners in the White House must have felt gratified that the main headline over the Journal's front-page article was notably upbeat: "U.S. Opens Door for Big Pullback in Iraq Next Year."
That "big pullback" is actually quite a longshot. But even such an unlikely occurrence would not necessarily mean less American involvement in the killing of Iraqi people. If American troop numbers drop next summer in Iraq, the subsequent U.S. military role there could be as deadly as ever -- or even worse.
Bush administration officials, and their enablers in the news media, say that Iraqis will take up burdens now being shouldered by the occupiers. Such "Iraqization" could change just the style of carnage -- like the Vietnamization that occurred in the last several years of the Vietnam War.
During a much-heralded visit to Guam in July 1969, President Nixon announced that the U.S. government would "furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility for its defense."
Such proclaimed doctrines of replacing American soldiers with natives are real crowd-pleasers in the USA. But such measures may do nothing to reduce the amount of blood on Uncle Sam's hands. Three years after Nixon's mid-1969 pronouncement, the U.S. troop levels in Vietnam had fallen to 69,000. Yet during the three-year withdrawal of nearly half a million American soldiers, the tonnage rate of U.S. bombs falling on Vietnam actually increased.
No matter how many troops it has on the ground in Iraq, the Pentagon will be set up for a major role there. A recent letter in the New York Times shed more light on the Bush administration's intentions than hours of network punditry. "My brother-in-law just returned from a stint in Iraq with the Minnesota Air National Guard," wrote Ronald M. Asher II. "Although he couldn't tell me where in Iraq he was stationed, he did say that the level and type of construction going on at the air base convinced him that the United States military planned on being there for a very long time."
Operation Withdrawal Scam has begun. It will be a long maneuver.
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.
Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback with a new afterword about the Gaza war in autumn 2024.
few days ago, the White House launched a new phase of its propaganda siege for the Iraq war.
The opening salvo came on July 27, when the commander of American forces in Iraq said that continuation of recent trends would make possible "some fairly substantial reductions" of U.S. troop levels in the spring and summer of 2006. Those reductions, Gen. George Casey proclaimed, will happen "if the political process continues to go positively and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going."
Gen. Casey's statement, which made big news, was the start of a media offensive likely to last for the next 15 months, until the congressional elections. We might call it Operation Withdrawal Scam.
Overall, the strategy is double-barreled: Keep killing in Iraq while hyping scenarios for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
President Bush has always made a show of rejecting calls for a pullout timetable. Yet the current media buzz about possible withdrawal from Iraq is not without precedent. Some appreciable publicity along similar lines came last fall -- from a journalistic source who has eagerly done some of Karl Rove's dirtiest work.
"Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year," Robert Novak wrote in a column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. "This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go."
Novak's column did not stop there. With a matter-of-fact tone, it reported: "The military will tell the [U.S. presidential] election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials."
That assessment from "well-placed sources in the administration," trumpeted by Novak's column at the start of the fall campaign, received some media pickup at the time. And Novak didn't let it rest. He followed up with an Oct. 7 piece that asserted: "Nobody from the administration has officially rejected my column." In no uncertain terms, Rove's most useful columnist stood behind his claim that Bush's policymakers believed "U.S. troops must leave Iraq" in 2005.
While the Bush campaign denied Novak's claim, it was helpful to the president. He continued his resolute warrior posturing, while the deniable "leak" falsely signaled flexibility and fresh thinking that could lead to a U.S. exit strategy for the Iraq war.
Still pledging not to "cut and run," the White House can gain from spin that indicates withdrawal is much more likely and more imminent than previously believed. A double-barreled approach -- continuing the war effort while suggesting that a pullout is on the horizon -- aims to provide a wishful Rorschach blob to commentators and voters.
During the next 15 months, political benefits will beckon for the Bush administration to keep saying things that seem to foreshadow a drastic reduction of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Floated withdrawal scenarios will be part of an enormous hoax.
As the war drags on and U.S. public opinion polls show widespread unhappiness about it, Republicans in Congress will be eager for media coverage to become more reassuring before next year's November elections. That's where Operation Withdrawal Scam comes in.
