Connect with us

The Dictatorship

Why these local leaders won’t go quietly

Published

on

Why these local leaders won’t go quietly

These local leaders won’t go quietly

As President Donald Trump pushes the limits of executive power — from threatening programs for low-income students to wielding tariffs like political cudgels — some Democratic state officials are pushing back. Hard. Here are three striking examples of that resistance just this week:

Maine’s governor refuses to flinch

Gov. Janet Mills has never been one to back down from a fight — especially not with Trump. When he called her a “dictator” during a 2020 visit to Maine, she replied: “I have spent the better part of my career listening to loud men talk tough to disguise their weakness. That’s what I heard today.”

Flash forward to 2025, and Trump is once again targeting her state, this time over transgender student-athletes. Proposed administration cuts threaten state school lunch programsand the Social Security Administration even briefly suspended a contract that helps new parents sign up their babies for Social Security numbers.

Mills’ response? Total moral clarity:

“This isn’t just about who can compete on the athletic field,” she said in a statement. “It’s about whether a President can force compliance with his will, without regard for the rule of law. I believe he cannot.”

That kind of clear-eyed courage, especially when kids’ basic needs are on the line, matters more than ever.

California takes Trump to court

If California were its own country, it would be the fifth largest economy in the world. That also means it has a lot to lose if Trump’s tariffs tank the economy. And California Attorney General ROB Bonta isn’t taking any chances.

Bonta has filed suitarguing that Trump is abusing the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act to bypass Congress and impose tariffs unilaterally. Tariff authority belongs to Congress, not the Oval Office. But with Republican lawmakers largely staying silent, Bonta is stepping up.

As he put it, you can’t invent “bogus national emergencies” to grab power.

Washington state schools double down on diversity

Trump’s threat to cut off federal education funding to states that won’t eliminate diversity programs isn’t going over well in Washington state.

In a letter to the administrationstate Superintendent Chris Reykdal emphasized diversity and inclusion are “core values” in Washington schools, and said he would not capitulate.

Even though his schools rely on Title I funding for low-income students, Reykdal made it clear: The rights of kids come first.

Around a dozen states have so far refused to go along with Trump’s directive to gut DEI programs in public schools.

These are just three stories, but they signal something bigger.

And while Trump may be trying to centralize power in Washington, he’s running headfirst into a patchwork of governors, attorneys general and state officials who are just as determined to defend their communities as he is to punish them.


A story you should be following: Sen. Murkowski gets honest about retaliation

This week, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski said something out loud that many of her Republican colleagues are likely too afraid to admit:

We are all afraid. … And I’ll tell you, I’m oftentimes very anxious myself about using my voice because retaliation is real. And that’s not right. But that’s what you’ve asked me to do and so I’m going to use my voice to the best of my ability.

I was genuinely surprised to hear the senator acknowledge this dynamic on camera. Murkowski has broken with Trump before: She opposed his deep cuts to the federal workforceand she criticized him for distancing America from the war in Ukraine. She knows what it means to be targeted by Trump and survive, having beaten a Trump-backed challenger in 2022.

She’s not up for re-election until 2028, which does give her a bit of political breathing room. But that doesn’t make her words any less significant. She declared publicly what so many Republicans are whispering behind closed doors: Retaliation is real. And the fear of speaking out is paralyzing.

Her comments reminded me of something I read in Garry Kasparov’s recent piece in The Atlantic, “How America Can Avoid Becoming Russia.” For those in Washington, it’s not an option to pick your battles, he notes, because “when fighting for democracy, you never know if there will be another day.”

Kasparov also argues that all Americans should back the small number of Republicans willing to stand up to Trump and “promise to support them against Musk’s threats to fund primary challenges if they defy him — and to raise millions against them if they don’t.”

I don’t know if that’s something many Democrats will end up doing. But we all need to remember that democracy can’t be taken for granted. And right now, the fight for it has to be loud, unapologetic — and yes, even a little uncomfortable.


