#politics

In just the past week, President Donald Trump has ordered defense companies to halt dividends and stock buybacks, and limited executive compensation to $5 million a year; ordered Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy $200 billion of mortgage-backed securities; ordered an array of energy firms to invest in Venezuelan oil infrastructure, called for a 10 percent cap on credit card interest rates; announced steps to ban institutional purchases of single-family homes; and opened a criminal investigation into Jerome Powell's handling of Federal Reserve building renovations in an attempt to influence monetary policy.

The governor's proposed 9.9% tax on income over $1 million (revenues starting 2029) is the most contentious part of the plan.

In March 2024, the Washington State Legislature adopted Initiative 2111 to prohibit state and local personal income taxes. The measure passed with support from all Republicans and a majority of Democrats in both chambers. A 9.9% tax on personal earnings conflicts with this law. The administration hasn't explained how this complies with I-2111's prohibition.

This would be Washington's 12th income tax attempt since 1932—voters rejected it 11 times. By asking approval for a millionaire-only tax, the administration establishes a graduated framework that would only need legislative modification afterward, not further voter approval.

We strongly oppose an income tax but appreciate Gov. Ferguson's promise to let voters decide. He proposes a constitutional amendment limiting it to income over $1 million, yet his proposal ignores existing constitutional limits. If adopted, this income tax will certainly expand in the future.

The budget shifts $569 million in Climate Commitment Act (CCA) revenue to fund the Working Families Tax Credit. The CCA's original allocation was meant for carbon reduction and infrastructure projects but will now go toward direct cash assistance for lower-income households.

The Declaration charged that George III "has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries." The Constitution corrected this flaw, granting life tenure and salary protection to safeguard the independence of federal judges and ensure their ability to serve as a counter-majoritarian check on the political branches. This arrangement, now in place for 236 years, has served the country well.

the words quoted above may be understood as a subtle rebuke of Trump, who spent much of the last year attacking the independence of the courts, such as by calling for the impeachment of federal judges whose rulings Trump did not like.

The Republican-led House Judiciary Committee released on Wednesday a transcript and video of a closed-door interview Smith gave about two investigations of Trump. The document shows how Smith during the course of a daylong deposition repeatedly defended the basis for pursuing indictments against Trump and vigorously rejected Republican suggestions that his investigations were politically motivated.

“The evidence here made clear that President Trump was by a large measure the most culpable and most responsible person in this conspiracy. These crimes were committed for his benefit. The attack that happened at the Capitol, part of this case, does not happen without him. The other co-conspirators were doing this for his benefit,” Smith said, bristling at a question about whether his investigations were meant to prevent Trump from reclaiming the presidency in 2024.

Although the Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on the issue, seven federal circuit courts have, and they all upheld the First Amendment right to record the police. Likewise, federal circuits have upheld the right to use vulgar language to oppose police without fear of retaliation, and to warn others of nearby police checkpoints or speed traps.

Kind of a shitty, misrepresented framing for this article, but those that bother to read may see that his positions are more nuanced and dare we say open-minded than the title might lead one to believe. Just like any media coverage of a politician, the media reports on the most extreme things you can probably find an inflates them. Yet if you see the guy speak in an interview or even bother to read beyond the sound bite you see he’s quite well informed.

During a lengthy interview on the Odd Lots podcast, Mamdani went into more detail about the kinds of deregulation he supported to enable more housing construction, such as ending parking minimums and two-stair requirements. He also criticized the New York City Council's practice of "member deference," whereby the Council will reject housing projects that are opposed by the councilmember whose district they'd be built in.

It would go much too far to say that Mamdani has had a deeper ideological shift to a more market-oriented perspective. He has continued to insist that rent freezes and faster permitting of new housing can coexist as complementary policies.

Using rules that exempt certain bills from the filibuster, Congress passed (and President Trump signed into law) the 330-page "reconciliation" bill which included tax breaks adding $500 billion to the deficit; new limits on Medicaid, SNAP, federal student loads, and green energy; and $171 billion for immigration enforcement, making ICE the largest law enforcement agency in the United States.