The Bush administration has already boosted or lowered U.S. troop strength in Iraq for military or political purposes. And it has acknowledged plans to make such adjustments again later this year. "Any troop reduction isn't likely to start soon; in fact, overall troop numbers are likely to go up somewhat before they begin to head down," the Wall Street Journal reported on July 28, in connection with a referendum on an Iraqi constitution set for October and national elections scheduled for December.
Spinners in the White House must have felt gratified that the main headline over the Journal's front-page article was notably upbeat: "U.S. Opens Door for Big Pullback in Iraq Next Year."
That "big pullback" is actually quite a longshot. But even such an unlikely occurrence would not necessarily mean less American involvement in the killing of Iraqi people. If American troop numbers drop next summer in Iraq, the subsequent U.S. military role there could be as deadly as ever -- or even worse.
Bush administration officials, and their enablers in the news media, say that Iraqis will take up burdens now being shouldered by the occupiers. Such "Iraqization" could change just the style of carnage -- like the Vietnamization that occurred in the last several years of the Vietnam War.
During a much-heralded visit to Guam in July 1969, President Nixon announced that the U.S. government would "furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility for its defense."
Such proclaimed doctrines of replacing American soldiers with natives are real crowd-pleasers in the USA. But such measures may do nothing to reduce the amount of blood on Uncle Sam's hands. Three years after Nixon's mid-1969 pronouncement, the U.S. troop levels in Vietnam had fallen to 69,000. Yet during the three-year withdrawal of nearly half a million American soldiers, the tonnage rate of U.S. bombs falling on Vietnam actually increased.
No matter how many troops it has on the ground in Iraq, the Pentagon will be set up for a major role there. A recent letter in the New York Times shed more light on the Bush administration's intentions than hours of network punditry. "My brother-in-law just returned from a stint in Iraq with the Minnesota Air National Guard," wrote Ronald M. Asher II. "Although he couldn't tell me where in Iraq he was stationed, he did say that the level and type of construction going on at the air base convinced him that the United States military planned on being there for a very long time."
Operation Withdrawal Scam has begun. It will be a long maneuver.
Norman Solomon
Norman Solomon is the national director of RootsAction.org and executive director of the Institute for Public Accuracy. His latest book, War Made Invisible: How America Hides the Human Toll of Its Military Machine, was published in paperback with a new afterword about the Gaza war in autumn 2024.
few days ago, the White House launched a new phase of its propaganda siege for the Iraq war.
The opening salvo came on July 27, when the commander of American forces in Iraq said that continuation of recent trends would make possible "some fairly substantial reductions" of U.S. troop levels in the spring and summer of 2006. Those reductions, Gen. George Casey proclaimed, will happen "if the political process continues to go positively and if the development of the security forces continues to go as it is going."
Gen. Casey's statement, which made big news, was the start of a media offensive likely to last for the next 15 months, until the congressional elections. We might call it Operation Withdrawal Scam.
Overall, the strategy is double-barreled: Keep killing in Iraq while hyping scenarios for withdrawal of U.S. troops.
President Bush has always made a show of rejecting calls for a pullout timetable. Yet the current media buzz about possible withdrawal from Iraq is not without precedent. Some appreciable publicity along similar lines came last fall -- from a journalistic source who has eagerly done some of Karl Rove's dirtiest work.
"Inside the Bush administration policymaking apparatus, there is strong feeling that U.S. troops must leave Iraq next year," Robert Novak wrote in a column that appeared on Sept. 20, 2004. "This determination is not predicated on success in implanting Iraqi democracy and internal stability. Rather, the officials are saying: Ready or not, here we go."
Novak's column did not stop there. With a matter-of-fact tone, it reported: "The military will tell the [U.S. presidential] election winner there are insufficient U.S. forces in Iraq to wage effective war. That leaves three realistic options: Increase overall U.S. military strength to reinforce Iraq, stay with the present strength to continue the war, or get out. Well-placed sources in the administration are confident Bush's decision will be to get out. They believe that is the recommendation of his national security team and would be the recommendation of second-term officials."
That assessment from "well-placed sources in the administration," trumpeted by Novak's column at the start of the fall campaign, received some media pickup at the time. And Novak didn't let it rest. He followed up with an Oct. 7 piece that asserted: "Nobody from the administration has officially rejected my column." In no uncertain terms, Rove's most useful columnist stood behind his claim that Bush's policymakers believed "U.S. troops must leave Iraq" in 2005.
