Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Democrats to confront Trump budget director Russ Vought about his ‘stone cold silence’

Published

on

When White House budget director Russell Vought appears before lawmakers on Wednesday, he will almost certainly face questions about a ballooning Pentagon budgeta special war-funding request and an extended Homeland Security shutdown. But Democrats also plan to press him on an issue closer to the Capitol: why he has spent months dodging their questions altogether.

Vought is set to testify Wednesday before the House Budget Committee and again before the Senate’s budget panel on Thursday. It’s a long-awaited chance for Democrats eager to question him on several fronts — including the cost of the Iran war, cuts to health care spending, a demoralized federal workforce and what the government’s own watchdog has described as the illegal impoundment of federal funds.

Lawmakers also have a growing to-do list that involves Vought, including a war supplemental for President Donald Trump’s military campaign in Iran and a reconciliation bill that would fund immigration enforcement agencies. Congress is also supposed to adopt a budget, though that may slip after the president’s budget was weeks late and omitted any information about projected federal debts and deficits.

But Democrats see Vought as “missing and reclusive,” ignoring their questions for months, the Budget Committee’s top Democrat, Rep. Brendan Boyle of Pennsylvania, told MS NOW. Vought didn’t testify before the committee last year, a break with tradition. And written questions to Vought have been met with “stone cold silence,” Boyle said.

In JanuaryHouse Democrats pressed Vought for answers on the administration’s health care plans, its compliance with congressionally approved funding laws, its attempt to withhold nutrition aid during last year’s government shutdown, and plans for federal layoffs.

“He sent us not one word in response,” Boyle said. “And in doing so, it shows their contempt for the United States Congress, and it shows their contempt for our constitutional system.”

Boyle told MS NOW he plans to introduce legislation to legally require Office of Management and Budget directors to testify before the House Budget Committee, after Vought didn’t do so last year. He also said he aims to require that the OMB director respond to members of the committee.

Democrats didn’t hear back from Vought about testifying to the committee until March, when Boyle displayed a picture of Vought as a missing child on a milk carton. That prompted Vought to respond on X that, “I am coming to testify on April 15. You should get up to speed.”

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington, R-Texas, had previously assured reporters that Vought would testify in 2026, but Boyle said Democrats hadn’t gotten confirmation until the milk carton incident.

“That’s what shamed him into it,” Boyle said of Vought.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee and a member of the Budget Committee, also said Vought had not been responsive to questions from Democratic members of the Senate, including on the cost of the Iran war. She said she’d press Vought at Thursday’s hearing on whether he would distribute funds appropriated by Congress.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., said he’d ask Vought questions “around this ‘traumatizing the federal workforce’ stuff,” and whether DOGE wasted money by firing employees who needed to be rehired later. And Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., said he’d ask Vought “how he’s not a corrupt stooge of the fossil fuel industry.”

Senate Republicans, meanwhile, say they haven’t been pressing Vought hard for answers. For example, the missing debt and deficit data in the budget proposal — which Maya MacGuineas, president of the fiscally conservative Committee for a Responsible Budget called “an astonishing lack of information — hasn’t prompted pushback from conservative lawmakers.

Sen. Rick Scott, R-Fla., said he was unbothered by Vought’s decision to leave out the debt data in the president’s budget request.

“Nobody looks at it anyway,” Scott told MS NOW. “It’s just for you guys to write something.”

Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, said he’d ask Vought “to give a great update on the progress that we’ve made” in reducing the deficit. When asked about the missing debt and deficit information, Moreno said he didn’t know about it.

“I haven’t had a chance to see the whole thing, to be honest with you, so I’ve got to see what that’s all about,” Moreno told MS NOW.

In prepared remarks obtained by PunchbowlVought reportedly plans to say that, “when President Trump took office, the nation was facing financial catastrophe under the failed leadership of the Biden Administration and decades of status quo spending strangling our nation.”

But federal spending, according to the Treasury Departmenthas increased under Trump. And the federal deficit is going up. (The federal deficit was $1.8 trillion in fiscal 2025 and is projected to be $1.9 trillion in fiscal 2026according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

Republicans have also been patient with the lack of information about the cost of the Iran war.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., told reporters Tuesday he still hasn’t seen a request and doesn’t know how much it will cost.

“The only thing I think I’ve seen is what you guys report,” Thune told reporters.

Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., told reporters he’d want to scour the funding request’s details before he decides if he’ll support it.

But when pressed whether the administration had answered his questions on the topic, Johnson made it clear he hadn’t focused on those details yet.

