The Dictatorship

Trump’s NLRB won’t defend its own constitutionality. And workers will pay for it.

Published

1 year ago

February 12, 2025

Trump’s NLRB won’t defend its own constitutionality. And workers will pay for it.

Last Thursday, President Donald Trump’s National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) announced its intention to commit institutional suicide. The NLRB enforces workers’ rights to organize unions and collectively bargain over their wages and working conditions. At the end of January, Trump essentially shut it down by firing one of its members. This leaves the board below the quorum it needs to operate (beyond issues that can be handled by regional offices).

The law creating the NLRB specifies that its members can be fired “for neglect of duty or malfeasance in office, but for no other cause.” Trump’s decision to fire NLRB board member Gwynne Wilcox blatantly violates this provision. On Wednesday, she filed a lawsuit to get her job back. That issue could be tied up in the courts for a long time to come.

It’s clear that the Trump administration is waging a scorched-earth campaign against organized labor that goes well beyond anything Trump did in his first term.

Meanwhile, Elon Musk’s company SpaceX has been trying to get the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to rule the very existence of the NLRB unconstitutional. A few days agothe board sent the court a letter indicating that, since it was below the quorum it needed to continue making decisions, it was withdrawing its defense of its own constitutionality. That’s the beginning of the end for the NLRB.

As this was happening, Musk’s “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) took aim at the other main federal institution that protects workers’ rights, the Labor Department.

As labor reporter Kim Kelly writesMusk and his team have been “running roughshod over a number of government agencies,” often “seizing access to highly-sensitive information systems, taking down websites and placing thousands of federal employees on leave.” Alarmed by the possibility that similar encroachments on the Labor Department will throw a massive wrench into the enforcement of labor law, a coalition of unions including the American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees (AFSCME), the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) and the Communications Workers of America (CWA) filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to keep Musk and his subordinates out of the Labor Department’s internal systems.

It remains to be seen how either of these cases will play out. It’s possible that other interested parties will be able to defend the NLRB in court and that, despite the conservative supermajority on the Supreme Court, the agency’s existence will somehow be preserved. Whatever happens, though, it’s clear that the Trump administration is waging a scorched-earth campaign against organized labor that goes well beyond anything Trump did in his first term.

Then, Trump did what any Republican would have done. As teacher and union activist Paul Prescod wrote at the time, Trump filled the NLRB with appointees who sided with bosses“delaying … union elections, restricting the ability of employees to communicate about workplace issues, and enhancing the ability of employers to determine bargaining units.” But now he’s going after the basic infrastructure created during the New Deal era to protect the rights of workers to band together to improve their conditions.

Imagine that you’re involved in a union organizing campaign at your workplace, and your boss comes up with some excuse to fire you. This would violate the National Labor Relations Act. But any law is only as good as the enforcement mechanism. The NLRB routinely rules on such complaints, often forcing companies to reinstate illegally fired workers with back pay.

But if this happens to you after Musk’s constitutional challenge goes through (now that Trump has ensured that the NLRB can’t fight back) and the agency is either abolished entirely or stripped of these basic enforcement powers, you might have to wait for years to get action through the regular court system. Even if the trial goes your way and then you get your job back with back pay, how exactly are you supposed to support yourself during however many years it takes for your case to wind its way through the courts? Meanwhile, after your fellow workers have seen what you and your family endured during these years, how likely are any of them to take similar risks?

This assault on the fundamentals of how workers’ rights are protected in the United States makes a mockery of the claim often made by Trump and his supporters in the contexts of debates about tariffs or immigration that Trump is an economic “populist” who stands up for the interests of ordinary people against “elites.”

I’m not sure why Democrats think ordinary Americans care about making sure the United States can engage in a sufficiently aggressive battle with China for influence on the internal politics of distant countries.

Maddeningly, though, most of Trump’s critics don’t seem to be interested in emphasizing the issue. Instead, Democrats’ opposition to Musk’s interference with the federal government has focused on DOGE’s attack on the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). While USAID engages in a number of initiatives, some of which are very beneficial, its function has often been to exercise U.S. “soft power” against disfavored governments around the world. This complements the activities of agencies like the CIA in more directly destabilizing those nations. Indeed, this is precisely the aspect of USAID’s work emphasized by many of its Democratic defenders.