Those were perhaps the most controversial bills ever enacted, with senators voting yes on the reconciliation bill representing just 44% of the country's population. I don't think that's ever happened before and really captures the political climate. (For comparison, the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a. Obamacare, passed the Senate with the yea votes representing 62% of the country’s population.)

Do Trump and the Republican's just hate the earth? Apparently nobody even wants to drill for oil there. So why is this such a priority?

The U.S. Senate is about to vote on a resolution to toss ex-President Biden’s limits on oil and gas leasing in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and ensure nothing like it is imposed again. ... Congress and the Trump administration have already nullified the Biden limits on leasing in the Arctic Refuge. But the latest nullification method uses the Congressional Review Act. That means a future president could not impose substantially similar limits without an act of Congress.

Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., spoke against the resolution. An outdoorsman who has travelled to the region, Heinrich described the refuge as a breathtaking wilderness that’s vital for hundreds of species of birds and wildlife.

““The Arctic Refuge is the crown jewel of our National Wildlife Refuge System, and it belongs to every single American,” he said. “It deserves our protection.”

Market forces may, in effect, provide that protection. No major oil companies bid when the first Trump administration held an ANWR lease sale in 2021. A lease sale during the Biden administration, with more restrictive conditions imposed, drew no bids at all.

Presidents and congressional representatives from both parties have established a dangerous precedent of expanding Presidential power to the point of conducting full scale war without congressional approval. It is unconstitutional and a failure of the elected officials on both sides to uphold the constitution.

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Elissa Slotkin (D-MI), Senator Mark Kelly (D-AZ) and Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO-06), Chris Deluzio (D-PA-17), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH-02), and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA-06) released the following joint statement:  “We are veterans and national security professionals who love this country and swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. That oath lasts a lifetime, and we intend to keep it. No threat, intimidation, or call for violence will deter us from that sacred obligation.  “What’s most telling is that the President considers it punishable by death for us to restate the law. Our servicemembers should know that we have their backs as they fulfill their oath to the Constitution and obligation to follow only lawful orders. It is not only the right thing to do, but also our duty.  “But this isn’t about any one of us. This isn’t about politics. This is about who we are as Americans. Every American must unite and condemn the President’s calls for our murder and political violence. This is a time for moral clarity.  “In these moments, fear is contagious, but so is courage. We will continue to lead and will not be intimidated.   “Don’t Give Up the Ship!” 

"The public perception of this case is that it's about politics," US Judge Jeffrey Brown, a Trump appointee, wrote in the decision. "To be sure, politics played a role in drawing the 2025 Map. But it was much more than just politics. Substantial evidence shows that Texas racially gerrymandered the 2025 Map."

Privacy in general matters because you never know how your data might be used even if you’re a good guy.

On Thursday, a Skagit County Superior Court judge ruled that pictures taken by Flock cameras in the cities of Sedro-Woolley and Stanwood qualify as public records, and therefore must be released as required by the state's Public Records Act, court records show.

Flock's cameras, also called automated license plate readers, continuously and indiscriminately capture time- and location-stamped photos of any passing vehicles. Those images are then stored, and information about the vehicles, including their condition, make, model and license plate number, is added to a searchable database controlled by the customer.

Last week's Skagit County ruling could oblige the dozens of Washington police agencies which use Flock cameras, ostensibly to help them find stolen vehicles, crime suspects and missing people, to release the photos and data they collect — an outcome privacy advocates warned was possible.

The ruling also exacerbated concerns about potential misuse of Flock data, which swelled after University of Washington researchers released a report Oct. 21 showing federal immigration agencies like ICE and Border Patrol had accessed the data of at least 18 Washington cities, often without their police departments' knowing. The report raised concerns that the agencies might be using the data to target and arrest immigrants as part of Trump's immigration crackdown.