“Haven’t really asked,” he said.

Jack Fitzpatrick covers Congress for MS NOW. He previously reported for Bloomberg Government, Morning Consult and National Journal. He has bachelor’s and master’s degrees from Arizona State University.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

The Dictatorship

I’m not voting for Spencer Pratt — but I’m still glad he’s running for L.A. mayor

Published

on

ByHelaine R. I am

No one should be surprised that a reality show star-turned-social media influencer can do well in a political race. We just need to look to the White House to know that. They have a knack for speaking uncomfortable truths in a way that gets maximum attention.

What is forever the shock at who is doing that. So, let me get this out of the way at the outset: No, I don’t support Spencer Pratt’s quest for mayor of Los Angeles. I have even donated to one of his opponents, Los Angeles City Council member Nithya Raman. But I am surprised to discover that I owe Pratt – yes, the same Spencer Pratt best known as the villainous, troublemaking cad on the MTV’s The Hills – a debt of gratitude for interjecting a much-needed dose of reality into the city’s mayoral race.

Think of it as the electoral equivalent of saying “the emperor has no clothes,” updated for the social media age.

A registered Republican in a largely Democratic city, Pratt is shaking up what looked to be a sleepy mayoral election. He has jumped to second place in the polls by using social media (including supporter-generated AI content) to channel voter rage at not just the city’s striking deterioration, but the political establishment’s seemingly complacent attitude toward it. He’s particularly highlighted the failures that led to the devastating Pacific Palisades wildfire – in which Pratt, his family, and thousands of other city residents lost their homes – and the city’s intractable issues with homelessness and tent encampments. Think of it as the electoral equivalent of saying “the emperor has no clothes,” updated for the social media age.

He’s far from alone in his fury. Many residents believe the City of Angels has become a hellishly difficult place to live. Housing prices – both to buy or rent — are high. The streaming bubble has burstand Hollywood is in a protracted recession. Shoots increasingly likely to take place in locales offering more generous tax credits and easier, cheaper permitting. The roads are increasingly dotted with potholesas the cash-strapped city has ceased most repaving projects. Even the city’s animal shelters are mired in crises and scandal. Corruption and incompetence are endemic, with $2.4 billion in homeless funds simply unaccounted for. No surprise, a large majority of voters say the city is headed in the wrong direction.

Yes, it’s quite likely Pratt’s not up for the job. When asked, he said he would rely on an unnamed expert “team” to advise him. TMZ scooped that though Pratt cut a campaign ad claiming he is residing in a trailer, he’s actually been living in a swanky Bel Air hotel. And according to TMZ and Deadline, production on a reality show about his campaign is underway, with Pratt’s full participation. A “reality show” mayor is not the solution to the city’s problems.

But the performance of the city’s political class hardly inspires confidence. Incumbent Karen Bass infamously skipped town before the outbreak of the Pacific Palisades wildfire on a less-than-necessary diplomatic mission to Ghana, and failed to return early even after Hurricane Katrina-like wind warnings were issued. Bass says that film and TV productions are up from their lows and homelessness is down from the highs. But these very incremental gains are clearly thin gruel to many voters.

The other main challenger, DSA-affiliated Raman, often speaks eloquently on the need to tackle the city’s housing and business bureaucratic bottlenecks, And her assessment of Pratt as a “mini Trump” is hyperbolic but understandable, given the thinness of some of his suggested fixes and the nastiness undergirding many of his attacks. Yet her suggestion that the city should up its outreach and better coax people living on the streets to accept help sounds more like a doubling down on the unpopular and largely ineffective status quo.

As of now, few analysts believe Pratt – currently polling in second place – can prevail in a general election.

Pratt is calling much of this out: “Business as usual is a death sentence for Los Angeles,” he says, and promises he will make the city “camera-ready again.” Instead of rationalizing the city’s homeless crisis, he calls for “no more encampments” and says he will have “zero tolerance” for public drug use.  As for Raman’s plan?  “These people don’t want a bed. They want fentanyl or super-meth.” (He also suggested if she actually approached a homeless addict, she could “get stabbed in the neck.” Charming.)  At a mayoral debate earlier this month, Pratt made mincemeat of Raman, forcing many pundits to reckon more seriously with his campaign.

The jungle primary is in less than two weeks, with the top two finishers competing in November. Polls have Bass in the lead — but with only about 30 percent of the vote. This, you probably don’t need me to tell you, is a dreadful showing for an incumbent – and one that bespeaks problems in November.