Someone you should know: Iowa U.S. Senate candidate Nathan Sage

Meet Nathan Sagethe first Democrat to jump into Iowa’s 2026 U.S. Senate race against Republican incumbent Joni Ernst. A Marine and Army veteran, mechanic and small-town sports announcer, Sage isn’t your typical political hopeful — and that’s exactly the point. In his launch videoSage talks about growing up poor, watching places across Iowa get “abandoned,” and fighting for a Democratic Party that “people like me will actually want to be a part of.”

Now the executive director of the Knoxville Chamber of Commerce, Sage is channeling frustration with a “rigged” economy and talking directly to to working-class voters who feel left behind — by both parties.

Iowa is a long shot for Democrats. But we are in unprecedented times. Veterans are worried about losing their jobs and their benefits. Tariffs could hurt Iowa soybean farmers. Republicans with power aren’t speaking out against Trump. And Sage is the right person to tell that story.

Only Psaki

Jen Psaki is the host of “Inside with Jen Psaki”airing Sundays at 12 p.m. ET and Mondays at 8 p.m. EST. She is the former White House press secretary for President Joe Biden.

Read More

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

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

The Dictatorship

Trump’s next Smithsonian target: A future women’s history museum

Published

on

Trump’s next Smithsonian target: A future women’s history museum

President Donald Trump has sought to remake Smithsonian institutions in his image during his term in office.

Now, House Republicans are setting their sights on another museum Trump has targeted — and it’s one that is still years away from being built.

This week, a group of House Republicans used a committee vote on a bill intended to establish a location for the forthcoming Smithsonian American Women’s History Museum to pass an amendment stipulating that the museum must not include transgender women in its exhibitions or content.

“The Museum shall be dedicated to preserving, researching, and presenting the history, achievements, and lived experiences of biological women in the United States,” the new amendment states, in a section called “scope of mission.”

“The Museum may not identify, present, describe, or otherwise depict any biological male as a female,” it continues.

Sponsored by Rep. Mary Miller, R-Ill., — who Trump has endorsed for re-election — the amendment furthers an executive order the president signed last Marchin which he demanded the forthcoming museum “not recognize men as women in any respect.”

“The accomplishments of real women should never be overshadowed by biological men pretending to be women,” Miller said Wednesday at the committee markup of the bill.

The proposal comes as the latest effort from Trump and his allies to erase trans people from public life. It’s also their latest attempt to exert greater control over the Smithsonian, an independent, public-private partnership established by Congress and overseen by a Board of Regents that includes the chief justice of the Supreme Court and the vice president.

If passed, Miller’s amendment would also give Trump the final say on the museum’s location if he doesn’t approve of the one proposed by the Smithsonian and Congress, which is the lot across from the National Museum of African American History and Culture.

The top Democrat on the House Administration Committee, Rep. Joe Morelle, D-N.Y., said he was “extremely disappointed” that Miller and Republicans had “needlessly politicized” what has otherwise been a bipartisan process to kowtow to Trump, whom the Democrat said is trying to “regulate” and “whitewash” history.

The amendment ultimately passed the committee 7 to 4 along party lines.

Rep. Nicole Malliotakis, R-N.Y., a sponsor of the bill amended by Miller, said she was “pleased” to see it pass out of committee but disappointed that Democrats opposed it.

It will now head to a floor vote, where it is likely to pass under the Republican majority. Spokespeople for Miller; House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La.; and House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-La., did not respond to MS NOW’s questions, including when it could come up for a floor vote.

Congress authorized the building of both the women’s history museum and another museum dedicated to American Latinos in 2020. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., introduced a separate bill last year allocating a location for the Latino museum, which has yet to make it out of committee. In an interview with NBC News earlier this year, Malliotakis blamed Johnson for the holdup on the passage of the bill, which she introduced in February of last year.

She also said she hoped to pass the bill — which has more than 230 bipartisan cosponsors — during Women’s History Month in March.