On Tuesday, several lawmakers spoke at a rally in defense of USAID against Musk’s attacks, where Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., said USAID “supports freedom fighters everywhere in this world” and “chases China around the world.” Democrats’ choosing to focus on defending USAID (and to defend it on the grounds Murphy emphasized) just feeds into the misleading Trumpist narrative that Trump is an “anti-interventionist” who wants to leave the rest of the world alone.

I’m not sure why Democrats would think that most ordinary Americans care about making sure that the United States can engage in a sufficiently aggressive battle with China for influence on the internal politics of distant countries. But most Americans do work for a living (or they’re dependents of other people who do). Their rights to claim any kind of dignity or collective power on the job are at stake in Trump’s assault on the NLRB.

If Trump’s critics want to show that he’s the furthest thing in the world from a genuine populist, they should be laser-focused on this issue.

I am a burgis

Ben Burgis is a political commentator and author. He has written articles for Jacobin and The Daily Beast.

The Dictatorship

GOP’s Mills faces expulsion effort launched by one of his Republican colleagues

Published

1 hour ago

April 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

GOP’s Mills faces expulsion effort launched by one of his Republican colleagues

Republican Rep. Cory Mills of Florida was already dealing with multiple, overlapping scandals when a judge issued a restraining order against the congressman last fall after one of his ex-girlfriends accused him of threatening and harassing her. Soon after, Mills found that even some of his allies were keeping him at arm’s length.

In December, Rep. Byron Donalds, a fellow Florida Republican, conceded“The allegations against Cory, to me, are very troubling. I’m concerned about him. I hope he gets his stuff worked out and cleaned up, but it has to go through ethics [the Ethics Committee]. And he has to, you know, basically do that hard work to clear his name, if it can be cleared.”

Donalds, a leading gubernatorial candidate in Florida, had previously suggested he saw Mills as a possible running mate, making the comments that much more potent.

It didn’t do Mills any favors when The Washington Post published a new report a few days ago highlighting body camera footage that showed police officers in Washington, D.C., who were prepared to arrest the GOP congressman after a woman accused him of assault last year, before a lieutenant ultimately ordered them not to when she changed her account. (Mills refused to comment, except to say that the woman’s initial claim was “patently false.”)

Two days after the Post’s report reached the public, one of Mills’ Republican colleagues announced an effort to kick the congressman out of office. NBC News reported:

Rep. Nancy Mace, R-S.C., introduced a resolution Monday to expel Rep. Cory Mills, R-Fla., from Congress over accusations that include sexual misconduct.

Mills is being investigated by the House Ethics Committee in connection with allegations of ‘sexual misconduct and/or dating violence’ and campaign finance violations. He has denied any wrongdoing.

“The swamp has protected Cory Mills for far too long and we are done letting it slide,” Mace said in a statement. “We tried to censure him and strip him from his committee assignments. Both parties blocked it, but we are not backing down.”

By way of social media, the Floridian expressed confidence that he’d prevail if Mace’s resolution reached the floor, encouraging the South Carolinian to “call the vote forward.”

Time will tell whether the expulsion vote actually happens, but in the meantime, after NOTUS reported that Mills intends to respond with an expulsion resolution of his own targeting Mace, the congresswoman wrote online“Cory Mills lied about his military service, has been accused of beating women, has a restraining order against him, and has allegedly been stuffing his own pockets with federal contracts while sitting in Congress. As a survivor, I will always stand up and right the wrongs of others. He is only coming after me because he knows he’s next.”

It’s not often that Americans see members of Congress launch dueling efforts to kick each other out of office, but this is proving to be an unusually awful term.

Indeed, amid growing GOP anxieties about the upcoming midterm elections, there’s fresh evidence that the House Republican conference is both divided and unraveling.

Steve Benen is a producer for “The Rachel Maddow Show,” the editor of MaddowBlog and an MS NOW political contributor. He’s also the bestselling author of “Ministry of Truth: Democracy, Reality, and the Republicans’ War on the Recent Past.”

The Dictatorship

11 years later, the Senate Republicans’ open letter to Iran is relevant anew

Published

1 hour ago

April 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

11 years later, the Senate Republicans’ open letter to Iran is relevant anew

As part of a series of online rants, Donald Trump complained on Monday afternoon that congressional Democrats “are doing everything possible to hurt the very strong position we are in with respect to Iran.” The president didn’t refer to any specifics, which wasn’t too surprising, since Democratic lawmakers haven’t had any success in curtailing the White House’s policy.