While the Bush campaign denied Novak's claim, it was helpful to the president. He continued his resolute warrior posturing, while the deniable "leak" falsely signaled flexibility and fresh thinking that could lead to a U.S. exit strategy for the Iraq war.
Still pledging not to "cut and run," the White House can gain from spin that indicates withdrawal is much more likely and more imminent than previously believed. A double-barreled approach -- continuing the war effort while suggesting that a pullout is on the horizon -- aims to provide a wishful Rorschach blob to commentators and voters.
During the next 15 months, political benefits will beckon for the Bush administration to keep saying things that seem to foreshadow a drastic reduction of the U.S. troop presence in Iraq. Floated withdrawal scenarios will be part of an enormous hoax.
As the war drags on and U.S. public opinion polls show widespread unhappiness about it, Republicans in Congress will be eager for media coverage to become more reassuring before next year's November elections. That's where Operation Withdrawal Scam comes in.
The Bush administration has already boosted or lowered U.S. troop strength in Iraq for military or political purposes. And it has acknowledged plans to make such adjustments again later this year. "Any troop reduction isn't likely to start soon; in fact, overall troop numbers are likely to go up somewhat before they begin to head down," the Wall Street Journal reported on July 28, in connection with a referendum on an Iraqi constitution set for October and national elections scheduled for December.
Spinners in the White House must have felt gratified that the main headline over the Journal's front-page article was notably upbeat: "U.S. Opens Door for Big Pullback in Iraq Next Year."
That "big pullback" is actually quite a longshot. But even such an unlikely occurrence would not necessarily mean less American involvement in the killing of Iraqi people. If American troop numbers drop next summer in Iraq, the subsequent U.S. military role there could be as deadly as ever -- or even worse.
Bush administration officials, and their enablers in the news media, say that Iraqis will take up burdens now being shouldered by the occupiers. Such "Iraqization" could change just the style of carnage -- like the Vietnamization that occurred in the last several years of the Vietnam War.
During a much-heralded visit to Guam in July 1969, President Nixon announced that the U.S. government would "furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility for its defense."
Such proclaimed doctrines of replacing American soldiers with natives are real crowd-pleasers in the USA. But such measures may do nothing to reduce the amount of blood on Uncle Sam's hands. Three years after Nixon's mid-1969 pronouncement, the U.S. troop levels in Vietnam had fallen to 69,000. Yet during the three-year withdrawal of nearly half a million American soldiers, the tonnage rate of U.S. bombs falling on Vietnam actually increased.
No matter how many troops it has on the ground in Iraq, the Pentagon will be set up for a major role there. A recent letter in the New York Times shed more light on the Bush administration's intentions than hours of network punditry. "My brother-in-law just returned from a stint in Iraq with the Minnesota Air National Guard," wrote Ronald M. Asher II. "Although he couldn't tell me where in Iraq he was stationed, he did say that the level and type of construction going on at the air base convinced him that the United States military planned on being there for a very long time."
Operation Withdrawal Scam has begun. It will be a long maneuver.
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
Trump-Appointed Judge Rules White House Can't Retaliate Against AP Over Gulf of Mexico Dispute
A spokesperson for the news agency said the ruling "affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation."
Apr 08, 2025
A federal judge appointed by U.S. President Donald Trump during his first term ruled Tuesday that the White House cannot cut off The Associated Press' access to the Republican leader because of the news agency's refusal to use his preferred name for the Gulf of Mexico.
"About two months ago, President Donald Trump renamed the Gulf of Mexico the Gulf of America. The Associated Press did not follow suit. For that editorial choice, the White House sharply curtailed the AP's access to coveted, tightly controlled media events with the president," wrote Judge Trevor N. McFadden, who is based in Washington, D.C.
Specifically, according to the news outlet, "the AP has been blocked since February 11 from being among the small group of journalists to cover Trump in the Oval Office or aboard Air Force One, with sporadic ability to cover him at events in the East Room."
