The Dictatorship
What Ilhan Omar symbolized when she was attacked — and why it drives Trump crazy
Despite the hand-wringing over the male loneliness crisisincel culture and videos of masked men playing war games in Midwestern cities, the real cultural battle in America is not a war over masculinity. Right now, our country is engaged in a battle over which kind of woman has the right to exist.
Nowhere has this been clearer recently than when Rep. Ilhan Omar was attacked Tuesday night at a north Minneapolis town hall. A man suddenly rushed toward Omar, shouting and squirting a dark liquid from a syringe. As he lunged at her, Omar stepped toward him, fist raised.
For the record, the man was swiftly tackled by security. But the video of the event shows how Omar instinctively refused to back down. Faced with the option of flight, she chose to fight. In that moment, she instantly displayed more power than any Himmler-esque sizzle reel of Customs and Border Protection commander Gregory Bovino. Omar reflexively acted tougher than those ICE agents spraying chemical irritants at unarmed protesters in Minnesota.
Rep. Ilhan Omar’s very existence seems to bother the president.
With the exception of former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, there are few people that President Donald Trump has gone out of his way to insult more than Ilhan Omar. Omar’s very existence seems to bother the president. He has called her “garbage” and told her to go back to her country. Around the time Omar was attacked on Tuesday, the president was addressing a rally in Clive, Iowawhere he again insulted her and called Somalia a country of crooks and pirates.
Omar bothers Trump, certainly. The president went so far as to suggest she had staged the assaultwhich is a classic misogynistic tactic — to claim the woman made it all up.
But think about why she gets under his skin. She exemplifies all that this administration cannot control: powerful, independent women.
In a 2021 interview with Tucker Carlson that resurfaced during the 2024 presidential campaignthen-Sen. JD Vance called Democrats (and corporate oligarchs) “a bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made, and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable, too.” His sneering words imply that women who are single and childless aren’t worth consideration.
This is not merely a degrading talking point. From the moment the Trump administration took office, it has attacked the definitions of who and what women can be and the rights we are allowed to have.
The Trump administration has attacked the definitions of who and what women can be and the rights we are allowed to have.
Consider: Trump’s Inauguration Day executive order “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government” attacks transgender women by restricting definitions of gender. While the order says it seeks to “protect women,” what it actually does is hurt both cisgender women and LGBTQ people by rescinding policies put in place to mandate and ensure equalityas well as ending health programs designed to ensure equity.
The Trump administration has also aggressively gone after reproductive rights, making cuts to federal programs that protect women’s health and using other measures to restrict access to contraceptives and abortion. The result has been a devastating rollback of the right to an abortion that has left the maternal health outcomes in this country worse than ever before.
And the assault doesn’t end there. The attacks on diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, efforts and the end of work-from-home policies have resulted in thousands of women, particularly Black women, being forced out of the workforce at a rate comparable to white women’s unemployment during the bleakest points of the Great Recession.
Trump’s international policies also hurt women. The dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development ended maternal health care programs. The Trump administration cut funding for programs that combat trafficking. Women and children account for two-thirds of global trafficking victims.
Even the aggressive fight over immigration unfolding in American cities uses women’s bodies as collateral. The conceit is to protect the “nice white” women from the violent immigrants. From the day Trump launched his first presidential campaign in 2015 with a speech in which he called Mexican men “rapists,” Trump has used the specter of white women’s bodies to justify virulently racist policies. But when these policies are established, they actually hurt women and families. Immigration and Customs Enforcement deportations are ripping apart families and have resulted in the detention of more than 3,800 children.
The message from this administration is clear, down to the sheath dress and heavy makeup: There is only one right way to be a woman.
In early January, the Heritage Foundation put out a paper outlining policies that would “protect the American family.” Those policies include removing funding for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program — the formal name for food stamps — and other federal measures designed to benefit single mothers. The Heritage proposal also calls for boosting marriage and birth rates and ending no-fault divorce. When no-fault divorce was established, it resulted in a significant decrease in reports of domestic violence and rates of suicide by women. Ending it is another way of revoking women’s freedom to leave.
The message from this administration is clear, down to the sheath dress and heavy makeup: There is only one right way to be a woman. Only one right way to exist in your body. And if you don’t comply, you become a target of violence.
Renee Good learned this the hard way. Video of her death recorded by the ICE agent who shot her captures his disdain when, after firing, he calls her a “f—ing bitch.” She was queer. She was what this administration fundamentally doesn’t want women to be, and that is free.
Part of what makes the resistance to immigration raids in Minnesota so powerful is that they are organized and led by the very types of women that this administration denigrates: single mothers, women of color, cat ladies and other women who refuse to comply with the meager versions of who and what we are allowed to be. The protests have been sustained by organized gangs of so-called ANTIFA wine moms, working women and other neighbors who have mounted an effective defense, down to their whistles. For this, they’ve been sneered at by administration officials and Fox News pundits, who mockingly call them AWFLs, or Affluent White Female Liberals.
Fox News host Jesse Watters talked about this women-led rebellion in Minnesota, asserting that “sometimes women have to be protected whether they like it or not.” Actually, that sums up how the administration’s approach isn’t about protection but compliance.
The Trump administration’s policies are not making America great again but are about making women compliant again. It’s about using policy and harassment to force women into a definition of womanhood that is easier to contain. A time and place where, as a country song suggests, “You line your lips and keep ’em closed.” A reality where you raise your own babies and look away when the state attacks someone else’s.
Which brings us back to the president’s least favorite member of Congress: Omar, stepping forward at a moment of assault, her fist raised to defend herself. She presented an image of a woman who will not be bound, who will not be complicit in her own oppression. A woman who will always and forever fight back.
Lyz Lenz is the author of the book “This American Ex-Wife.”She lives in Iowa and writes the newsletter “Men Yell at Me.”
BOSTON (AP) — A federal judge on Thursday halted President Donald Trump’s executive order that sought to create a federal voter list and limit who can receive a mail ballot.
U.S. District Court Judge Indira Talwani, who was nominated by Democratic President Barack Obama, sided with a coalition of nearly two dozen states that challenged the Republican president’s order in granting a summary judgment. Her ruling applies to this year’s midterm election cycle.
Plaintiffs argued in two lawsuitsboth filed in federal court in Boston, that Trump’s order should be found unconstitutional because the states and Congress, not the president, have the power to set election rules. The judge agreed, saying in her ruling that the provisions of Trump’s order seeking to create a federal list of eligible voters and using the U.S. Postal Service to determine who can receive a mail ballot are “legally void” because they “unconstitutionally violate the separation of powers.”
It was the second ruling in as many days against executive orders Trump has signed seeking oversight of the nation’s elections. A separate ruling Wednesday prohibited an executive order he had signed last year that would have required people to show documents proving their citizenship when registering to vote.
Order targeted mail voting, administration likely to appeal
Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes, whose state was among the plaintiffs, celebrated the court’s decision.
“Millions of independents, Republicans and Democrats across Arizona have voted by mail for decades,” she said in a statement, noting that nearly 80% of ballots in the state are cast by that method.
Mayes, a Democrat, singled out military families, voters in the state’s rural expanses and Native Americans who cast ballots from tribal lands.
“Donald Trump’s executive order targeted all of these voters,” she said. “But today, the courts affirmed what the Constitution makes clear: States run their elections, not the President.”
AP AUDIO: Federal judge halts Trump’s election executive order seeking to create a federal voter list
AP Washington correspondent Sagar Meghani reports President Trump has suffered a legal setback for a second straight day in his bid to get oversight of the nation’s elections.
The White House stood by Trump’s executive order and indicated the administration would appeal the ruling. The order, said spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, “lawfully protects our elections, and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail in its implementation.”
The administration, in its motions to dismiss the lawsuits challenging the order, argued that the motions were premature and that plaintiffs lacked the legal basis to bring their claim based on the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
But in an interim order before Thursday’s ruling, Talwani said the motions pertaining to this year’s election cycle were relevant: “In light of the EO’s specific deadlines over the next three months, and the reality that elections will be occurring throughout this period with the November 3, 2026 midterm occurring in just five months, postponing judicial review is impracticable and may inflict significant hardship on Plaintiffs,” she wrote. That order denied the Trump administration’s motion to dismiss the challenges.
Executive order sought to give Postal Service a central role in elections
Trump’s executive order, the second one aimed at elections during his second term, comes as he continues to raise the specter of widespread voting by noncitizens as a reason to change election rules. But states already have detailed processes aimed at keeping their voter rolls accurate, and voting by noncitizens has been shown to be rare. It also is a felony that can be punishable by deportation.
Trump issued his second order in March after a bill he supported to overhaul voting stalled in Congress. The order would have had the federal government — through the director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services and the commissioner of the Social Security Administration — create a “state citizenship list” of eligible voters. It then directed the U.S. Postal Service to deliver mail ballots only to those on the list.
Election officials argued that it was ripe for abuse and could cause chaos.
The Postal Service has published a proposed rule required by Trump’s executive order in the Federal Register. Among other things, the rule would not apply to primary elections or overseas ballots.
Postal Service workers have pushed back against the order, saying they are not equipped to determine who is eligible to vote in each state. After Trump issued his order last spring, the National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association said forcing its members into such a role “risks politicizing one of the nation’s most trusted public institutions.”
Maine Secretary of State Shenna Bellows, a Democrat whose state was among the plaintiffs, said the executive order illustrated how Trump was attempting to “abuse power in previously unthinkable ways” to interfere in elections.
She said it “strains credulity” to think the U.S. Postal Service could set up a workable system for pre-screening individual voters to determine whether they would be allowed to vote by mail, adding that it would be “a shocking violation of American constitutional rights.”
The Postal Service did not immediately respond Thursday to requests for comment.
Trump’s second election executive order faces multiple legal challenges
The lawsuit seeking summary judgment was filed by Democratic attorneys general representing 22 states and the District of Columbia. Also signing on were attorneys representing Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, which has a Republican attorney general.
The states also told the court that the move imposes a costly burden on election officials to comply and would spread fear about the possibility of prosecution. Stephen Pezzi, a lawyer for the Trump administration, had argued that no one would be prosecuted for violating the order.
The other lawsuit filed in Talwani’s court was by the League of Women Voters and other voting rights groups, which have sought a preliminary injunction against the executive order.
In yet another lawsuit filed against the executive order, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., in May agreed with the Trump administration that it was too early to block the order because it had yet to be implemented. That lawsuit was brought by Democratic and civil rights groups, which have appealed.
Since his 2020 presidential election loss to Democrat Joe BidenTrump has groundlessly claimed mail voting is rife with fraud and has launched a federal investigation into that year’s vote, even though repeated audits and investigationsincluding ones run by Republicansfound it was free of widespread fraud. Trump also has said he wants to “take over” election administration in Democratic areas.
___
Barrow reported from Atlanta and Hanna from Topeka, Kansas.
California voters will consider a controversial proposal in November to temporarily raise taxes on billionaires after the labor union backing the measure announced Thursday it would forge ahead despite pressure from critics to withdraw it.
The proposal, backed by the Service Employees International Union Healthcare Workers West, would impose a one-time 5% tax on individuals whose net worth exceeds $1 billion and who were living in the state as of Jan. 1, 2026. The goal is to generate $100 billion in revenue, mainly to fund the state’s Medicaid system after federal cuts.
“I am all in on this,” union President Dave Regan said on a Zoom call, adding that opponents of the proposal are “totally out of touch.”
Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom and many traditional allies of the union oppose the measure. They argue it is a temporary fix for an ongoing problem and that it would push the ultrawealthy to leave the state, taking the money they would contribute in income taxes with them. Newsom, who is considering a presidential run as he prepares to leave office in January, has generally opposed tax increases during his time as governor.
A coalition of healthcare, education and housing groups — including the California Medical Association and California School Boards Association — banded together last week to fight the tax.
“The dangerous wealth tax directly threatens vital funding for education and schools, healthcare and clinics, public safety, and infrastructure projects by making California’s revenue even more volatile,” the coalition said in a statement.
Brian Brokaw, a Newsom political adviser who is leading a political committee opposing the tax, said it would “make California’s biggest challenges worse.”
“Driving away the state’s sustainable tax base for a one-time grab is bad policy and an even worse deal for 40 million Californians who will be left holding the bag,” he said in a statement.
Under the proposal, the state would spend the money generated from the tax over multiple years. The nonpartisan Legislative Analyst’s Office estimates that the proposal would generate tens of billions of dollars in the first few years, but that income tax revenues would subsequently decline by hundreds of millions of dollars annually.
Many of the Silicon Valley tech moguls who oppose the measure have already moved their assets to other states or threatened to do so to avoid the possible tax. They have also spent millions to try to defeat it.
Since the proposal was announced in October, Google co-founder Sergey Brin has donated $82 million to a political committee called Building a Better California that backs a variety of initiatives designed to blunt the billionaire tax proposal. It has raised more than $118 million, counting Brin’s contributions, from fewer than a dozen donors.
California relies on its top 1% of earnersfor nearly half of its personal income tax revenue.
The union offered to scale back its proposal last week, asking Newsom to back a 2% tax on billionaires instead. But the governor’s office said the lower rate didn’t change his stance.
The proposed tax may have piqued the interest of many Democrats because it comes at a time when they are particularly concerned about affordability, income inequality and federal cutbacks to government programs, said Martin Gilens, a political science professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.
“There’s kind of a perfect storm that sort of bolsters preexisting inclinations to be sympathetic to the idea of raising taxes on the well-to-do,” he said.
But there’s a catch. Support for ballot initiatives often declines as the election nears, and if the measure passes, it’s likely to face legal challenges, Gilens said.
Since taking office one week ago, Bill Pulte, the acting director of national intelligence, has busied himself on social media posting flattering photos of President Donald Trump, trivia about a former counterintelligence agent and praising his current staff.
What the Trump loyalist with no intelligence experience has not done is address the public about his plans, or calm the unease and confusion inside the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, which is being described by top officials as “chaotic” amid firings of senior personnel with threats of more to come.
One image posted to the official X account of the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, apparently artificial intelligence-generated, features Trump raising a clenched fist in the air with two B-2 stealth bombers in the sky behind him. Another is an image of the president, his fist clenched, glowering as he stands behind the Oval Office’s Resolute Desk.
In another post, Pulte, who was expected to gut the workforce of the National Counterterrorism Center, instead declared the staff there “true professionals and American patriots” after he said he spent time with them, adding “it is a privilege to work beside them.”
And in an apparent attempt at levity, Pulte reposted a message reminding Americans that Tuesday was “National Typewriter Day” and informing them of the role that a former Army counterintelligence agent played.
“Fun CI fact,” the post reads. “Former Army CI Special Agent Leroy Anderson composed ‘The Typewriter’ on October 9, 1950.”
But Pulte’s arrival has sparked anxiety and fear among the office’s workforce, three former U.S. intelligence officials told MS NOW, granted anonymity to address a sensitive topic.
They said that a half dozen political appointees were removed from their posts and several dozen staffers were sent back to their home intelligence agencies. Beyond that, little else is known about Pulte’s plans.
Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, told MS NOW that his requests for more information from the office, known by the acronym ODNI, have been rebuffed.
“I’ve been calling over there all day and can’t get my calls returned,” said Himes.
He later said, “I spoke directly to their office of congressional affairs. They said they had nothing for me.”
“It seems like it’s totally chaotic at the Office of the Director of National Intelligence,” Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said on a podcast Wednesday. “There was word that there was going to be firings and then he said he changed his mind. We don’t know.”
Marc Polymeropoulos, a former senior CIA official and now an MS NOW contributor, said that staff in the intelligence community do not know what to think.
“Everyone is in the same boat and unsure of what is going on,” he said. “That said, there is no love lost for the DNI, as many believe that there is redundancy that does need to be cut.”
The other former U.S. intelligence officials said they agree that the Office of the Director of National Intelligence is in need of reform. The agency was created after a lack of information sharing among U.S. intelligence agencies played a role in the failure to stop the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. ODNI’s mission is to ensure that the country’s now 18 different intelligence agencies share information with one another.
But the former intelligence officials said Pulte is patently unqualified to design or carry out those reforms.
“As with many things Trump alights upon, there is a sliver of truth here but he goes about addressing it in the worst possible way,” a former senior U.S. intelligence official told MS NOW, granted anonymity over concerns of retaliation. “But mass firings without any kind of sense of what you are trying to accomplish is addressing it in the most ham-handed way.”
That former official, as well as Warner and Himes, have said they fear that Pulte’s mission is to use his position as the nation’s top intelligence official to help Trump interfere in the midterm elections in November.
Pulte, who simultaneously serves as the Trump administration’s top federal housing official as head of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, used government mortgage information to file several criminal referrals against Democrats whom Trump considered enemies, including Sen. Adam Schiff of California and New York State Attorney General Letitia James. None of Pulte’s referrals have resulted in criminal convictions.
One fear expressed by Warner and some former intelligence officials is that Pulte may try to falsely claim that his office has found evidence that foreign governments are secretly funding Democratic candidates.
One way he could do that, they say, is by falsely claiming foreign actors have hacked U.S. voting machines and altered vote totals in favor of Democrats. And Pulte and FBI agents could seize voting machines, ballots and election records in November — as Gabbard did in Fulton County, Georgia, last year at Trump’s behest — as part of voter fraud investigations that please the president.
“I have to tell you, I was extraordinarily concerned about the former director of national intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, interfering in our election,” Warner told NPR earlier this month. “The concerns I had with Tulsi Gabbard now, upon reflection, look small versus the concerns I have with Bill Pulte.”
David Rohde is the senior national security reporter for MS NOW and a two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting. Previously he was the senior executive editor for national security and law for NBC News.
- Congressional Black Caucus blasts Slotkin over her calls for new leadership in the House
- Why Belgium’s prime minister isn’t cheering on the Red Devils
- Key Democrats urge House to reject kids’ safety proposal
- World Cup match collides with Florida GOP bash
- A drag queen, a rainbow festival and a game FIFA can’t control
- Envoy’s pharaoh well party
- The world’s not big on the US. The World Cup might help.
- Judge halts executive order seeking to create federal voter list…
- Pete Buttigeig says he was targeted by false abuse allegation in Michigan
- The World Cup game the White House cares most about today
-
Politics1 year agoFormer ‘Squad’ members launching ‘Bowman and Bush’ YouTube show
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoLuigi Mangione acknowledges public support in first official statement since arrest
-
Politics1 year agoFormer Kentucky AG Daniel Cameron launches Senate bid
-
Uncategorized2 years ago
Bob Good to step down as Freedom Caucus chair this week
-
The Josh Fourrier Show2 years agoDOOMSDAY: Trump won, now what?
-
The Dictatorship1 year agoPete Hegseth’s tenure at the Pentagon goes from bad to worse
-
Politics1 year agoBlue Light News’s Editorial Director Ryan Hutchins speaks at Blue Light News’s 2025 Governors Summit
-
The Dictatorship10 months agoMike Johnson sums up the GOP’s arrogant position on military occupation with two words