But as the next round of talks with Iranian officials prepares to get underwayit’s worth appreciating the fact that if Democrats were prepared to deliberately try to undermine the administration’s negotiating position, I suppose they could write a letter to Iranian leaders, encouraging them not to trust the United States — which is what Republicans did 11 years ago.

Remember this report from The New York Times in March 2015?

The fractious debate over a possible nuclear deal with Iran escalated on Monday as 47 Republican senators warned Iran about making an agreement with President Obama, and the White House accused them of undercutting foreign policy.

In a rare direct congressional intervention into diplomatic negotiations, the Republicans signed an open letter addressed to ‘leaders of the Islamic Republic of Iran’ declaring that any agreement without legislative approval could be reversed by the next president ‘with the stroke of a pen.’ The letter appeared aimed at unraveling a framework agreement even as negotiators grew close to reaching it.

At the time, the international talks among the permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Germany and Iran had reached a delicate stage, and an agreement over the future of Tehran’s nuclear policy was within sight.

But as the seven-nation talks reached a critical stage, Republican Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas, just two months into his term in the upper chamber, recruited 46 of his Senate GOP colleagues to write an open letter to Iranhoping to undermine the historic diplomatic opportunity.

As part of an apparent sabotage attempt, the 47 Senate Republicans effectively told Iranian officials not to trust the United States as part of the talks. (Then-Sen. Marco Rubio, a decade before he became secretary of state, was among the signatories. The Florida Republican then turned his role in the fiasco into a fundraising appeal.)

The U.S. Senate Historian’s Office explained soon after that it could not find a comparable example in the institution’s history in which “one political party openly tried to deal with a foreign power against a presidential policy, as Republicans have attempted in their open letter to Iran.”

The reactions from abroad were even more dramatic: U.S. allies said that the Republicans’ letter actually helped Iran’s negotiating positionfurther undermining the senators’ own country.

The Cotton-led effort was quickly denounced by Democrats veteran diplomat editorial boards punditsof every stripe and even some Republicansbut to date, none of the signatories has expressed regret for their role in the unsuccessful sabotage campaign.

As for how Trump and his party might respond if 47 Senate Democrats were to write an open letter to Iran right now, as part of an attempt to undermine talks in Islamabad, one can only imagine the severity of the partisan hysterics.

The Dictatorship

Trump Fed chair pick Warsh vows independence at Senate hearing

Published

2 hours ago

April 21, 2026

Blue Light Newsroom

Trump Fed chair pick Warsh vows independence at Senate hearing

Apr. 21, 2026, 3:33 PM EDT

Kevin Warsh, President Donald”https://www.ms.now/news/trump-names-kevin-warsh-as-next-federal-reserve-chair?_thumbnail_id=1163350″>Trump’s pick to chair the Federal Reserve, told lawmakers Tuesday that he would not capitulate to Trump’s demands, saying he does not see outward political pressure as a threat to the central bank’s independence.

During his Senate confirmation hearing, Trump’s millionaire nominee faced scathing questions from Banking Committee Democrats over perceived gaps in his financial disclosures and his ability to maintain the central bank’s integrity. When pressed to divulge his stance on political questions outside of the bank’s jurisdiction, he refused, saying instead that “the Fed must stay in its lane.”

Warsh used his opening remarks to convey a simple but significant argument to the senators who will decide whether he is fit to steward America’s monetary policy: Political pressure is not a threat to the central bank — opining on fiscal and social policies outside of its purview is.

The insulation of the Fed from politics was widely expected to be the defining issue of Warsh’s confirmation hearing, given that the president who appointed him has made no secret of his belief that the White House should have greater control over the nation’s monetary policies.

Testifying under oath Tuesday, Warsh said Trump never asked him to “predetermine, commit, fix or decide on any interest rate decision in any of our discussions.”

“Nor would I ever agree to do so if he had,” Warsh said.

Warsh’s declarations might wind up being beside the point when it comes to whether he’s confirmed to replace the man currently in the job.

After the Justice Department subpoenaed Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and accused him of knowingly misleading Congress about the ongoing $2.5 billion building renovation project at the Fed’s Washington headquarters, retiring Republican Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina vowed to block the confirmation of any Fed chair nominee until the DOJ dropped its investigation.

The subpoena came amid Trump’s public pressure campaign against Powell over his refusal to slash interest rates. His attacks included multiple threats to fire Powell and the Justice Department’s effort to pursue a criminal case against him.

Tillis decried the Justice Department’s Powell probe during his allotted time Tuesday. He focused on the potential the investigation has to delay Powell’s exit from his post as Federal Reserve chairman in May rather than the ethics of the probe itself, which he has publicly questioned in the past.

Powell has said he has no intention of leaving the central bank’s board until the DOJ drops the investigation, even though his term ends May 15. He can stay past May because he also serves as a member of the Fed’s board of governors, his term for which does not end until January 2028.

Praising Warsh for his background as an economist, Tillis made clear his “no” vote is not personal to Warsh. Tillis told MS NOW ahead of the hearing that he has spoken to the White House about his intention to vote against Warsh.

Warsh, a favorite among Republican circles and the son-in-law of billionaire Trump donor Ronald Laudertried to persuade lawmakers that he is not a reflection of the president who appointed him.

“I do not believe that independence of monetary policy is threatened when elected officials state their views on rates,” the former Morgan Stanley investment banker said in his opening remarks. “Fed independence is up to the Fed.”

Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the committee’s highest-ranking Democrat, pressed Warsh on what she said were “secrets” in the financial disclosures he provided to the Office of Government Ethics ahead of the hearing. Warsh disclosed assets worth more than $100 million — including stakes in the prediction market platform Polymarket and Elon Musk’s SpaceX — but did not name the underlying holdings of his largest investments.

“If you can’t answer these questions, you don’t have the courage and you don’t have the independence,” Warren said after Warsh refused to say whether his undisclosed individual investments are tied to the Trump family, declined to answer a question about whether Trump lost the 2020 election and repeatedly demurred when she challenged him to name a policy point on which he disagreed with Trump.

Warsh said he would divest his undisclosed assets if confirmed, which would put him in compliance with the requirements of the ethics office. Doubling down on his bid to convince the panel of lawmakers that he will not yield to the president’s repeated calls for lower interest rates, Warsh said he is not Trump’s “sock puppet,” the term Warren used.

“Someone here is lying then,” Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., said of Warsh’s claim that Trump never asked him to cut interest rates. “It’s either you or President Trump.” Gallego pointed to reporting from The Wall Street Journal in December that Trump pressed his nominee to “support interest rate cuts” when nominating him to lead the Fed.

In a live phone interview with CNBC the morning of the hearing, Trump said he would be disappointed if Warsh does not immediately slash rates upon his confirmation.

Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., previously joined Tillis in expressing concern over the motivations behind the probe. Warren called on her Republican colleagues to block Warsh’s nomination until the investigation comes to an end.

A federal judge quashed the investigation, which had become central to Trump’s smear campaign against Powellin March. In April, the same judge denied the Trump administration’s bid to revive the subpoenas he dismissed, writing that “the Government served these subpoenas on the [Federal Reserve] Board to pressure its Chair into voting for lower interest rates or resigning.” Despite the blow, U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro is still fighting to keep the investigation alive.

The banking committee, which oversees Fed nominations, has a narrow 13-11 Republican majority.

Warsh stumbled while answering questions from Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., about how he would grade the economy for working Americans. Rather than offer a serious answer about the Fed’s role in shaping the economic outlook for consumers, Warsh made a joke about grade inflation at elite universities.

Several staffers and some committee members could be seen chuckling behind him.

“Well the Americans that I talk to, particularly in the state of Georgia, who haven’t had the benefit of attending some of these elite institutions, are trying to make their lives work,” Warnock replied. “They’re sitting around their kitchen tables trying to figure out how to put their kids through school, and regardless of how the markets are doing, consumer confidence is at a record low. So that’s their grade on the economy.”

Warsh previously served as a Federal Reserve governor in the early 2000s, after being nominated by then-President George W. Bush.

Sydney Carruth is a breaking news reporter covering national politics and policy for MS NOW. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at SydneyCarruth.46 or follow her work on X and Bluesky.