Daily Kos RSS feed

President Donald Trump’s Justice Department on Wednesday scrapped police reform agreements with Minneapolis and Louisville, Kentucky—two cities where high-profile police killings of Black Americans ignited nationwide protests—abandoning what was left of the former Biden administration’s push for accountability. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general in charge of the department’s Civil Rights Division, claimed the consent decrees constituted an “anti-police agenda,” saying in a press release: Overbroad police consent decrees divest local control of policing from communities where it belongs, turning that power over to unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats, often with an anti-police agenda. … Today, we are ending the Biden Civil Rights Division’s failed experiment of handcuffing local leaders and police departments with factually unjustified consent decrees. Consent decrees are legally binding court agreements meant to enforce civil rights reforms in departments found to have engaged in unconstitutional practices. Though unpopular with police unions and conservative officials—including Trump, who’s spent years cozying up to law enforcement—they’re one of the most powerful tools for cracking down on serious misconduct. The Trump administration, however, sees them as government overreach and is reversing course.  The Justice Department said Wednesday that it would move to dismiss the Louisville and Minneapolis consent decrees, which it claims had no “legally or factually adequate basis” and would lead to “years of micromanagement” and “potentially hundreds of millions” in compliance costs. The move comes just days ahead of the fifth anniversary of George Floyd’s murder. On May 25, 2020, Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin murdered Floyd by kneeling on his neck for nearly 10 minutes. Weeks earlier, police in Louisville had shot and killed medical worker Breonna Taylor in her home. The killings touched off historic protests and demands for systemic change. A demonstrator protests outside the Minnesota State Capitol in May 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd. In response, former President Joe Biden’s Justice Department launched at least a dozen investigations into police departments across the country and released scathing findings detailing unconstitutional policing in multiple cities. The consent decrees with Minneapolis (January 2025) and Louisville (December 2024) were arguably the most concrete reforms to come out of that effort. Though signed, neither agreement had been finalized by a judge. Trump’s DOJ isn’t stopping there, though. Officials say they’re also ending ongoing investigations into other departments, including those in Phoenix, Memphis, and Oklahoma City, essentially gutting the department’s civil rights enforcement efforts. These moves align with the Trump administration’s broader pivot away from racial justice and civil rights—and toward Trump’s preferred crusades, like his recent focus on alleged antisemitism on college campuses. It also comes as some on the right move to recast Floyd’s murder, including recent calls by right-wing figures for Chauvin to receive a presidential pardon, though it’s unclear if one is forthcoming. In this administration, the priority seems to be punishing protesters and whistleblowers, not protecting victims of state violence. Still, city leaders are promising to move ahead with reforms, even without federal enforcement. “We will implement every reform outlined in the consent decree,” Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said. “Accountability isn’t optional. … The public can count on clear, measurable proof that our reforms are moving forward.” But Trump’s DOJ is making its position clear: If you’re seeking justice through federal oversight, you’re on your own. Campaign Action

A cartoon by Clay Jones. Related | Critical weather service scrambles for staff after DOGE cuts Campaign Action