The AP responded to the restrictions by suing White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Deputy Chief of Staff Taylor Budowich, and Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, "seeking a preliminary injunction enjoining the government from excluding it because of its viewpoint," McFadden noted in his 41-page order. "Today, the court grants that relief."
The judge explained that "this injunction does not limit the various permissible reasons the government may have for excluding journalists from limited-access events. It does not mandate that all eligible journalists, or indeed any journalists at all, be given access to the president or nonpublic government spaces. It does not prohibit government officials from freely choosing which journalists to sit down with for interviews or which ones' questions they answer. And it certainly does not prevent senior officials from publicly expressing their own views."
"The court simply holds that under the First Amendment, if the government opens its doors to some journalists—be it to the Oval Office, the East Room, or elsewhere—it cannot then shut those doors to other journalists because of their viewpoints," he stressed. "The Constitution requires no less."
McFadden blocked his own order from taking effect before next week, giving the Trump administration time to respond or appeal. Still, AP spokesperson Lauren Easton said Tuesday that "we are gratified by the court's decision."
"Today’s ruling affirms the fundamental right of the press and public to speak freely without government retaliation," Easton added. "This is a freedom guaranteed for all Americans in the U.S. Constitution."
NPR reported that "an AP reporter and photographer were turned back from joining a reporting pool on a presidential motorcade early Tuesday evening, almost two hours after the decision came down."
ACLU Sues to Block Trump's Alien Enemies Act Deportations
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the lawsuit asserts.
Apr 08, 2025
The ACLU and allied groups filed a lawsuit Tuesday in a bid to stop U.S. President Donald Trump from "abusing the Alien Enemies Act"—an 18th-century law only ever invoked during wartime—to deport foreign nationals to a prison in El Salvador with allegedly rampant human rights abuses.
According to a statement, the ACLU and New York Civil Liberties Union, "in partnership with the Legal Aid Society whose clients are plaintiffs in the litigation, filed an emergency lawsuit this morning in federal court in New York to again halt removals under the Alien Enemies Act (AEA) for people within that court's judicial district."
The lawsuit—which names Trump, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and other officials as plaintiffs—follows Monday's 5-4 U.S. Supreme Court
ruling that largely reversed a lower court's decision blocking the deportation of Venezuelan nationals to the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT) prison in El Salvador.
BREAKING: Today the NYCLU and @aclu.org filed an emergency lawsuit to ensure the Trump administration does not deport people under the Alien Enemies Act without due process. No one should face the horrifying prospect of lifelong imprisonment without a fair hearing, let alone in another country.
— NYCLU (@nyclu.org) April 8, 2025 at 11:00 AM
While the high court said the Trump administration can resume deportations under the 1798 AEA, the justices included the caveat that people subject to such removals must be afforded due process under the law.
"The AEA has only ever been a power invoked in time of war, and plainly only applies to warlike actions," the ACLU argued in the new lawsuit. "It cannot be used here against nationals of a country—Venezuela—with whom the United States is not at war, which is not invading the United States, and which has not launched a predatory incursion into the United States."
Not only has Trump sent foreign nationals—including at least one wrongfully deported man—to CECOT, he has also floated the idea of sending U.S. citizens there at the invitation of right-wing Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele, who is scheduled to visit the White House next week.
This, despite widespread reports of serious human rights violations at the facility and throughout El Salvador in general.
ICE-IRS Deal Blasted as 'Bad Policy. Bad Economics. And Cruel.'
"The administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk," said one critic.
Apr 08, 2025
Migrant and privacy rights advocates this week are sounding the alarm over a deal signed by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to hand sensitive taxpayer data over to immigration authorities as part of U.S. President Donald Trump's mass deportation effort.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) have entered into a memorandum of understanding (MOU) "to establish a clear and secure process to support law enforcement's efforts to combat illegal immigration," a Treasury Department spokesperson told Fox News, which reported on the development after a late Monday court filing.
"The bases for this MOU are founded in long-standing authorities granted by Congress, which serve to protect the privacy of law-abiding Americans while streamlining the ability to pursue criminals," the spokesperson said. "After four years of [former President] Joe Biden flooding the nation with illegal aliens, President Trump's highest priority is to ensure the safety of the American people."