As of now, few analysts believe Pratt – currently polling in second place – can prevail in a general election. Los Angeles is always a Democratic stronghold,  ICE raids weigh heavily in voters’ minds, and Trump is so unpopular here that his recent support for Pratt are more likely to hurt the reality star than help him. Yet while Raman currently stands a better chance in a one-on-one against Bass, polls put her in third place, behind Pratt.

But, in the meantime, Pratt’s done Los Angeles a favor. The Hills was, in its own way, a love letter to Los Angeles. Forcing the city’s political establishment to acknowledge voter concerns and at least begin to address them is also an act of love. Even when it’s done by an operator like Spencer Pratt.

Helaine R. I am

Helaine R. Olen is the author of “Pound Foolish: Exposing the Dark Side of the Personal Finance Industry” and a co-author of “The Index Card: Why Personal Finance Doesn’t Have to Be Complicated.” She has been a columnist for The Washington Post and Slate, and her work has also appeared in numerous other publications, including The New York Times and The Atlantic.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Pope Leo XIV apologizes for Vatican’s role in legitimizing slavery

Published

on

Pope Leo XIV apologizes for Vatican’s role in legitimizing slavery

VATICAN CITY (AP) — Pope Leo XIVmade a historic apology on Monday for the role the Holy See played in legitimizing slavery and for having failed to condemn it for centuries, calling the Vatican’s record a “wound in Christian memory.”

Past popes have apologized for Christians’ involvement in the trans-Atlantic slave trade. But no pope had ever publicly acknowledged, much less apologized for, the role that past popes played in giving European sovereigns explicit authority to subjugate and enslave “infidels.”

History’s first U.S.-born pope, whose family historyincludes both enslaved people and slave owners, delivered the apology in his first encyclical, “Magnifica Humanitas,” (Magnificent Humanity), which was released Monday.

The sweeping manifesto is about safeguarding humanity in an era of increasing reliance on artificial intelligence. Leo raised the trans-Atlantic slave trade in relation to what he called the new forms of slavery and colonialism that the digital revolution is fueling, such as the unregulated labor practices in procuring rare minerals needed for AI chips.

Anthea Butler, senior fellow at the Koch History Center, Oxford University, said Leo needed to acknowledge and atone for the Catholic Church’s complicity in historic slavery if he wanted to credibly “speak to the current issues of technological enslavement.”

“For descendants of enslaved persons, this is once again a much needed apology from the pope,” said Butler, who is Black.

Black American Catholics, activists and scholars have long called for the Holy See to atone for its role in the colonial-era trade in human beings, beyond more generic apologies for the involvement of individual Christians.

“It is impossible not to feel deep sorrow when contemplating the immense suffering and humiliation endured by so many in stark contrast to their immeasurable dignity as persons infinitely loved by the Lord,” Leo wrote. “For this, in the name of the church, I sincerely ask for pardon.”

Centuries of legitimizing slavery for European colonizers

The Vatican has insisted that it always upheld the dignity of all human beings as children of God. But a series of 15th-century directives from the Vaticanauthorized Portuguese sovereigns to conquer Africa and the Americas and enslave non-Christians.

In 1452, for example, Pope Nicholas V issued the papal bull Dum Diversas, which gave the Portuguese king and his successors the right “to invade, conquer, fight and subjugate” and take all possessions — including land — of “Saracens, and pagans, and other infidels, and enemies of the name of Christ” anywhere.

The bull also gave the Portuguese permission “to reduce their persons to perpetual slavery.”

That bull and another issued three years later, Romanus Pontifex, formed the basis of the Doctrine of Discoverythe theory that legitimized the colonial-era seizure of land in Africa and the Americas.

Nicholas V’s permissions to the Portuguese were confirmed or renewed by Pope Callixtus III in 1456, Pope Sixtus IV in 1481 and Pope Leo X in 1514, according to the Rev. Christopher J. Kellerman, a Jesuit priest and author of “All Oppression Shall Cease: A History of Slavery, Abolitionism, and the Catholic Church.”

Spanish kings received the rights for the Americas.

In 2023, the Vatican formally repudiated the Doctrine of Discoverybut it never formally rescinded, abrogated or rejected the bulls themselves. The Vatican insists that a later bull, Sublimis Deus in 1537, reaffirmed that Indigenous peoples shouldn’t be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, and weren’t to be enslaved.

Holy See late to condemn slavery, Leo says

In his encyclical, Leo recalled that his namesake, Pope Leo XIII, was the first pope to explicitly condemn slavery in 1888, long after many countries had abolished it. Before that, in antiquity and the Middle Ages, even church institutions had slaves.