President Donald Trump met with South African President Cyril Ramaphosa in the Oval Office on Wednesday and angrily confronted him with false allegations of a “white genocide” in his nation. Trump has been obsessed with the issue in recent weeks, even making exceptions for white immigrants from South Africa to come to America as supposed refugees, all while restricting migration for other nationalities. Trump told aides to turn down the lights in the Oval Office and forced Ramaphosa to watch an edited video purporting to show evidence of mass murders targeting white Afrikaner farmers. Later, Trump leafed through a stack of printouts that he claimed was evidence of the practice. x x YouTube Video Ramaphosa strenuously objected, explaining to Trump that while some political groups in South Africa have used violent rhetoric about the issue—which stems from the apartheid-era practice of stealing land from Black residents under that nation’s racist laws—his party and the current government are opposed to it. Trump decried the violent rhetoric and suggested that people using it should be arrested, which stands in contrast to his own repeated usage of violent language against Democrats and his decision to pardon the Trump supporters who violently attacked the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. Undaunted, Trump even argued that white Afrikaner farmers currently face oppression equivalent to what Black South Africans faced under apartheid. Apartheid was enshrined in South African law for roughly 40 years, institutionalizing racial segregation and leading to mass killings tied to political violence. x x YouTube Video But even more damning for Trump’s rhetoric is that multiple studies have shown that claims of a “white genocide” in South Africa are false. While the nation has a severe crime problem, the notion that white people there are being persecuted, let alone at the level of persecution Blacks faced during apartheid, is false. One of the most high-profile promoters of the white-genocide myth is billionaire Elon Musk, who attended the Oval Office meeting with Ramaphosa. Musk is originally from South Africa and grew up during the waning days of apartheid. Musk’s attendance comes just a few days after he said he would be less financially involved in politics. In the 2024 election cycle, he donated at least $288 million to elect Trump and other Republicans. Trump has a well-documented history of racism, from his description of countries with large nonwhite populations as “shithole” nations to his promotion of the racist “birther” conspiracy about former President Barack Obama. With his “white genocide” crusade, Trump is turning a debunked, racist conspiracy into a core American foreign policy. Campaign Action

U.S. Circuit Judge James Ho might be the worst judge not currently on the Supreme Court, but he definitely wants to be the worst justice on the Supreme Court one day. His latest sizzle reel—er, judicial opinion—makes for an excellent audition for the only audience member who matters: President Donald Trump.  Ho is spittle-flecked levels of furious that the Supreme Court will not let the administration deport a group of Venezuelans with no due process. The holding reversed the ruling of the three-judge panel from the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, whose decision had claimed the court had no jurisdiction to hear the plaintiffs’ emergency appeal and had haughtily complained that the plaintiffs had given the district court “only 42 minutes to act.” About that part. … The Supreme Court took specific, pointed, deliberate aim at that statement because it is a lie. The Supreme Court noted that the lower court refused to act on the plaintiffs’ emergency request that the government be enjoined from deporting them for 14 hours and 28 minutes, which is a little longer than 42 minutes.  One would think that Ho, having been a part of that lying 5th Circuit panel, might feel chastened after the Supreme Court called him out. But if you think that, you don’t know James Ho.  When the Supreme Court sent the case back down to the 5th Circuit, it triggered the issuance of what is usually a pretty pro forma order, just saying that the case had been sent back down and what would happen next. We got that order, but then Ho tacked on a positively unhinged concurrence.  The Supreme Court, shown in November 2020. Rather than acknowledging that 42 minutes is not 14 hours, Ho just stuck with the whine that the lower court received only 42 minutes of grace from the big mean group of plaintiffs who were in a tizzy because they didn’t want to be illegally sent to a violent prison in El Salvador. How dare they.  Per Ho, his district court is not a Denny’s restaurant. No, he really said that. “We seem to have forgotten that this is a district court—not a Denny’s,” he said. “This is the first time I’ve ever heard anyone suggest that district judges have a duty to check their dockets at all hours of the night, just in case a party decides to file a motion.”  “If this is going to become the norm, then we should say so: District judges are hereby expected to be available 24 hours a day—and the Judicial Conference of the United States and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts should secure from Congress the resources and staffing necessary to ensure 24-hour operations in every district court across the country,” he added. Well, yes, it is the norm. There’s literally a federal statute that says, “All courts of the United States shall be deemed always open for the purpose of filing proper papers, issuing and returning process, and making motions and orders.”  Ho also ignores the fact that the whole reason the plaintiffs needed to seek on-the-fly emergency relief rather than allowing for a slow give-and-take with the Trump administration is because that administration keeps defying court orders and deporting people anyway. Of course, Ho does not care about that, but his heart bleeds for the president, whom the judge thinks is being treated shabbily by the courts. Yes, Ho is worried that the “disrespect” courts are showing the president “will not inspire continued respect for the judiciary, without which we cannot long function.” Ho would also like everyone to know that he does not see it as the court’s job to “check the excesses of the other branches.”  Then-President Barack Obama Sonia Sotomayor, right, as his nominee for the Supreme Court in May 2009. Newsflash for James Ho: That literally is the court’s job. It’s that whole checks-and-balances thing the rest of us learned in third grade.  Making sure to tailor his remarks to best suck up to Trump, Ho complained that other presidents have been afforded far more respect despite being bad people. President Barack Obama? Bad because he, in Ho’s words, “tried to shame” members of the Supreme Court by remarking on the Citizens United v. FEC ruling, which allowed corporations to dump unlimited money into elections. President Bill Clinton? Bad because he was disbarred.  It is in no way clear how these examples support the idea that things aren’t fair to Trump, but Ho isn’t going for logic here. He’s going for attention.  This isn’t the first time Ho has made an ostentatious move to try to win Trump’s favor. A few months ago, he very publicly reversed his own stance on birthright citizenship to align with Trump’s wildly unconstitutional view that it doesn’t exist.  Ho’s gotta work hard to be the most standout choice for Trump’s next Supreme Court pick. He’s got to shine brighter than Judge Aileen Cannon, who had the pleasure and privilege of freeing Trump from criminal charges for his habit of retaining classified documents and storing them in his gaudy bathroom. Cannon was also on the short list for attorney general, so Ho has to step up his game. Expect more audition tapes soon.  Campaign Action

If you want to pick a fight, make sure your side of the street is clean first. For Lee Zeldin, the EPA administrator seemed to have amnesia when he decided to start a tiff with Rep. Adam Schiff Wednesday at the Senate budget hearing. “I understand you’re an aspiring fiction writer. I see why,” Zeldin said, seemingly calling Schiff’s accusations at the hearing false. Without missing a beat, Schiff said back, “I understand your view that you can cut half of the agency and it won’t affect people’s health or their water or their air. That to me is a big fiction, Mr. Zeldin.” “If your children were drinking water in Santa Ana, Mr. Zeldin, maybe you wouldn’t be so cavalier about if there was lead in their water. Maybe you would give a damn instead of coming in here and suggesting that any grant that takes lead out of the water must be ‘waste fraud or abuse’ because you need the money for a tax cut for rich people.” x x YouTube Video Schiff’s reference to Santa Ana, California, is not by chance. The lower-income Southern California city and its children have been disproportionately impacted by high levels of lead both in the water and soil. However, instead of bolstering the grants in place designed to help communities like Santa Ana, Zeldin has been busy freezing over 700 grants in the name of budget cutting to appease his boss.  Daily Kos was unable to independently verify if Santa Ana had programs specifically targeted by Zeldin’s massive day of reckoning, but plenty of other cities who have faced water insecurity felt the cuts. As previously reported, the former New York representative proudly announced on Monday he was pulling the EPA out of Flint, Michigan, as well.  Despite dangerous lead levels that are cause for concern, Zeldin’s severe grant cutting also targeted Flint’s Water System Advisory Council. The council, now left with no funding at all, advocated for the extremely vulnerable community’s say in how their water is treated and received.  Rep. Adam Schiff Zeldin’s EPA did announce Tuesday that they were awarding $30.7 million in grant funding to help “small and rural communities” across the U.S. “provide training and technical assistance” to “improve water quality.” However, compared to the $3 billion Zeldin froze in climate law grants, this seems like a small bandage. Even Schiff could smell the intentions of Zeldin from across the room, accusing the GOPer of being “beholden to the oil industry.” Of course, Zeldin hasn’t tried to hide this either. In a previous hearing, he said that his goal was to bolster the automotive industry and to make the U.S. the “AI capital of the world.”  For a man hired to protect the environmental interests of the country, it seems like an odd statement to make. And Zeldin has been following through with just that.  Soon after taking his role, he set up an email system for businesses to be able to simply send in their requests to bypass regulations. And while this gives businesses more power to overstep their bounds, Zeldin made major cuts to his staff, making it harder for the EPA to even catch these wrongdoings.  And to somehow make it easier on the automotive industry—or just himself—he announced he would be doing away with the pesky stop-start engine feature meant to save gas (and the environment).  All in all, Zeldin’s actions speak for themselves—and Schiff knew that too.  “You could give a rat’s ass about how much cancer your agency causes,” Schiff said.  Campaign Action