After weeks of warnings about a potential data transfer deal, it was revealed as part of a legal case brought by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, Immigrant Solidarity DuPage, Inclusive Action for the City, and Somos Un Pueblo Unido, which are represented by Alan Morrison, Public Citizen Litigation Group, and Raise the Floor Alliance.
"Taxpayer privacy is a cornerstone of the U.S. tax system," Public Citizen co-president Lisa Gilbert said in a Tuesday statement. "This move by the IRS is an unprecedented breach of taxpayer privacy laws and confidentiality, which has been respected by both political parties for decades."
"The Trump administration's terror tactic of using immigrants' tax data against them will drive some of our most vulnerable communities further underground," she warned. "If this taxpayer information isn't safe from the prying eyes of the Trump administration's goons, then no one's taxpayer information is safe."
Juliette Kayyem, a former Department of Homeland Security official now lecturing at the Harvard Kennedy School, wrote on social media: "Bad policy. Bad economics. And cruel. They are so desperate to get their deportation numbers up that they are doing this."
Multiple members of Congress also blasted the move. Rep. Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said that "the IRS should NEVER be weaponized to target immigrant families. This backdoor deal with ICE shatters decades of trust—and may be illegal."
"I will fight this with everything I've got," vowed Gomez, a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. "No one should fear that filing taxes puts their family at risk."
Congressman Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) was among the critics who emphasized that the MOU doesn't just affect migrants.
"First things first: The impact of folks not filing their taxes because they are afraid of deportation would be detrimental to our economy," he explained. "Two: Immigrants pay taxes but do not benefit from the social programs that most taxpayers do. Three: Everyone should be concerned about the privacy implications here. This sets the precedent that the federal government can arbitrarily share your personal information with law enforcement. And it's just wrong."
Rep. Juan Vargas (D-Calif.) similarly said: "For decades, undocumented immigrants have trusted the IRS when it encouraged them to file. They've paid taxes in good faith, contributing nearly $100 BILLION per year and supporting social services they can't even access. Not only is this a total betrayal, but it's also illegal. We'll fight this."
The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy also highlighted that "turning the IRS away from its job (collecting taxes) to instead focus on mass deportation efforts will mean less tax revenue collected on top of the harm done to families and communities affected by deportations."
In response to The New York Times' reporting on the deal, American Immigration Council senior fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick pointed out on social media that the MOU "is, on its face, limited to criminal investigations (not deportation investigations)."
"There are many questions raised about this new [agreement], which seems to violate previous understandings of the laws requiring IRS not to share taxpayer information," he continued. "But at its heart it does not seem that the MOU permits ICE to ask for taxpayer data for deportation reasons."
"It seems primarily to be aimed at criminal investigations for willful failure to depart after the issuance of a removal order, a crime on the books which (until now) is virtually never prosecuted," Reichlin-Melnick added. "Despite the fact that this MOU is limited only to criminal law enforcement, it will likely have a chilling effect on undocumented taxpayers."
How the Trump administration actually proceeds remains to be seen. The court filing says no information has been shared between the agenices yet—but the deal comes as part of a wave of anti-immigrant policies and rhetoric from the president and his officials.
"With the Supreme Court greenlighting Trump's use of the Alien Enemies Act and the administration now gaining access to sensitive IRS data, we continue to slip into a new era of authoritarianism in America," Beatriz Lopez, co-executive director of the Immigration Hub, said a Tuesday statement "The digital and physical dragnets that Trump is building mean millions of immigrants—many of whom have followed the law and paid their taxes for decades—are now vulnerable to indiscriminate brutality and quiet erasure with little opportunity for redress."
Lopez stressed that "undocumented immigrants already contribute billions to our economy—often paying a higher effective tax rate than 55 major corporations and some of the wealthiest individuals in America. By weaponizing private taxpayer data, the administration is shattering what little trust remains between immigrant communities and the government and putting critical revenue streams at risk."
"Coupled with Trump's xenophobic tariff threats and a $350 billion demand to fund mass disappearances and deportations, this is more than an attack on immigrants—it's a calculated effort to destabilize the country and remake its image," she concluded. "Congress must reject this funding and the authoritarian playbook behind it. This is not policy. It's punishment."
Most Popular
We cover the issues the corporate media never will.
Please support our journalism.