Amid a lobbying blitz and a flood of campaign cash, senators inserted language into this week’s emergency spending bill that eliminates rules designed to prevent food contamination and foodborne illnesses at farms and restaurants, according to legislative text reviewed by The Lever. The bill would also limit the development of rules to regulate ultra-processed foods, despite such foods being derided by the “Make America Healthy Again Movement,” championed by President Donald Trump’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. Last year saw a doubling of Americans who were hospitalized or killed by contaminated food outbreaks, according to data compiled by the U.S. Public Interest Research Group. In all, there are now “10 million cases of foodborne illnesses annually in the United States (and) these illnesses result in about 53,300 hospitalizations and over 900 deaths,” according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office. Despite that, the new funding bill blocks federal rules designed to trace sources of outbreaks, and to prevent contamination of produce. One provision in the legislation states that no funds “may be used to administer or enforce the ‘Requirements for Additional Traceability Records for Certain Foods,’ published on Nov. 21, 2022.” Originally proposed by the first Trump administration during the pandemic when COVID-19 posed severe risks of contaminating food systems, the Food and Drug Administration’s traceability rule aimed to establish new record-keeping standards for companies to track their food products across the supply chain. Those records could help regulators identify the point of origin in the event of a major disease outbreak or food contamination event. The rule applied to produce, seafood, and certain dairy products, such as cheese, and exempted small businesses from the rule.

The record showed that during Smith's investigation, his office sought limited phone toll data from eight senators and a member of the House in the days surrounding the Jan. 6 assault on the Capitol.

While such records would not involve the content of any phone calls or messages, multiple Republicans on the committee incorrectly claimed at the hearing the next day that Smith had "tapped" their phones or "spied" on them.

"The subpoena's limited temporal range is consistent with a focused effort to confirm or refute reports by multiple news outlets that during and after the January 6 riots at the Capitol, President Trump and his surrogates attempted to call Senators to urge them to delay certification of the 2020 election results," Breuer and Koski wrote. "In fact, by the time Mr. Smith's team conducted the toll records analysis, it had been reported that President Trump and Rudy Giuliani tried calling Senators for such a purpose, with one Senator releasing a voicemail from Mr. Giuliani."

A theme throughout the argument was a concern shared among several justices and the plaintiffs, summed up neatly by Gorsuch: “Congress, as a practical matter, can’t get this power back once it’s handed it over to the president,” the Trump appointed justice said. “It’s a one-way ratchet toward the gradual but continual accretion of power in the executive branch and away from the people’s elected representatives.”

“We will never get this power back if the government wins this case,” said Neal Katyal, who represented the small businesses challenging Trump’s initiative. “What president wouldn’t veto legislation to rein this power in and pull out the tariff power?”

Mike Johnson, the Speaker of the House and a representative from Louisiana, has offered several explanations for the delay in swearing in Grijalva—ranging from waiting until all votes were certified in the special election (despite not requiring Republicans who also won special elections to wait) to claiming the House needed to return from recess (despite precedent showing new members are typically sworn in the day after their election, regardless of whether the House is in session). Most recently, Johnson has said Grijalva will not be sworn in until the government reopens.

At the time, Johnson said he could not swear in Grijalva during a pro forma session: "The House is not on the floor doing business this week, but we will do it immediately early next week as soon as everyone returns to town. We have to have everybody here and we'll swear her in."

Not including the special election in Arizona's 7th Congressional District, there have been three other special elections this year to fill vacancies in the 119th Congress (2025-2027). Johnson swore in the three winners—Randy Fine (R-Fla.), Jimmy Patronis (R-Fla.), and James Walkinshaw (D-Va.)—of those special elections the day after their respective elections. Both Fine and Patronis were sworn in during a pro forma session.

During the 113th through the 118th Congresses, three other special election winners—Reps. Tom Tiffany (R-Wisc.), Mike Garcia (R-Calif.), and Kweisi Mfume (D-Md.)—were sworn in during pro forma sessions. All three of those special elections were to fill vacancies in the 116th Congress (2019-2021).