In acknowledging the Holy See’s role and the 15th-century papal bulls, Leo wrote in his encyclical: “Already in the early modern period, the Apostolic See of Rome, responding to the requests of sovereigns, intervened several times in order to regulate and legitimize forms of subjugation, and, in certain cases, including the enslavement of ‘infidels.’”

Leo said that it wasn’t possible to judge the morality of the decisions with today’s standards.

“Yet neither can we deny or diminish the delay with which both society and the church came to denounce the scourge of slavery,” he said.

The pope said that the church has long affirmed the dignity of every human being as the basis of its doctrine, “even if it took eighteen centuries for its full incompatibility with slavery to be explicitly recognized.”

“This constitutes a wound in Christian memory, one from which we cannot consider ourselves detached,” he said.

Leo said that the church must firmly condemn all forms of trafficking related to the digital technological revolution “if we want to avoid the need to ask for pardon again in the future for having failed to respect the treasure of human dignity that is required by our faith.”

Leo’s own family history and past apologies

Kellerman, the scholar, welcomed Leo’s apology but said more needs to be done to further acknowledge and atone for how the Catholic Church legitimized and expanded slavery.

“Pope Leo has strengthened the moral credibility of the church with this admission and apology today,” he told The Associated Press. “Hopefully a future document will explain in more detail the church’s involvement with slaveholding. As a scholar I have some quibbles with the wording, but this is a truly remarkable moment.”

During a 1985 visit to Cameroon, St. John Paul II asked forgiveness of Africans for the slave trade on behalf of Christians who participated in it. In a 1992 visit to Goree Island, Senegal, which was the largest slave-trading center in West Africa, he denounced the injustice of slavery and called it a “tragedy of a civilization that called itself Christian.”

According to genealogical research published by Henry Louis Gates Jr., 17 of Leo’s American ancestors were Black, listed in census records as mulatto, Black, Creole or a free person of color. His family tree includes slaveholders and enslaved people, Gates wrote in The New York Times.

During a visit to Angola last month, Leo prayed at a Catholic shrine at the site of an important hub of the African slave tradeduring Portugal’s colonial rule. While at the Sanctuary of Mama Muxima, Leo recalled the “sorrow and great suffering” Angolans endured for centuries, but he didn’t refer specifically to slavery.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Elon Musk is losing the culture war — he just doesn’t know it yet

Published

on

Elon Musk is losing the culture war — he just doesn’t know it yet

ByJohn DeVore

Elon Musk has been busy: SpaceX filed for a blockbuster IPO. On Monday, a U.S. jury dismissed his lawsuit against Sam Altman and OpenAI. And last Wednesday, he accompanied President Donald Trump, and an entourage of tech moguls, to China for an elaborate state visit.

And yet, the richest man in the world spent much of the past week heckling a movie he hasn’t seen yet, directed by one of Hollywood’s most successful and celebrated directors, and starring a small army of A-list actors, including Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Robert Pattinson, Zendaya, Tom Holland, and Jonathan Bernthal. He seemed especially angry that a woman of color was cast in two roles.

In a just-dropped Time Magazine interviewdirector Christopher Nolan confirmed that Oscar-winning actress Lupita Nyong’o is playing two iconic roles in his $250 million adaptation of the Greek myth “The Odyssey.” In the ancient poet Homer’s epic “The Iliad,” which precedes “The Odyssey,” the Trojan prince Paris abducts Helen, wife of the Spartan king Menelaus, sparking a 10-year war with Greece that ends in tragedy.  Nyong’o will portray Helen, “the face that launched 1,000 ships,” as well as Helen’s sister, the murderous Clytemnestra.

Musk quickly took to X to voice his displeasure with this casting choice: “Chris Nolan desecrated the Odyssey so that he would be eligible for an Academy Award.” Never mind the fact that the Academy’s eligibility criteria have nothing to do with casting.

Chris Nolan desecrated the Odyssey so that he would be eligible for an Academy Award …

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) May 15, 2026

Musk also reposted conservative commentator Matt Walsh, who wrote“Not one person on the planet actually thinks that Lupita Nyong’o is ‘the most beautiful woman in the world.’ But Christopher Nolan knows that he would be called a racist if he gave the ‘most beautiful woman’ role to a white woman. Nolan is technically talented but a coward.”