While the Smithsonian originally offered a decade-long timeline for the museums openings, the process has been slower-moving over the past six years. A spokesperson for the Smithsonian told MS NOW there is currently no planned opening date and the institution does not comment on pending legislation in Congress.

Democrats may have little power to stop the amendment, but they are not staying quiet about it.

Members of the Democratic Women’s Caucus called the amendment a “poison pill” that would give the president undue power over site.

“A museum about women, fought for and supported by women, should not be controlled by one man,” the group’s leaders said.

Rep. Mark Takano, D-Calif., chair of the Congressional Equality Caucus, pointed out that the original bill that authorized the museum’s creation in 2020 did not address the specific content of its programming, other than requiring it to portray “the diverse range of experiences and viewpoints of all women” in the U.S. However, Takano also noted, “the Museum should highlight the experiences of all women, including transgender women.”

The Smithsonian spokesperson said it’s “too early for us to discuss exhibitions in a museum that hasn’t been built yet.”

If the bill passes with the anti-trans amendment, the Smithsonian would likely have leeway on how to interpret it, or whether to follow it, given that the institution has insisted on its independence even in the face of Trump’s threats. However, Congress controls the majority of its funding and could threaten to withhold money if officials wanted to force the museum to comply.

A source with knowledge of the planning process for the museum also told MS NOW that they believe Smithsonian leadership is “concerned about blowback and escalation” given recent events.

In last year’s executive orderTrump alleged the Smithsonian had “come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology” and demanded Vice President JD Vance take a greater role in overseeing funding for the institute’s programming. As part of a subsequent content review, the Smithsonian’s National Museum of American History removed references to Trump’s two impeachments from an exhibit before restoring them days later following a public outcry. In December, the White House also issued a letter to Smithsonian leadership demanding extensive documentation on planned programming and threatening to withhold federal funds if those demands were not fulfilled.

“I think the museum leadership sees our historical moment as one of existential crisis for the Smithsonian,” the source familiar with the planning told MS NOW. “And their deepest commitment is to the survival of the institution.”

Julianne McShane is a breaking news reporter for MS NOW who also covers the politics of abortion and reproductive rights. You can send her tips from a non-work device on Signal at jmcshane.19 or follow her on X or Bluesky.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump is planning a Christian ‘revival’ for America’s 250th anniversary

Published

on

Trump is planning a Christian ‘revival’ for America’s 250th anniversary

The Trump administration’s plans to celebrate the country’s upcoming 250th anniversary are shaping up to be an exhibition of Christian nationalist extremism.

The president — who has been found liable for fraud and sexual abuse and who has upset some in his own movement with his suggestion that he isn’t bound for heaven — has eagerly wrapped himself in Scripture and packed his administration with religious zealots who wish to erode the constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

And a new report from The New York Times spotlights the cadre of right-wing evangelicals who joined an event last month to plan a slate of explicitly Christian-centered programming in the lead-up to the 250th anniversary celebrations. One of the people in attendance was Eric Metaxas, the far-right media figure and promoter of election conspiracy theories who has touted his belief that Christians should “infiltrate” government.

What we know of the programming thus far suggests it will serve to reinforce the view that the country’s laws and customs have always been, and must be, rooted in Christianity — or at least the conservative movement’s interpretation of its teachings.

The Times’ report spotlighted an event called “Rededicate 250,” which is scheduled for May 17. The White House says it will feature a “large-scale revival” on the National Mall.

One of the people apparently helping plan the programming is a self-described Christian nationalist named Sean Feucht, who has portrayed himself as an informal adviser of sorts to Trump officials. He has been a fixture alongside Scott Turner, secretary of Trump’s Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Last year, Feucht said he had been tapped to give “divine perspective” on California’s wildfire recovery effortsand he joined Turner on a tour of damaged sites. At the time, a HUD spokesperson told MS NOW that Feucht wasn’t saying he had an “official role” — though he very well may have had an unofficial role. Feucht also performed onstage at a Christian worship session hosted by HUD on the National Mall last September — an event quite similar to the one set for May.

Feucht was specifically named by Rep. Jared Huffman last month, in a news release the California Democrat sent out rebuking the “whitewashing” and “corruption” surrounding the 250th anniversary events. Huffman cited Feucht’s claims of having collaborated with Trump officials on “revival meetings sponsored by the U.S. government,” as part of what the congressman called “Christian nationalism on the taxpayer dime.”

“The Trump administration is using this celebration to further erode church-state separation and force extreme Christian Nationalism on the American people,” the news release said, “pushing a false narrative that our country was founded as a Christian nation.”

Ja’han Jones is an MS NOW opinion blogger. He previously wrote The ReidOut Blog.

Read More

Continue Reading

The Dictatorship

Trump v. Roberts: The president crashes out online while the chief stays the course

Published

on

Trump v. Roberts: The president crashes out online while the chief stays the course

Welcome back, Deadline: Legal Newsletter readers.The Supreme Court added to the term’s already heavy docket, agreeing on Monday to considerthe Trump administration’s quest to quickly end humanitarian protections for Haitians and Syrians.

Yet the week’s court news arguably started Sunday night, when President Donald Trump lashed out on social media. He complained in lengthy postsabout the tariffs ruling (which he mischaracterized) and other gripes, including the 2020 election loss that still haunts him and his disappointment in the court’s Republican appointees.

He referred to the “Democrats” and “Republicans” on the courtforgoing the more precise, if euphemistic, label of Democratic and Republicanappointees. The president groused on Truth Social that GOP justices “openly disrespect the Presidents who nominate them to the highest position in the Land.”

By “openly disrespect,” he apparently meant some of the Republican appointees occasionally rule against him. At the risk of stating the obvious, the court has been helpful to Trump, both personally and presidentially.

But it’s not the Trump Court. It’s the Roberts Court. And though there’s overlap between the two, Chief Justice John Robertsis playing a longer game. That means the court occasionally checks the Republican president, even while largely approving his policies and keeping him out of prison.

Roberts didn’t directly respond to Trump’s latest meltdown. But he happened to have a public appearance on Tuesday, at which he put yet more distance between himself and the president. While in conversation with a federal judge at Rice University in Houston, the chief justice called personal attacks on judges “dangerous,”and he deemed “absurd”the notion that justices carry forward the agenda of the presidents who appointed them.

Again, he didn’t call out Trump by name.But one needn’t squint to see the application to the president’s tariffs crash-out, which has featured calling justices who ruled against him traitors and embarrassments to their families.

Still, Roberts can’t escape Trump, who has continued to dominate the high court’s docket,even when the litigation doesn’t directly involve him. Take Steve Bannonwhose appeal the justices considered at their private conference on Friday. The Justice Department is supporting the Trump ally’s bidto upend his contempt conviction, and we may learn as soon as Monday morning whether the justices are prepared to bless that partnership.

After the court issues its order list at 9:30 a.m. ET on Monday, which could have news on Bannon’s petition and many others, the court will kick off its March argument sittingwith a hearing in Watson v. RNC. The court’s latest foray into election litigation ahead of the midterms concerns timing rules for casting ballots. Solicitor General D. John Sauer is set to appearin support of the Republican National Committee, which wants to block mail ballotsreceived after Election Day, even if they’re sent by then.

Have any questions or comments for me? Pleasesubmit them through this formfor a chance to be featured in the Deadline: Legal Blog and newsletter.

Jordan Rubin is the Deadline: Legal Blog writer. He was a prosecutor for the New York County District Attorney’s Office in Manhattan and is the author of “Bizarro,” a book about the secret war on synthetic drugs. Before he joined MS NOW, he was a legal reporter for Bloomberg Law.

Read More

Continue Reading

Trending