Nolan’s casting of Zendaya as Athena, the goddess of wisdom, and rap superstar Travis Scott as a bard has also angered Musk toadies and assorted online bots. The trans actor Elliot Page was also cast, causing some hysterical right-wingers to (apparently incorrectly) suggest the actor is playing the great Greek warrior Achilles, slain by the Trojans, and who Odysseus briefly meets in the afterlife. Musk’s minions are so desperate for engagement that they have to work themselves into a lather over mere speculation.

All of this points to a clear conclusion. Elon Musk is losing the culture war; he just doesn’t know it yet. His whiny, white grievance and anti-DEI posts are becoming predictable. Boring. Viral filler. He has an enormous platform, but his messages are increasingly small-minded.

Another sign that he’s losing his grip: Musk took a break from insulting Nolan and Nyong’o to petulantly criticize the series finale of Amazon Prime’s hit superhero parody “The Boys.”

Musk’s one-man battle against “The Odyssey” is another symptom of his waning influence on the world outside the hothouse of X; his Cybertrucks aren’t sellingGrok, his AI product, is lagging behind rivalsand the man can’t decide whether Trump is his bestie.

Another sign that he’s losing his grip: Musk took a break from insulting Nolan and Nyong’o to petulantly criticize the series finale of Amazon Prime’s hit superhero parody “The Boys,” which he called “pathetic” for killing off the show’s MAGA-coded villain, Homelander, but not before he murders a parody of the billionaire. Musk admitted he hadn’t actually watched the show, though. He’s just sitting in one of his mansions angrily scrolling, and getting bent out of shape.

At least “The Boys” showrunner seems to be to having fun sparring with an increasingly humorless Musk on X.

Meanwhile, the two people Musk is targeting in his crusade against “The Odyssey” also seem to be taking his harassment in stride. Nolan hasn’t commented. But Nyong’o did chime in. “Our cast is representative of the world,” she said. “I’m not spending my time thinking of a defense. The criticism will exist whether I engage with it or not.”

Musk frequently posts bigoted opinions to X, which is his prerogative, I suppose. He owns that dumpster fire. But his current attempts to shame Nolan and suggest that the director, whose action and sci-fi movies are beloved by dudes, is indulging in nontraditional casting to win another Oscar feel transparently pitiful.

When it was first rumored that Nyong’o had been cast as Helen back in January of this year, furious users on X called it an “insult” to Homer. Musk later posted that “Chris Nolan has lost his integrity.” This underlying thesis is not only racist, but it’s also so ignorant that I wonder if Musk can tell the difference anymore between what is real and what is make-believe.

I’m not an expert in ancient history, but I’m pretty sure “The Odyssey” is fictional. There is no such thing as a man-eating Cyclops. And like all classic literature, Homer’s works are open to interpretation.

Another of the arguments against Nyong’o’s casting is that it isn’t historically accurate, never mind that both African and Middle Eastern countries border the Mediterranean. These critics seem to think the ancient Greeks really looked like ripped Scottish hunk Gerard Butler in director Zack Snyder’s cartoonish Spartan action film “300.”

You want realism? Helen of Troy’s father is Zeus, the god of thunder. Zeus, who transformed into animals and seduced mortals. What are we doing here?

Despite Musk’s musings, “The Odyssey” is already the most buzzed-about movie of the summer. The 70mm IMAX screenings are a hot ticket: opening weekend sold out within minutes of going on sale 12 months in advance. This isn’t surprising. Nolan remains one of the entertainment industry’s most dependable and respected directors of blockbusters, from 2023’s Oscar-winning historical phenomenon “Oppenheimer” to his formidable Batman trilogy to 2014’s emotional space opera “Interstellar.”

He’s also a director who has never worn his personal politics on his sleeve, although many of his movies have what could fairly be called conservative vibes. In 2012’s “The Dark Knight Rises,” for example, a billionaire puts down a populist revolution led by a cross between Darth Vader and a communist guerrilla.

Everything I know about “The Odyssey” I learned in high school. I guess I was lucky enough to have an English teacher who knew this epic was full of action and romance, so he always emphasized the good parts. But while Musk might not want to admit it, at its core, “The Odyssey” is really an anti-war story about the ultimate wife guy on an endless, dangerous road trip back home. Through his hero’s journey, Homer teaches that smarts and grit matter more than brute strength. “The Odyssey” is a 2600-year-old message passed from storyteller to storyteller about what really matters in life. It’s a message a man like Musk could learn from — if he’d only stop whining long enough to listen.

John DeVore

John DeVore is a culture writer and author of “Theatre Kids: A True Tale of Off-Off Broadway.”His writing has been published in Esquire, Vanity Fair, Marvel Comics, and many other publications.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending