Donald Trump has nominated Lance Schroyer for Director of US Immigration, Customs and Enforcement (ICE). Since 2017, ICE has been without a Senate-confirmed director. Multiple acting directors have served, including current acting director David Venturella. Even the notorious Greg Bovino, who oversaw the brutal ICE operations in Minneapolis earlier this year, was not the director, but served as ICE’s “Commander-at-Large”--a position created for him.

So what do we need to know about Lance Schroyer, the current nominee for ICE director?

Who is Lance Schroyer?

Currently serving as Senior Advisor to DHS Secretary Markwayne Mullin, Lance Schroyer is a former Marine who built a 29-year law enforcement career as a state trooper with the Oklahoma Highway Patrol (OHP). He rose through the ranks, becoming a major and leading the Emergency Services Unit, which handles special operations such as disaster response and special tactical operations.

One of those operations was Operation Guardian, a product of a 287(g) agreement that deputizes state and local law enforcement work on behalf of ICE, questioning and detaining people suspected of being in the United States illegally. According to a February 2026 article in Oklahoma Watch, immigration attorneys stated that Operation Guardian relied heavily on racial profiling and that the majority of people arrested had no criminal charges and were following lawful paths to citizenship.

Asian Community Targeted by Operation Guardian

On the DHS official website, Secretary Mullin states that Schroyer has “worked alongside state and federal partners to remove illegal aliens from Oklahoma under the 287g program.” DHS is happy to credit Schroyer with “spearheading” Oklahoma’s 287(g) agreements.

However, Oklahoma’s partnership with ICE has been rife with allegations of racial profiling and “snatch-and-grab” sweeps that result in the arrests of people who are not criminals and who are legally in the US.

Oklahoma City’s Asian community has been heavily impacted by Operation Guardian. Asian communities had built positive relationships with law enforcement, including organizing a fundraiser to buy equipment for the Oklahoma City Police Department. In the 1970s and 1980s, Vietnamese immigrants revitalized a run-down neighborhood that is now known as the vibrant Asian District.

In 2026, increased ICE activity and raids threaten the relationship between Oklahoma City law enforcement and the Asian community. A disturbing example is a two-hour DEA raid that began at the Cameron Building, which houses the offices of agencies including Legal Aid and the Veterans Administration, as well as the office of former Oklahoma Governor David Walters. After DEA officers--with ICE agents present--arrested two people at the building, federal agents swept through the Asian District and arrested immigrants who were not handed over to ICE because they were in the country legally.

Operation Guardian heavily targeted Asian truckdrivers from China, India and Uzbekistan along Interstate 40, conducting 520 stops and making 120 arrests. Then came the arrest of Chinese national Yingchao Fan after he was involved a rollover accident. Although he was in the United States legally and had no criminal charges, Fan was handcuffed and taken to Sequoyah County Jail. The jail held him until ICE picked him up and transported him to a prison in Tulsa. The transfer created difficulties for attorneys when they filed a habeus corpus petition on Fan’s behalf.

The Asian District raid and the Fan detention highlight the dangers of an emphasis on state and local law enforcement partnering with ICE. After the Asian District raid, former Governor Walters worried about the implications of the 287(g) task force agreements, saying, “The danger of a federal police force, controlled by the White House, that is essentially a secret police force operating out of secret prisons? The danger of that level of federalizing our state and local police forces should be evident to everybody.”

Controversy Over 287(g) Agreements

If confirmed as ICE director, Lance Schroyer will bring his dubious Operation Guardian experience to his new job. ICE’s 287(g) program already has a controversial track record and is unpopular with many state and local law enforcement agencies.

About 32 percent of the US population lives in a county in which local law enforcement participates in a 287(g) program, according to the ACLU report Deputized for Disaster. Other types of agencies are enlisting in 287(g) partnerships, including fire departments, state wildlife and fisheries departments, and college campuses. The ACLU report cites multiple problems caused by 287(g) agreements, including:

• Diverting local law enforcement resources from serving local communities to arresting and deporting people

• Dragnet-style enforcement that creates a dangerous environment leading to fear and anxiety in communities

• Traffic stops based on racial profiling

• Eroding trust between communities and law enforcement

287(g) partnerships can also lead to costly lawsuits. In November 2025, for example, New York’s Suffolk County Sheriff’s Office had to pay $112 million in damages after a jury found that it had wrongfully detained more than 670 immigrants. The detentions had been based on an ICE administrative warrant that lacked probable cause.

State and local law enforcement have not necessarily been welcoming 287(g) partnerships with open arms. Even in ruby-red Idaho (where I live), state and local law enforcement organizations opposed Senate Bill 1441, which would have required all police jurisdictions in the state to enter into 287(g) agreements with ICE. Although the Idaho State Police signed a 287(g) agreement to assist ICE with transporting detainees in 2025, there is wide opposition to a statewide mandate for local law enforcement. SB 1441, which replaced the earlier SB 659, died in the Idaho Senate in April, 2026.

Time to Call Your Senators

As Senior Advisor to Secretary Mullin, Lance Schroyer has been “overseeing the strategic coordination of immigration enforcement and serving as the liaison among local, regional, and federal law enforcement agencies.” Operation Guardian is likely an indication of things to come if he is confirmed as director of ICE. Are we headed toward more racial profiling and detention of people with no criminal charges and who are legally in the US? If the last thing you want is a repeat of Operation Guardian at a national level, it’s time to make those calls and let your senators know.

Holy shit. The full-on racism and xenophobia of the MAGAsphere and White Christian Nationalism is on display this week after two US Supreme Court rulings. The “Bible-says-it-I-believe-it-and-that-settles-it” folks are awfully silent about the Good Book’s command to “welcome the stranger” as Jesus himself (Matthew 25:35-40). The same folks who pat themselves on the back for requiring Texas students to read the Bible are gleefully celebrating the forced return of Haitian and Syrian immigrants to countries that the State Department is warning Americans to avoid. It would appear that MAGA is telling the “huddled masses” that they are out of luck.

Let’s take a closer look at those SCOTUS rulings.

Mullin v Doe

Mullin v Doe allows the Trump Administration to terminate Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Haitians and Syrians. The ruling will force thousands of people to return to the violent, chaotic situations that warranted TPS in the first place. TPS was created by Congress in 1990 to allow people to remain in the United States as long as situations such as war, natural disaster, or other dire circumstances persist in their home countries. Reviews take place every 6, 12, or 18 months to determine whether conditions have improved and no longer prevent a safe return.

The word “temporary” refers to the fact that TPS does not provide a direct path to citizenship; there is no deadline or time limit in the TPS statute. As mentioned above, the State Department recognizes the chaotic, dangerous conditions in Haiti and Syria, giving both countries a Level 4 “do not travel” warning--the highest risk level. According to the State Department official website, conditions in Haiti include “the risk of crime, terrorism, kidnapping, unrest, and limited health care.” The website lists similar conditions in Syria, including “the risk of terrorism, unrest, kidnapping, hostage taking, crime, and armed conflict.”

However, the Trump regime is terminating TPS for people from Haiti and Syria. The Supreme Court isn’t stopping them. Trump has made no secret of his disdain for Haitian immigrants. During the 2024 Presidential campaign, he was even spreading vicious rumors about the Ohio Haitian community (”they’re eating the dogs“) that were debunked by Ohio Governor Mike Dewine. JD Vance refused to retract the accusations and said that he was willing to “create stories so that the American media actually pays attention.”

But that’s not all. Who hasn’t seen and heard this week’s racist rant by MAGA podcaster Megan Kelly? I wish I could un-hear her screed, with its references to “diluting” “our work ethic and our culture and our values” and “Go back to f*cking Haiti!”

Are we great yet? This is America’s Golden Age?

Trump v Barbara

In Trump v Barbara, SCOTUS upholds birthright citizenship for all persons born on US soil, regardless of their parents’ immigration status. The 6-3 majority was divided (it should have been unanimous), with five justices joining Chief Justice Roberts’ majority opinion and Justice Kavanaugh writing his own partial dissent and partial concurrence. Roberts’ majority opinion cited a long-standing interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the US Constitution and struck Down Trump’s executive order that banned birthright citizenship for children whose parents are undocumented or in the US temporarily.

And MAGA’s reaction? White Christian Nationalism’s response? They scrambled to come up with ugly workarounds.

Rep. Lauren Boebert posted on X, “The State Department should IMMEDIATELY cease to give out visas to pregnant applicants.” Boebert, by the way, loudly proclaims her Christian faith and calls for the end to the separation of church and state.

The Federalist co-founder Sean Davis called for a series of alarming actions, including “deny entry to all female foreigners” “deny entry to all pregnant foreigners” and “Require sterilization of all foreigners prior to entry.” This is the same Sean Davis who calls himself a Christian and states that “Courage is standing up for pregnant moms who feel like they have no options and encouraging them that they can always choose life.”

Again, holy shit. These suggestions sound nothing like Jesus and a lot like something else. Sterilization, exclusion, and vilification of the marginalized sounds a lot like what happened to racial, ethnic, and marginalized communities in 1930s Germany and to African American people in early 20th century US.

Meanwhile, the Trump regime is prioritizing white South Africans as refugees while reducing the overall US refugee quota.

So we must witness the spectacle of White Christian Nationalists celebrating the exclusion of brown-skinned immigrants, women, children, the tired and the poor who are “yearning to breathe free.”

Where the fuck is Jesus in that?

How many times have we heard quotations about the importance of learning our history? Historian Howard Zinn put it well: “If you don’t know history, it’s as if you were born yesterday. If you were born yesterday then any leader can tell you anything.” As our nation marks Juneteenth--the date that all enslaved African Americans were officially free in every state--the Trump administration is doing its best to erase history that it finds uncomfortable. It is essential that we know the significance of events like Juneteenth, therefore, in order to avoid the filtered version of history preferred by the current administration.

What is Juneteenth?

The Emancipation Proclamation legally freed all enslaved people in the Confederate States on January 1, 1863. In states that were still under Confederate control, however, enforcement of the Emancipation Proclamation was limited. Texas was the last to officially find out. On June 19, 1865, Union troops announced in Galveston Bay, Texas that enslaved people were free. General Gordon Granger read General Order No. 3, which began with:

“The people of Texas are informed that in accordance with a Proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free. This involves an absolute equality of rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves, and the connection heretofore existing between them becomes that between employer and hired laborer.”

Emancipation did not happen all at once and was spotty even after General Granger read the proclamation. For example, some plantation owners waited until December--after the harvest--to inform their enslaved people that they were free. In Texas, June 19th became known as “Juneteenth” among the people who had been freed, and was marked with annual celebrations.

Juneteenth eventually became a federal holiday in 2021, to be observed on June 19th every year. President Joe Biden signed the legislation that had passed with bipartisan approval.

Then Donald Trump took the oath of office for his second term on January 20, 2025. The new administration soon took steps to dismantle historical exhibits and museum displays that focused on the horrors of slavery and racism. Trump even removed Juneteenth and Martin Luther King, Jr’s birthday from the list of federal holidays that offered free passes to national parks.

Executive Order Targeting Museums and National Parks

Trump’s campaign to erase certain details of American history got its jump-start on March 27, 2025, when Trump signed the Executive Order titled Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History. The administration had already declared war on “diversity, equity and inclusion” programs, or DEI. The March 27th EO, however, targets museums, historical sites, and national parks that Trump believed were promoting “divisive, race-centered,” “corrosive,” and “improper” ideologies that “degrade shared American values.”

Let’s look at some of the cultural institutions that have been singled out.

Philadelphia Independence Mall Exhibit

In 2010, the Freedom and Slavery in the Making of a New Nation exhibit was installed over the former site of the nation’s first executive mansion, where George Washington lived while he was President. The open-air exhibit includes interpretive plaques and a video depicting George Washington’s treatment of enslaved people.

In January of this year, Trump ordered the dismantling of the exhibit, and Park Service workers removed the plaques. The city of Philadelphia sued the Trump Administration, seeking to have the installation restored. Judge Cynthia Rufe of the US District Court for the Third Circuit issued a preliminary injunction in February, ordering the restoration of the exhibit while the lawsuit is in progress. In her 40-page ruling, Judge Rufe compared Trump’s actions to the authoritarian regime in George Orwell’s novel, 1984, stating that Trump does not have the authority “to dissemble and disassemble historical truths.”

As workers were installing the plaques that had been removed, the Trump Administration appealed. In April, the National Park Service updated its website with images of new panels that the Avenging the Ancestors Coalition--the group that advocated for the original exhibit--described as an attempt to sanitize history.

Today, the day before Juneteenth, a Third Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled in favor of the Trump Administration, allowing changes to the exhibit to move forward. Reacting to the decision, Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro stated in a post on X, “No matter how hard Donald Trump fights in a court of law to whitewash our history, he will never change our values in Pennsylvania. We are the birthplace of American democracy. We will continue to learn from our full history, even when it’s painful, to build a better future for all of us.”

Smithsonian Institution Exhibits and Museums

In August, 2025, Trump ordered an extensive review of Smithsonian Institution exhibits and museums. In an August 19, 2025 Truth Social post, Trump complained that “The Smithsonian is OUT OF CONTROL, where everything discussed is how horrible our Country is, how bad Slavery was.” The Trump Administration gave eight museums 120 days to replace exhibits deemed by Trump’s task force to contain “divisive or ideologically driven language.” Museums targeted by the order include the National Museum of American History, the National Museum of African American History and Culture, and the National Museum of the American Indian.

‘The Scourged Back’ Photograph

‘The Scourged Back’ is a well-known photograph that shows the heavily scarred back of a formerly enslaved Black man known as Peter (or Gordon, depending on the source). Trump’s campaign to remove “negative” depictions of American history led to the removal of the photograph from the Fort Pulaski National Monument in Georgia. The photograph was taken during a physical examination prior to enlistment and showed scars that likely resulted from floggings with a leather strap or paddling with a handsaw, according to a June 14, 1863 New York Times article.

A doctor and colonel noted at the time that they had seen many escaped enslaved people with similar scarring. The well-known image became a symbol of the horrors of slavery and was distributed by abolitionist groups.

History Matters

As we celebrate Juneteenth this year, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence is just around the corner. Noting that American Independence began “in the context of genocide, land theft, and slavery,” historian and author Jemar Tisby, PhD writes:

“This year, the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence, the contrast between Juneteenth and the Fourth of July couldn’t be starker. Juneteenth represents liberation and America 250 under this regime represents bondage to a whitewashed past.”

We must be able to clearly see our history, with its flaws and tragedies as well as accomplishments and triumphs. In 2026, the attempted erasure of history threatens us all with a loss of access to a deep understanding of our history and ourselves. Shame on us if we let it happen.

On May 15, 2026, the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention declared an outbreak of the Ebola virus in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), citing 13 confirmed cases. The next day, as a case was confirmed in Uganda, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the outbreak a global health emergency. Congolese Health Minister Dr. Samuel Roger Kamba stated that the outbreak may have started earlier than April 24—the date it was first detected. Tests have determined that the Bundiboygo strain--for which there are no vaccines or treatments--is responsible for the outbreak.

In 2025, the US Agency for International Development (USAID) was dismantled during the Trump Administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) cuts. This is the first test of the impact of the dismantling of USAID on an international disease outbreak.

Bundibuygo Ebola Cases Increasing

As of May 25, there have been about 900 suspected cases of Bundibuygo Ebola and 220 deaths from the disease in the DRC, according to WHO Director-General Tedros Ghebreyesus. UN News reports that WHO has declared a public health emergency of international concern and has upgraded the DRC risk assessment from “high” to “very high.” Neighboring countries--including Uganda, where five cases and one death have been reported--have an “especially high” risk, which is the highest risk level.

Because there are no vaccines or treatments available for the Bundibuygo strain, public health officials must rely on other containment methods. According to physician and infectious disease investigator Dr. Alain Casseus, some of these non-pharmaceutical interventions include:

• Case identification

• Contact tracing

• Isolation

• Infection prevention

• Safe burials

• Community engagement

Successful non-pharmaceutical interventions require expertise along with a high level of community trust--both of which are impacted by USAID cuts.

Local Relationships and Communication Disrupted

USAID cuts have resulted in a lack of expertise that is essential for managing outbreak response. Additionally, relationships with local communities that took years to build are dismantled when public health staff are fired. The trust and ease of communication that develop with long term relationships are indispensable--and not easily replaced--when dealing with a severe disease outbreak.

For example, the UN reports widespread misinformation and mistrust of outside authorities in local DRC communities. Resentment is growing because of bans on funeral wakes of more than 50 people and the inability of bereaved people to touch the body of deceased loved ones. Two DRC treatment centers have been set on fire. The same UN report cites mistrust and misinformation as likely culprits in the attack.

DART Teams Absorbed into US State Department

One of USAID’s signature programs was the Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DART). For years, USAID’s Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance deployed DART teams within 24 to 48 hours to international regions experiencing disasters or complex crises. DART teams were developed to provide “boots on the ground” support and coordinate the US response in six key ways:

• Management and liaison: Direct team activities, ensure safety and security, and coordinate with local government, UN and NGO teams, and US military assets.

• Operations: Manages relief responses, such as emergency medical and health responses.

• Planning: Evaluates and tracks impact and needs, and develops tactical and operational strategies.

• Logistics: Procures, manages, and tracks supplies and equipment, including USAID relief distribution.

• Administration: Manages DART fiscal activities, such as cost analysis and procurement operations.

• Communications: Coordinate relief efforts and team operations by maintaining voice and data networks.

Now that USAID has been dismantled, the DART program no longer exists in its previous structure. DART has been moved to a small US Department of State bureau. On May 23, the State Department reported a DART deployment to DRC and Uganda. However, Dr. Casseus had noted on May 17th that DART had not yet been deployed, and that in its previous form, DART would have been mobilized long before the Bundibuygo Ebola case count reached its current level.

Staff Reductions Impact WHO Coordination

The US completed its withdrawal from WHO in 2025. Other countries are unlikely to step in to replenish the lost funding for WHO. The Center for Global Development reports that the United Kingdom, Germany, and Canada have significantly reduced foreign aid spending.

USAID funding cuts have hampered the ability of WHO to coordinate the response to the outbreak, according to Dennis Carroll, former director of USAID’s Emerging Pandemic and Threats program. For example, WHO is responsible for managing the transport of personal protective equipment (PPE) and diagnostic labs to affected areas. Reduced staffing has a tremendous impact on ensuring that the necessary logistics and infrastructure are in place for these tasks.

CDC Global Infrastructure and Staffing Impacted

In the past, the CDC relied on the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Research (PEPFAR) funding for its global work. USAID had been the largest implementing agency for PEPFAR. From public health teams to labs and surveillance, HIV/AIDS funding played a crucial role in halting a variety of outbreaks.

However, the US State Department has withheld approximately $700 million from the CDC-implemented branch of PEPFAR--funds that would have paid for this public health infrastructure. CNN reports that the State Department disputes the claim that withheld funds have negatively impacted foreign public health programs.

The abrupt dismantling of USAID, deep cuts to CDC, and withdrawal from WHO have severely impacted the US global response to the current Ebola outbreak. Ebola is not an airborne contagion and is not easily spread. However, the gaps in public health logistics, infrastructure, and community trust are worrying when one contemplates the possibility of future outbreaks of more easily transmitted viruses.

In a public meeting punctuated at times by shouting, residents of Pocatello, Idaho voiced concerns last evening about a proposed AI data center in the city. Hundreds of attendees packed the standing-room-only Hearing Examiner meeting, where developers were requesting a conditional use permit (CUP) for the project. An additional 200+ viewers watched a livestream of the 4-hour meeting. In-person attendees signed up and stood in line to address the Hearing Examiner.

Pocatello Idaho Hearing

Lex Developments LLC, and Arizona company headed by Gus Shultz, were requesting a CUP for the project. The data center would be built at the location of the former Hoku Materials polycilicon plant, which manufactured solar panel components. The site, located near a railroad on the west side of Pocatello, has been abandoned since Hoku declared bankruptcy in 2013. The proposed data center would consist of seven 100,000 square-foot buildings, parking space, and retention basins.

Although several residents spoke in favor of approving the CUP at last night’s hearing, the vast majority were opposed. Multiple residents voiced concern over the developers’ inconclusive responses to questions in the CUP application. And they came prepared with facts and detailed questions.

For example, Lex Developers stated that they were “working with Idaho Power and Intermountain Gas to determine a plan to provide power.” Many residents found this response unsatisfactory considering the 100 megawatts of power--comparable to the power used by Pocatello in one year--that the developers estimated would be needed to run the data center.

Water usage was a recurrent theme, with residents citing Idaho’s current severe drought and lack of snow pack after a record warm winter. Some residents also were skeptical of the developers’ claims that the data center’s closed-loop system would reduce water usage. Opponents pointed out that although a closed-loop system may use dramatically less water onsite, the system would require periodic flushing and use more electricity that would increase water usage offsite. Other concerns raised by opponents included:

• Heat dome that can increase temperatures by 3.5 to 16 degrees within a 6-mile radius of a data center.

• Financial soundness, noting that Hoku had a $1 billion debt when it left Pocatello.

• Lack of in-depth environmental impact assessment.

• Potential utility rate increases.

• Pollution from natural gas generator in region susceptible to air inversions.

• Constant noise from the data center.

• Release of PFAS chemicals from the closed-loop system.

• Lack of consultation with affected Bannock and Shoshone Native American tribes.

Even supporters and uncommitted attendees wanted more definitive answers from the developers before they could wholeheartedly favor CUP approval. Pocatello’s Hearing Examiner has until Tuesday, May 19, to decide whether to approve or deny Lex Developers’ CUD request.

Data Center Opponents Take Action Nationwide

Pocatello residents have a lot of company in their skepticism and opposition to AI data center projects. Data center opponents are introducing legislation that would restrict or ban data center construction in several states. Residents are also taking their own initiative in some cities and counties.

State-Level Actions

Multiple state legislators are taking action to halt AI data center construction. State-level restrictions have been introduced in at least 14 state legislatures, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. Examples of state-level action include:

• Maryland HB 120 (introduced January 2026): moratorium on data center construction, referred to committee.

• Georgia HB 1059 (introduced January 2026): moratorium on data center construction until December 2028, awaiting House second reading.

• Maine LD 307 (vetoed): moratorium on data centers over 20 megawatts until November 2027, vetoed by Governor Janet Mills.

Local Citizens Take the Initiative

In some locales, citizens are not waiting for political office-holders to act. From referendums to city council elections, residents are taking the initiative to oppose AI data center construction.

Box Elder County Referendum

In Box Elder County, Utah, residents have introduced two referendums opposing the construction of the world’s largest AI data center. The completed data center would span 40,000 acres near Utah’s Great Salt Lake and Bear River Migratory Bird Refuge. In order to have the referendums placed on the November 2026 ballot, the Box Elder Accountability Referendum (BEAR) must have the applications approved by the County Attorney’s Office within 20 days. Then BEAR has 45 days to gather more than 5,000 signatures and meet other requirements.

Missouri Town Votes Out Half its City Council

After the Festus, Missouri city council approved a $6 billion AI data center, voters made their disapproval known. In April, voters in the St. Louis suburb of 12,000 ousted all four city council incumbents who were up for re-election. Data center opponents are also circulating a petition to recall the mayor and the remaining city council members.

Milwaukee Suburb Passes Referendum

Also in April, voters in Port Washington, Wisconsin passed a the nation’s first anti-data center referendum. As Oracle and OpenAI move forward with data center construction in that town, the referendum restricts future data center projects.

These are just a few of state and local measures opposing AI data center construction. From legislators to private citizens, opponents are organizing and taking action. Like the residents of Pocatello, Idaho, they’re showing up at public hearings and at the polls. And they’re coming prepared with facts and demanding definitive answers.

Launched in 1994, the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) is a far-right, evangelical Christian legal advocacy and training organization with an anti-LGBTQ, anti-transgender, anti-abortion agenda. Its Blackstone Legal Fellowship provides legal training for law students and attorneys. On its website, ADF describes itself as “the world’s largest legal organization, committed to protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, marriage and family, and parental rights.”

However, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) includes ADF in its list of extremist hate groups. The SPLC notes the ADF’s efforts to criminalize the LGBTQ and transgender community and virtually ban access to abortion--an agenda that aligns with the Trump Administration. As reported in a previous Substack post, many Trump allies have close ties with the ADF and the Blackstone Fellowship. For decades, the SPLC has helped the FBI investigate and dismantle hate groups. However, the FBI cut ties with the SPLC in 2025 and the Trump’s Department of Justice (DOJ) recently announced an indictment against the SPLC.

The ADF has influenced legislation at the state level by drafting model bills. The Idaho state legislature has been particularly receptive to the ADF’s agenda--even when the majority of Idaho voters disagree. Some of Idaho’s extreme laws are serving as blueprints for other states.

ADF Model Legislation: Mississippi Gestational Age Act

In 2018 the ADF drafted the model legislation that became Mississippi’s Gestational Age Act. The strict abortion ban was drafted for the purpose of challenging Roe v Wade. As ADF senior counsel Denise Burke said at an Evangelicals for Life conference, “We’re kind of basically baiting them…Once we get these first-trimester limitations in place, we’re going to go for a complete ban on abortion, except to save the life of the mother.”

The Gestational Age Act prohibits abortion after 15 weeks gestation, with exceptions for medical emergencies and severe fetal abnormalities. In 2022 the US Supreme Court upheld the Mississippi law in Dobbs v Jackson Women’s Health Organization and struck down Roe v Wade. Public opinion in Mississippi was deeply divided over the state’s abortion law, with 51% disagreeing with the Dobbs decision and only 18% believing that abortion should be completely banned.

Since Dobbs, the ADF has pursued an anti-abortion agenda in multiple states. According to the ADF website, 2026 legislative goals include defunding publicly-funded abortion services and banning the mailing of abortion drugs. The organization combines drafting model legislation with providing legal representation when legislation is challenged in court. The state of Idaho is an example.

Idaho Near-Total Abortion Ban

The majority of Idahoans surveyed support access to abortion. According to the 2025 Idaho Public Policy Survey, 55% of Idaho voters believe that abortion should be legal through at least the first trimester, and 64% favor the expansion of exceptions for abortion access.

In 2022, however, Idaho enacted a near-total abortion ban. Along with the Idaho Family Policy Center (IFPC,) ADF was influential in the drafting and defense of this law on multiple levels. The General Counsel and Legal Director of the IFPC, Caleb Pirc, is a Blackstone Fellow with ADF. The final phase of the Blackstone Legal Fellowship, a Blackstone Fellow “enters a community designed to support professional growth and personal formation over the course of a legal career.”

Blaine Conzatti, President of the IFPC, drafted Idaho’s Fetal Heartbeat and Preborn Child Protection Act (2021), which bans abortion at the time of cardiac activity detection (approximately 6 weeks), with exceptions for rape, incest, and medical emergency. Other legislation supported or driven by the IFPC include the Defense of Life Act or “trigger” law (2020), a near total ban that makes it a felony for health professionals to perform abortions, and the “trafficking law” (2023), which criminalizes aiding a minor with traveling out of state to obtain an abortion.

Currently, an Idaho citizen ballot initiative to repeal the abortion ban is in the verification process for placement on the November 2026 ballot. The 2026 Boise State University Public Policy Survey shows that a majority of Idaho voters support the initiative.

Idaho Fairness in Women’s Sports Act

In 2020, Idaho enacted the Fairness in Women’s Sports Act, which bans transgender girls and women from girls’ and women’s sports. Originally HB 500, the law was introduced by Representative Barbara Ehardt (R-Idaho Falls) and based on ADF model legislation. ADF had been working with Ehardt since 2018, when she first had the idea for the bill. Early this year, the US Supreme Court heard oral arguments for Little v Hecox, a lawsuit challenging the Idaho law. ADF is intervening on behalf of Madison Kenyon and Mary Kate Marshall, two plaintiffs in the case. A ruling is expected in June.

By 2021, HB 500 became a blueprint for similar anti-trans bills in 30 other states. According to Trans Legislation Tracker, “Over one third of states have already passed laws banning transgender students from participating in sports consistent with their gender identity” as of 2026. The anti-transgender legislation continues in Idaho, heavily promoted by the IFPC. This year, the Idaho legislature passed HB 752, which criminalizes the presence of transgender individuals in public restrooms that align with their gender identity. The law is currently being challenged in federal court.

ADF Provides Idaho with Free Court Representation

One of the most controversial aspects of the ADF’s influence in Idaho’s anti-abortion and ant-trans efforts has occurred in the courtroom. In 2023, ADF contracted with the state’s Attorney General to provide the state with free legal representation during court challenges. Chris Geidner first reported the provisions of the contracts, which shielded the ADF from public records requests and required the Attorney General’s office to seek ADF approval prior to making relevant public comments. Greider noted that the direct representation of Idaho differed from ADF’s representation of an intervening party in Little v Hecox and a lawsuit challenging West Virginia’s anti-trans sports law.

The ADF has been representing Idaho free of charge in the following cases:

• US v Idaho: challenged Idaho’s near-total abortion ban as a violation of the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA). The US Department of Justice dismissed the case in 2025 as it is not enforcing the EMTALA.

• Roe v Critchfield: challenged Idaho’s anti-trans school bathroom law. In 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Idaho law.

• Washington v FDA: intervention by Republican attorneys general in a lawsuit about the abortion drug mifeprestone. The case ended with a summary judgment for the FDA, but the US Supreme Court is now considering Louisiana v FDA, another case concerning mifeprestone access.

In a March, 2024 Idaho Statesman opinion piece, longtime Idaho attorney Tom Arkoosh cited ethical concerns with this legal arrangement. Noting that the Attorney General’s client should be people of Idaho, Arkoosh wrote that “the ADF is not ‘for’ the people of the state of Idaho, but instead, the ADF is for the ADF.”

Indeed, the ADF appears determined to pressure state legislatures to adopt its agenda. Many legislators appear oblivious to the opinions and concerns of constituents--even when the majority of constituents disagree with these extreme legislative measures.

On April 21, 2026, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) announced an indictment against the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), a prominent civil rights organization. The SPLC has worked for decades with the FBI and other law enforcement to investigate white supremacist and far-right organizations, including the KKK and neo-Nazi groups. Part of the SPLC’s investigative work includes the use of paid informants.

Now, the DOJ is claiming in the 11-count indictment that the SPLC’s use of paid informants constitutes fraud and provides funding for extremist groups. In October, 2025, the FBI cut ties with the SPLC and the Anti-Defamation League (ADL)--another anti-extremist organization.

At the same time, several of the far-right organizations listed by the SPLC and ADL are closely associated with the Trump administration and its allies. The Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, for example, were substantially involved with the 2020 election denial and the January 6th, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The Alliance Defending Freedom is a Christian far-right legal advocacy group that opposes LGBTQ rights and has close ties with Trump allies.

January 6th Insurrectionists

SPLC-listed groups, including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers, have been associated with the January 6, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. The ADL describes the Proud Boys as a “right-wing extremist group with a history of using violence, targeted harassment and intimidation to achieve their political goals.” The ADL includes the Oath Keepers as a member of the militia movement, with an “explicit focus on recruiting current and former military, law enforcement and first responder personnel.”

Proud Boys

During a 2020 Presidential campaign debate between Donald Trump and Joseph Biden, moderator Chris Wallace asked Trump if he would urge white supremacist groups to “stand down” and refrain from inflammatory statements. Biden suggested the Proud Boys as an example of a far-right group. Trump replied by claiming that violence is a “left-wing problem” and stating “Proud Boys, stand back and stand by,” which the Proud Boys interpreted as an endorsement.

After the 2020 election, Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio created a “Ministry of Self-Defense.” According to the US Department of Justice, members of the group “conspired to prevent, hinder and delay the certification of the Electoral College vote, and to oppose by force the authority of the government of the United States.”

In 2023, four leaders of the Proud Boys were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges relating to the January 6th US Capitol breach. Prison sentences included 22 years for former Proud Boys chairman Enrique Tarrio and 17 years for member Nathan Biggs. In a sweeping pardon of 1500 individuals convicted of January 6th crimes, Trump pardoned Tarrio, Beggs, and other Proud Boys after his 2025 inauguration.

In March 2026, Enrique Tarrio posted a photograph of himself with Secretary of State Marco Rubio during the Shield of the Americas summit. The DOJ moved to vacate the January 6th convictions in April, 2026.

Oath Keepers

Stewart Rhodes, founder of Oath Keepers, was convicted of seditious conspiracy in the January 6, 2021 violence at the US Capitol. In the weeks leading up to January 6th, Rhodes called for Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and declare martial law with the Oath Keepers serving as the statutory militia. During the 2020 elections and on January 6th, the Oath Keepers provided security for Trump allies, including former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn and conservative lobbyist Roger Stone.

In 2022, Rhodes and Kelly Meggs, leader of the Florida Oath Keepers chapter, were convicted of seditious conspiracy and other charges. Rhodes and Meggs were sentenced to 18 and 12 years in prison. Shortly after his 2025 inauguration, Donald Trump commuted the sentences. In April 2026, the US Department of Justice moved to vacate the convictions.

Alliance Defending Freedom

The SPLC has identified the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) as an anti-LGBTQ hate group. This self-described “world’s largest Christian legal ministry” is a legal advocacy and training organization that has advocated for the recriminalization of consensual LGBTQ sexual acts and denial of goods and services to LGBTQ people on the basis of religion. In the European Union, the ADF has unsuccessfully advocated for state-sanctioned sterilization of transgender individuals. The proposed sterilization requirement was struck down by the European Court of Human Rights.

A ministry of the ADF, the Blackstone Legal Fellowship is a summer training program for law students. The program aligns with the ADF’s positions opposing abortion, contraception, and LGBTQ rights.

Numerous allies of both Trump Administrations are affiliated with the ADF and Blackstone:

• Project 2025: ADF is an advisory board member of the Heritage Foundation-led initiative that outlines conservative policy goals.

• John Eastman: Disbarred conservative attorney known for legal theories in support of overturning the 2020 elections, was a faculty member at Blackstone.

• Supreme Court: Justice Amy Comey Barrett was a lecturer for the Blackstone Legal Fellowship between 2011 and 2017.

• Jeff Sessions: In 2017, then-Attorney General Sessions spoke at a closed-door “Summit on Religious Liberty” hosted by ADF.

• Mike Johnson: Current Speaker of the House was a senior attorney and spokesperson for ADF.

• Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO): Former faculty at Blackstone Legal Fellowship.

• Erin Hawley: Wife of Senator Josh Hawley, is a senior attorney for ADF and has led litigation against abortion pill access as Senator Hawley introduced similar legislation.

• Kirsten Waggoner: The ADF CEO is a member of the US Department of Justice Advisory Board of the Religious Liberty Commission, which advises the White House Faith Office.

• Federal Judges: Multiple federal Judges, including US 4th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Allison Jones Rushing and US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Lawrence JC VanDyke were affiliated with or interned for ADF.

Groups that have been listed by the SPLC and ADL are active not only in Washington, DC but also at the state level. Besides its Washington, DC connections, the ADF is active in drafting model bills for state legislatures. For example, it was instrumental in drafting Idaho’s anti-transgender Fairness in Women’s Sports bill (HB500), which became a model for similar legislation in other states. Part 2 of this examination of SPLC-listed groups will focus on the ADF’s influence on the Idaho state legislature and Attorney General’s office.

US Supreme Court appeals typically last for months and feature extensive briefings and oral arguments. Then a lengthy written opinion explains the legal reasoning that led to Court’s ruling. The emergency or “shadow” docket, however, is a fast-track option that has been around about as long as the Supreme Court itself. Normally used only in rare situations with a high risk of imminent, irreparable harm—such as an impending execution—the shadow docket is being used in non-emergency situations with increasing frequency. Issued without oral argument and minimal briefings, these rulings are usually one page long with little or no explanation of the Court’s reasoning.

Shadow Docket Shift Began in 2013

According to the SCOTUSblog, the shift began in 2013, when the Court granted an emergency appeal by the Little Sisters of the Poor, who were seeking a preliminary injunction against the Affordable Care Act’s contraceptive mandate. Before the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals could rule on injunctive relief, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a one-paragraph ruling granting the injunction. No briefings or oral arguments had taken place.

Clean Power Plan Ruling

A dramatic shadow docket example is found in the 2016 ruling that halted President Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Again, the order was issued before the lower appeals court had a chance to rule on the case.

Among other goals, the Clean Power Plan sought to shut down coal-fired plants and switch to renewable energy sources. States would have to submit compliance plans by September 2016, with full compliance due in 2030. States could apply for a two-year extension of the 2016 deadline. A lawsuit promptly ensued, and the DC Circuit Court agreed to hear the case without blocking the plan.

Before the DC Court could rule on the case, West Virginia and other states sought emergency relief from the US Supreme Court. Last week, The New York Times reported on the Supreme Court’s five-day sprint that resulted in a shadow docket ruling that blocked the Clean Power Plan. The Times had received memos that showed a hurried series of arguments for and against the use of the shadow docket in this case. Chief Justice Roberts adamantly pushed for the shadow docket option, noting the expense that the energy industry would incur if the plan were allowed to go forward.

Other Justices, however, were not convinced. In a memo, Justice Stephen Breyer noted the generous timeline of the Clean Power Act, and recommended asking the states to request an extension. Justice Elena Kagan agreed with Justice Breyer’s suggestion and expressed concern over this unprecedented use of the shadow docket. Eventually, however, the 5-4 majority issued a single-page ruling that blocked the Clean Power Plan. The ruling was issued without any oral argument and without a written explanation of the Court’s legal analysis.

Dramatic Increase Since the Clean Power Plan Ruling

The use of the shadow docket has increased dramatically since the 2016 Clean Power Plan ruling. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the US government applied for emergency relief eight times from 2000 to 2017. By contrast, Trump’s first administration filed emergency appeals 41 times. The Biden administration sought emergency relief 19 times. As of March 2026, there have been 33 applications for emergency relief in Trump’s second term. During the first year of Trump’s second administration, the Supreme Court ruled in Trump’s favor 80 percent of the time.

Vasquez Racial Profiling Case: Bypassing Fourth Amendment Precedent

The Fourth Amendment protection against “unreasonable search and seizure” also took a hit in this spate of shadow docket rulings. In September 2025, the Supreme Court used the shadow docket to bypass the 1975 United States v. Brignoni-Ponce precedent that prohibits the use of racial and ethnic profiling as the sole basis for immigration stops. In Noem v Vasquez-Perdomo, the Court once again inserted itself into a case that was still in litigation. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals had granted a temporary restraining order restricting the use of race, ethnicity, language, and location by roving Border Patrol agents in Los Angeles. The Supreme Court granted the US government’s petition for emergency relief, allowing CBP to continue to use racial profiling as its primary basis for immigration stops.

Although the Court did not publish a written explanation of its reasoning, Justice Brett Kavanaugh wrote a concurring opinion in which he appealed to “common sense” and described the stops as “typically brief” --resulting in the nickname “Kavanaugh-style stops” for this type of immigration stop. In her dissenting opinion (joined by Justices Kagan and Jackson), Justice Sotomayor criticized the Court’s use of the shadow docket to lift the permanent injunction without oral argument or a full written opinion.

Presidential Powers Expanded in Trump 2.0 Rulings

In 2025, Trump swiftly moved to dismantle agencies and fire members of independent government agencies. The shadow docket came into play again in Trump v Wilcox, which addressed the firings of members of the National Labor Relations Board and the Merit Systems Protection board. Since Humphrey’s Executor v United States (1935), Courts and statutory protections have restricted the President from firing members of independent agencies without good cause. The current Supreme Court, however, used the shadow docket to essentially overrule Humprey’s Executor and allow Trump to proceed with the firings.

In a similar shadow docket ruling, Trump v Slaughter, the Court permitted the firing of a member of the Federal Trade Commission. In her dissenting opinion, Justice Kagan warned against using the shadow docket “to transfer government authority from Congress to the President, and thus to reshape the Nation’s separation of powers.”

Lack of Transparency or Guidance for Lower Courts

The increased reliance on the shadow docket is concerning and potentially harmful to the legal system. The customary Supreme Court process of substantive briefings and oral arguments offers benefits to lower courts and the general public. Oral arguments give the Justices an opportunity to clarify legal issues and ask pressing questions relevant to the case before them. The public has a chance to see the Court in action, providing transparency and a sense of legitimacy to Supreme Court proceedings.

A detailed written opinion explains the Court’s reasoning and provides lower courts with information they need for future cases. Clarity is essential when a Supreme Court ruling bypasses a long established precedent or affects the government’s balance of powers. The shadow docket does not provide the transparency that the courts and general public need and deserve.

A group of Donald Trump’s right-wing allies are circulating a draft Executive Order that would declare a national emergency and nationalize elections, according to a Washington Post report. Right-wing activists, including attorney and election denier Peter Ticktin, former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, and QAnon influencer Juan O. Savin, have been calling for the President to declare a national emergency for this purpose.

Ticktin and Savin are among a group who claim to be involved with the drafting of the order. Like other Executive Orders, the proposed order attempts claim Presidential emergency powers from several statutes. This article will focus on the dubious statutory authority claimed by the authors and proponents of the draft Executive Order.

National Emergencies Act

Enacted in 1976, the National Emergencies Act (NEA) provides a legal framework which the President must follow when declaring a national emergency. The NEA ensures accountability by requiring the President to cite specific laws that authorize the powers claimed in an emergency declaration. In other words, the President cannot just declare an emergency at any time for any reason.

Additionally, the duration of the emergency declaration is not entirely up to the President; Congress must meet every six months to consider a vote for a joint resolution to terminate the emergency order. Emergency declarations automatically expire after one year unless the President notifies Congress that the national emergency will remain in effect.

Must Show Statutory Authority

There are about 150 statutes that a President can cite to claim authority under the NEA. Besides the NEA, the draft Executive Order cites the Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA) and the Defense Production Act of 1950. It also cites Executive Order 13848, which claimed Presidential authority under the International Economic Emergency Act (IEEPA). In fact, at least one of the proponents of the draft order seems to consider the IEEPA to be the main authority for the President seizing control of elections under a national emergency.

International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA)

In a memo sent to Democracy Docket, Ticktin cites the IEEPA as statutory authority for the draft order. In 2018, the IEEPA was cited in Executive Order 13848 in order to justify sanctions against countries that were found to have interfered with US elections. The IEEPA mostly covers economic sanctions against foreign countries and gives the President authority over foreign property or interests during a national emergency in times of “unusual or extraordinary threat.” It authorizes the President to:

“investigate, block during the pendency of an investigation, regulate, direct and compel, nullify, void, prevent or prohibit, any acquisition, holding, withholding, use, transfer, withdrawal, transportation, importation or exportation of, or dealing in, or exercising any right, power, or privilege with respect to, or transactions involving, any property in which any foreign country or a national thereof has any interest by any person, or with respect to any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States;” (50 US Code Sec. 1702 (a)(1)(B)),

The statute also authorizes the President, in times of “armed hostilities” or an attack by a foreign country or individuals, to:

“confiscate any property, subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, of any foreign person, foreign organization, or foreign country that he determines has planned, authorized, aided, or engaged in such hostilities or attacks against the United States” (50 US Code Sec 1702 (a)(1)(C))

In other words, the IEEPA authorizes the use of sanctions against foreign entities who may be interfering with US elections. The IEEPA does not, however, mention anything about regulating US elections themselves. Contrary to the broad assertions in Ticktin’s memo, the statute would not allow the President to confiscate voting machines in the US because the voting machines are not the property of foreign entities that are engaged in “Such hostilities or attacks” against the US.

Plus, mail-in ballots are exempt from IEEPA control. The IEEPA exempts “any postal, telegraphic, telephonic, or other personal communication, which does not involve a transfer of anything of value;” from Presidential control. (50 US Code Sec 1702(b)(1))

Defense Production Act

The Defense Production Act authorizes the President to direct private industry toward practices that benefit national defense. For example, it allows the President to require businesses to prioritize contracts for materials that benefit national defense and to incentivize industrial expansion to increase defense-related production. The statute confers authority to mobilize private industry. It does not grant any Presidential powers to regulate elections or otherwise tell states what to do.

Federal Information Security Modernization Act of 2014 (FISMA)

As noted by Lawfare, FISMA is not an emergency authorization statute. Originally enacted in 2002, FISMA was amended in 2014 to give the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) enhanced authority to strengthen information security in the federal government. For example, FISMA requires annual security program reviews and implementation of cybersecurity improvements.

FISMA addresses the security of federal databases and information systems. It does not authorize the President to take control over elections or information, such as voter lists, that the states maintain. In fact, the transparency provisions of the draft order--such as requiring original ballots, voter lists, and “related documents” to be available for “public inspection, copying, or downloading”--may violate FISMA security mandates.

Are There Any Guardrails?

What if Trump signs this draft Executive Order? Legal experts and think tanks, ranging from the nonpartisan Center for American Progress to the libertarian Cato Institute, have criticized the proposed order as unconstitutional and illegal. In spite of its recent displays of loyalty to Trump, the US Supreme Court may be willing to block the order. For example, earlier this year, six of the nine justices ruled in Learning Resources, Inc. v Trump that the IEEPA did not authorize Trump’s implementation of tariffs.

Trump has denied that he is considering a national emergency declaration to nationalize the elections. However, the proposed order is consistent with the regime’s attempts--most recently, the SAVE Act--to seize control of elections from the states. With its weak statutory claims, the draft order may fail, but the assault on voting and the separation of powers continues.

Let’s face it, the Trump regime has a thing for national databases. First there was the US Department of Justice’s (DOJ) demands for unredacted state voter rolls. Then there was the revelation that the voter information would be shared with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to create another list. And in March, Donald Trump signed an Executive Order (EO) targeting mail-in ballots and creating--you guessed it--more lists. The use of sensitive, personally identifiable information in these lists has raised alarms among privacy and cyber security experts.

Donald and the Three Lists

Titled “Ensuring Citizenship Verification and Integrity in Federal Elections,” Trump’s EO requires the creation of three lists:

List 1: After consulting various federal databases, DHS will create a list of citizens aged 18 and older in each state. The chief election official of each state will receive a list for their state.

List 2: Each state will provide the US Postal Service (USPS) with a list of voters who are scheduled to receive mail-in ballots.

List 3: The USPS will send each state a list of people “enrolled with the USPS” to have the USPS deliver their ballots. People who are not on List 3 will not be allowed to have their ballots delivered by the USPS.

The EO does not clearly state how the Administration will use the information in the lists. Arron Blacksburg, federal policy counsel for the Institute for Responsive Government, notes that the USPS has until May 30 to propose rules for generating List 3. Although it appears that that Lists 1 and 2 will be used to cross-reference names and create List 3, the order does not specify how this will take place.

DOJ Demands Unredacted State Voter Lists

Of course, this is not the first time that the regime has sought the personal data of millions of people. In an unprecedented move, the DOJ is demanding that states turn over unredacted voter rolls containing a broad scope of sensitive, personally identifying information. For example, NPR reports that the DOJ demanded that Colorado hand over all records from the past 22 months, which the state is required to keep.

In another example, the DOJ had sued California for voter rolls that included voter names and addresses, driver’s license numbers, Social Security numbers, methods of voter registration, voter participation habits, party identification, and other personal data. US District Court Judge David O. Carter dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuit, and the DOJ is currently appealing that ruling.

Legal experts warn that a national voter database violates Article I, section 4 of the US Constitution, which gives the states and Congress the power to regulate elections. The Electronic Privacy Information Center’s (EPIC) deputy director and director of enforcement John Davisson calls it “an unlawful and inexcusable abuse of sensitive voter data” and a violation of the Privacy Act.

Plus, concerns have arisen regarding the security and protection of the personal information contained in the voter lists. After analyzing the memorandum of understanding (MOU) that the DOJ sent to Colorado, EPIC describes the DOJ’s security for voter lists as “woefully inadequate” to “virtually non-existent.” From its demands that states send the voter lists as quickly as possible to its “indefensibly vague” security promises, EPIC states that the DOJ is failing to live up to the strict security requirements of the Federal Information Modernization Act (FIMSA).

What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

And it’s not just the DOJ that plans to have its eyes on the voter lists. In spite of its past denials, DOJ admitted in a March court hearing that it plans to share the voter lists with DHS--which brings us back to Trump’s EO targeting mail-in ballots and Davisson’s concerns about sensitive voter data. In an interview with Votebeat, Davisson notes that the EO calls for a DHS list of everyone age 18 and older to be compiled from multiple federal databases that are not designed to interact with each other. He adds that there is “no reliable way” to integrate the databases without “incomplete or inaccurate results.”

Additionally, the Social Security Administration’s (SSA) inspector general and several members of Congress are investigating the possible misuse of sensitive Social Security data by Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) staffers. In August, former SSA chief data officer Charles Borges filed a whistleblower disclosure that alleged improper copying of Social Security data by DOGE staffers.

A massive national voter data base. Three lists of voter data with questionable security. Alleged mishandling of personal Social Security data. A list of voters who are allowed to receive mail-in ballots. What could possibly go wrong?

The future of Trump’s mail-in ballot EO is uncertain. As noted above, legal experts are calling it an unconstitutional power grab of state and Congressional authority over elections. Federal courts are already dismissing DOJ attempts to collect unredacted voter lists. Eventually we’ll find out if the US Supreme Court will choose to strike down this blatant violation of the constitutional separation of powers.

Realizing that the SAVE Act is likely doomed in the US Senate, Donald Trump has resorted to an Executive Order that would severely interfere with mail-in voting. Signed on March 31st, the order would essentially put the US Post Office and Department of Homeland Security in charge of deciding who is allowed to vote by mail. The order blatantly violates the US Constitution, which puts the states in charge of the electoral process. Several lawsuits challenging the legality of Trump’s executive order have already been filed.

However, even if the US Supreme strikes down the executive order and the SAVE Act dies, voting rights face threats at the state level. From state legislatures to county election boards, state and local government officials are working to carry out Trump’s voter suppression agenda.

According to the Brennan Center, at least 16 states enacted 31 restrictive voting laws in 2025. Bills and newly enacted laws range from restricting access to drop-boxes and mail-in ballots to enacting state-level versions of the SAVE Act. This article will focus on local and state-level measures that make it more difficult for voters to cast mail-in or absentee ballots.

State Legislative Actions that Restrict Mail-In Voting

Bills that restrict access to mail-in voting are in various stages of the legislative process in multiple states. In some states, legislation has been introduced that would eliminate the “postmark grace period” for mail-in ballots. In Ohio, for example, H 601 would require mail-in ballots to be received by the county Board of Elections by the end of Election Day. Under current Ohio law, ballots can be counted if they are postmarked on or before Election Day and received within four days after Election Day.

Similarly, Mississippi has enacted H 908, which states that mail-in ballots must be received by the day before the election. This is a departure from the current law, which counts ballots that are postmarked by Election Day and received by the fifth day after the election. Implementation of the Mississippi law is pending the US Supreme Court ruling for Michael Watson v. Republican National Committee, which addresses accepting mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day.

Multiple bills have been introduced or enacted at the state level that would prohibit universal mail-in voting and/or implement excuse-only mail-in voting. For example, Kansas bill KS H 2503 would eliminate the option for counties, municipalities, and school districts to implement mail-in only voting for specific elections--in effect, banning universal mail-in voting. Currently, non-partisan ballot question elections may be carried out entirely by mail, provided that there is no candidate on the ballot and it does not occur at the same time as another election.

Another example is New York’s NY A2223, introduced in the state assembly last year. The bill prohibits universal mail-in voting by requiring absentee ballots to be sent only to voters who first specifically request them. Additionally, PA H258 was introduced in Pennsylvania that implements excuse-only voting and essentially prohibits early voting.

Florida Version of SAVE Act

This year, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis signed a bill that is a state version of the federal SAVE Act. Although noncitizen voting is already illegal in Florida and banned by the state constitution as of 2020, DeSantis stated that the bill “protects and expands integrity in our voter registration process.” Among other provisions, the newly enacted law adds new proof of citizenship provisions and requires state agencies to verify applicant citizenship. Changes include removal of student IDs and other forms of ID from the list of acceptable identification.

Civil rights groups and voting rights advocates filed a lawsuit in late March, challenging the Florida law. Caren Short, director of legal research for the League of Women Voters, warns that the law will “harm married women, naturalized citizens, young people, and many other eligible voters who do not have ready access to documents like passports or birth certificates.”

Election Deniers and Lawsuits

Meanwhile, election deniers who are amplifying Trump’s accusations that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” are actively engaged in state and local governments. Some of them appear on All Voting is Local’s “Top 10 Most Dangerous Election Deniers” watchlist. One person on that list is Commissioner of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Josh Parsons, who was one of several defendants in a 2022 lawsuit involving failure to count mail-in ballots.

In 2022, the Pennsylvania Department of State sued Lancaster, Berks, and Fayette counties for omitting primary ballots that had undated exterior envelopes and for failing to properly certify vote tallies. The undated ballots had been set aside and voters were not given the opportunity to cast provisional ballots in the May 2022 primary election. In 2024, however, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that voters must have the opportunity to cast provisional ballots if their mail-in ballots are disqualified.

How to Stay Informed: Resources

These are just a few of the voter suppression actions taken at the state and local government level. Trump’s attempts at voter suppression may very well fail in Congress or be struck down as unconstitutional. However, voters must stay informed about election legislation at the state level as well as by Trump and his enablers in the US Congress. Here are a couple of resources to help you track voting laws and legislation at the state level:

Voting Rights Lab

All Voting is Local

Donald Trump got more bad legal news this week, this time in a case related to the January 6th, 2021 attack on the US Capitol. US District Judge Amit Mehta ruled that Trump does not have immunity from liability for activities surrounding the January 6th, 2021 attack. In a 79-page ruling, Mehta wrote that Trump’s activities and speech at the January 6th Ellipse rally were political and therefore did not fall within the US Supreme Court’s standard of “outer perimeter” of official acts (Nixon v Fitzgerald, 1982 and Trump v United States, 2024). Mehta also relied on the DC Circuit Court’s framework in Blassingame v Trump (2023) and Mehta’s own ruling in Thompson v Trump (2022).

In Blassingame, the DC Circuit Court ruled that “the President is subject to civil damages suits based on actions taken in an unofficial, private capacity to the same extent as any private citizen.” In Tuesday’s ruling, Judge Mehta found that Trump’s actions on January 6th were within an “unofficial, private capacity” and not eligible for immunity.

Judge Mehta’s ruling addresses several motions filed by Trump. This article will focus on Judge Mehta’s ruling regarding the question of immunity for the January 6th Ellipse speech.

Context is Key

Judge Mehta wrote that when determining whether a President’s actions or speech are official or unofficial, context is key. For example, Trump’s Senior Advisor Stephen Miller acknowledged in his deposition that White House staffers use their personal devices and Google Docs when writing speeches for and communicating about unofficial events. The judge noted that White House staffers used personal emails and devices when drafting the Ellipse speech, conforming with the usual process for unofficial events.

Judge Mehta’s opinion discusses factors such as Trump’s role as an office-seeker; organizing, funding and promotion of the Ellipse speech; and the nature of the event itself. These factors create a context for determining whether Trump’s January 6th activities were political or official.

Privately Organized and Funded

The rally at the Ellipse was organized by a private group called Women for America First (WAF), which was founded to promote Trump’s “America First” agenda. WAF took care of planning and organizing the rally, attending to details such as securing time and location, obtaining permits, and promoting the event. The judge also cited the lack of Executive Branch or White House participation in organizing or funding of the Ellipse rally.

Funding for the rally came from a single donor, Julie Funicelli, who paid $2.1 to cover expenses. Funicelli and her family had contributed $1.5 million to Trump’s re-election campaign.

Campaign Involved with Promoting and Some Funding

Neither the White House nor the Executive Branch promoted the January 6th rally on official websites or social media accounts. This lack of involvement, Judge Mehta, wrote, is a departure from the usual White House and POTUS promotions of official events via official websites and social media.

However, Trump’s re-election Campaign did promote the January 6th rally prior to the event. The Campaign posted promotional content on its YouTube channel and Twitter account. Donald Trump himself promoted the event on his personal Twitter account, calling it “The BIG Protest Rally” and concluding with “StopTheSteal.” After the rally, the Campaign posted clips from the rally on its Twitter and Instagram accounts.

The Campaign paid a staging company for equipment rental for a rally on or near January 6th.

Speakers Included Family Members and Campaign Advisors

Judge Mehta noted that the speakers at the rally included only one government official (Congressman Mo Brooks from Alabama). Other speakers included Trump’s children Donald Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and Lara Trump. Three other speakers had advised or represented the Campaign: John Eastman, Rudolph Giuliani, and Kimberly Guilfoyle. Donald Trump, Jr. and Kimberly Guilfoyle were paid speaking fees from Turning Point, USA--the organization founded by the late Charlie Kirk.

Speech Itself Promoted Trump as Winner in 2020 Election

Judge Mehta stated that the content of the Ellipse Speech confirmed that it was an unofficial, political activity.

Mehta quoted from his previous ruling in Thompson v. Trump:

“Much like the tweets leading up to the January 6 Rally, the words spoken by the President—without delving into the motivation behind them—reflect an electoral purpose, not speech in furtherance of any official duty.”

The judge also quoted Blassingame:

“President Trump’s alleged words and actions were directed toward promoting his victory in the 2020 presidential election rather than carrying out a designated official duty to confirm the integrity of the electoral process, to ensure faithful execution of the laws, or to fulfill other official purposes.”

Trump as Office-Seeker

Citing Trump’s role as office-seeker, Judge Mehta disagreed with Trump’s claim that his Ellipse speech fell within the “outer perimeter” of official duties. The judge stated that the rally in fact had a private agenda that aligned with WAF and with Trump’s role as office-seeker. “The rally bears a stronger resemblance to campaign re-election activity than an official event,” Judge Mehta wrote. Trump’s January 6th Ellipse speech, according to Judge Mehta’s ruling, does not fall within the “‘outer perimeter’ of official duties” test.

This ruling ruling will surely result in more years of litigation, according to Politico. Trump will likely be dealing with the ramifications of January 6th for the rest of his term.

This week, as a bill worked its way through state legislative hearings, the Idaho GOP managed to stifle debate and omit dissent from the public record. The Idaho House of Representatives passed HB 822, known as the “Pediatric Secretive Transitions Parental Rights Act” this week. HB 822 would “prohibit any health care provider or educational institution from facilitating a pediatric sex transition or social transition without informing and obtaining informed consent from a minor child’s parents or guardians.”

The bill gives schools, health care providers, and other entities 72 hours to inform parents of “social transitioning,” which can include use of nicknames and appearance. HB 822 has received criticism from legal experts, educators, mental health professionals and health care providers for its vague language and excessive fines up to $100,000. Introduced by Rep. Bruce Skaug (R-Nampa), HB 822 passed with a 55-9 vote, with two abstentions, and is now headed to the Senate.

After public testimony was cut short, House Democrats moved to include a minority report in the House journal. Idaho’s House Rule 27 allows documentation of disagreements to be included in the House journal. It ensures that dissenting points of view are included in the public record. However, House Republicans voted to suspend Rule 27, blocking inclusion of the minority report and omitting opposition from the public record.

Public Testimony Did Not Reflect Extent of Opposition

The House Judiciary and Rules Committee allowed only 14 minutes for public testimony, which was scheduled shortly before committee members had to rush to the House floor for a vote. 30 people had signed up to testify against HB 822 and 10 were set to testify in favor of it, according to Rep. Chris Mathias (D-Boise). However, most of the people who were actually allowed to testify at the hearing expressed support for the bill. None of the physicians who had taken time away from work to oppose the bill were allowed to testify.

Additionally, written testimony was overwhelmingly against the bill. In a press conference following passage of the bill, House Minority Leader Ilana Rubel (D-Boise) noted that 89 people submitted written testimony against HB 822, while 4 submitted statements supporting the bill.

Minority Report Cites Legal and Safety Concerns

The minority report itself cites constitutional issues, concerns for the safety and well-being of transgender students, and liability for teachers and health professionals. Some of the points in the report include:

• $100,000 fine: The fine likely violates Idaho Constitution Article I, Section 6, which prohibits excessive fines. The report notes that the 100,000 fine is disproportionate to the offense.

• Vague and overly broad terms: “Social transitioning” is a broad term that could chill expression, such as students’ choice of clothing or nickname. Similarly, the term “aid and abet” is not defined in HB 822, putting teachers and health professionals at higher risk for liability and stifling free speech.

• Professional ethical and legal conflicts: The reporting requirement in HB 822 exposes professionals such as doctors and counselors to a risk of violating ethical and legal obligations.

• No safety exceptions: HB 822 does not include exceptions for students who may be at risk of harm from parental notification.

• Problems with public testimony: The proportion of support and opposition for HB 822 was not reflected in the public testimony during the bill’s Judiciary and Rules Committee hearing.

What were the GOP Reasons for Blocking the Minority Report?

After House Majority Leader Jason Monks (R-Meridian) moved to suspend Rule 27, the Idaho House voted 57-11 to block inclusion of the minority report from the House journal. The motion was not debatable and essentially prevented an accurate representation of opposition to the bill from being entered in the public record.

Rep. Jaron Crane (R-Nampa) described the minority report as “disingenuous” and stated that the report was “unfair” for “criticizing the chairman of the way he handled the committee.” Crane also complained that the minority report “appeared to be attempting to lay the basis of a lawsuit against the State of Idaho, which is not an appropriate use of a committee report.”

The Real “Unfair” Part

Laying the basis of a lawsuit? Perhaps it’s the language of HB 822 itself that provides grounds for a lawsuit. Why shouldn’t serious constitutional questions be included in the record? Public testimony was cut short and did not reflect the true level of opposition to the bill. Contrary to the Majority Leader’s assertions, the “unfair” part of the process is the omission of concerns that may have been expressed during a more robust and inclusive public testimony.

The bunny ears and Spiderman backpack put me over the edge.

I’m so done.

Listen to me. Look at me when I’m talking to You.

We’ve had this discussion before, You and me.

Anyway, I’ve decided I’m not going to speak to You anymore.

Why?

Well, there’s the image I can’t unsee of five-year-old Liam Conejo Ramos, weak and sick,

Sleeping in his father Adrian Alexander Conejo’s arms.

There’s the knowledge that many other little ones are staring into the same chaos,

Confused and afraid, forced to drink filthy water.

There are cities under siege.

Occupied because of a lie.

Terrorized and grieving death after death.

There’s Renee Nicole Good, award-winning poet and mother of three in the maroon SUV who said, “I’m not mad at you.”

Alex Pretti, who cared for veterans as an ICU nurse, who asked, “Are you OK?”

Keith Porter, father of two celebrating New Year’s Eve outside his apartment.

Jaime Alanis Garcia, the farmworker who died after falling 30 feet during a raid.

And too many more.

All are dead now. Because of a lie.

You say that “the truth will set you free.” Well…

As I write this, I’m listening to a report--and I know that You know already this--

About a journalist appearing in court and being arraigned for doing his job.

Did the truth set him free?

Speaking of truth, we learned yesterday that truth doesn’t matter

When the Dow is over 50,000.

That’s according to an alleged Attorney General who doesn’t have the guts

To turn and face survivors whom she had sworn to protect.

Meanwhile, as survivors summon courage from who-knows-where and stare down their abusers,

And the rest of us recoil in horror at emails, photographs, court transcripts, and 302 forms,

Billionaire traffickers and secret police glide through their lives

Mock Your upside-down Kingdom

And cry that they’re oppressed because they can’t understand song lyrics during a half-time show.

Not much more to say at the moment,

Except that I’m not speaking to You.

I’ll find solace in livestreams of monks and their dog,

Flanked by a wall of bicycle-riding police officers.

I’ll search my feeds for anything real.

If You’re wondering, You can find me

Among neighbors, teachers, store owners, pastors, and suburban soccer moms

Who are holding on

And pointing to the dawn.

In an unprecedented effort to collect personally identifiable voter data, the US Department of Justice is demanding unredacted voter rolls from the states. Still smarting from his 2020 election loss, Donal Trump has repeatedly claimed that voter fraud--especially voting by non-citizens--is widespread. However, research by the Centers for Election Innovation and Research (CEIR) shows that non-citizen voting is extremely rare, accounting for a miniscule fraction of voters. The New York Times reported in January 2026 that after screening 49.5 million voter registrations, DHS referred only 0.2% of the names for further investigation.

The US Constitution gives states the authority to regulate elections. According to Article I, Section 4 of the US Constitution:

The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of choosing Senators.

Although eight states have complied with the demand as of January 2026, some blue and red states have resisted sharing unredacted voter rolls with the DOJ. As Republican-led Idaho’s Secretary of State Phil McGrane has noted, states have never before faced such a demand from the DOJ. The pushback continues amid increasing pressure from the Trump regime, from FBI raids of election offices to threats to nationalize elections in blue states.

DOJ Sues More Than 20 States, Offers Deal to Others

As of February 3, 2026, the DOJ has sued more than 20 states--mainly blue and swing states--for not complying with its demand for unredacted voter rolls. Federal judges dismissed lawsuits against California and Oregon, rejecting the DOJ’s claim that the National Voting Rights Act gave them authority to demand the states’ unredacted voter data. A lawsuit against Georgia--a red state--was dismissed, embarrassingly, because the DOJ filed the suit in the wrong district.

However, Stateline reported that roughly a dozen states were offered a confidential “deal” or memorandum of understanding (MOU) from the DOJ that would allow the federal government to review voter rolls. Eleven states have expressed interest in the offer, but Colorado and Wisconsin rejected the deal.

In the same report, Stateline noted that Eric Neff, the acting chief of the DOJ Voting Section, said that the deal was offered to states that showed “willingness to comply.” According to the MOU, states would allow the DOJ Voting Section to analyze their voter rolls. The DOJ section would notify states of any discrepancies or concerns. The states would then have 45 days to remove ineligible voters.

Bipartisan Pushback

Although eight states have turned their voter rolls over to the DOJ and 11 states are considering the DOJ’s offer, there has also been bipartisan pushback. About a dozen red states have balked at the DOJ demands for voter rolls. Privacy concerns are frequently cited, Democracy Docket reported that an aide to Georgia’s Secretary of State Brad Raffenberger (R) said in a letter to the DOJ that “Georgia law prohibits the disclosure of voters’ full date of birth, social security number, and driver’s license number.”

Idaho Example

Ruby-red Idaho, which has 1.1 million registered voters, is an example of pushback from Republican-led states. In response to the DOJ’s demand, Idaho Secretary of State Phil McGrane notified the DOJ that the state had already checked voter rolls for non-citizen voters and had identified about 30 likely non-citizens. After further examination, that number was reduced after many of the issues turned out to be caused by lack of updated information. For example, a legally present non-citizen gets their driver’s license and, after becoming a citizen, uses the same license to register to vote.

Idaho sent its redacted voter rolls, which the state regularly provides for public information. The list is scrubbed of personally identifiable data, such as Social Security numbers and driver’s license information. The DOJ called McGrane with a demand for unredacted voter rolls, and reminded McGrane that the DOJ is suing states that refuse to provide the data.

So far, McGrane has resisted the DOJ demand. Earlier in 2025, however, the Idaho Department of Health and Welfare shared SNAP recipients’ identifiable personal information with the USDA in order to verify SNAP eligibility. McGrane has been “in talks” with the DOJ, expressing the desire to work with the agency to resolve the voter rolls issue. It remains to be seen whether Secretary McGrane will continue to protect the personal data of Idaho voters.

Concerns About SAVE Tool

Some states and election experts have raised concerns about use of the Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlement (SAVE) tool for analyzing voter rolls. SAVE was originally used to check citizen status of individuals applying for government benefits. It could screen only one name at a time, using an individual’s alien registration number. However, DHS has revamped SAVE, enabling it since May 2025 to make bulk screenings based on the last four digits of Social Security numbers.

As noted above, DHS has found a miniscule number of possible non-citizen voters in its screenings of voter rolls. Critics are questioning whether giving DHS vast amounts of personal data is warranted, and many are sounding the alarm over DHS acquiring so much private information.

Will Bipartisan Pushback Continue?

State control over elections is facing multiple assaults. The DOJ is making unprecedented demands for unredacted voter information. The Fulton County, Georgia election office was raided by the FBI; the presence of Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard has raised alarms. Steve Bannon said this week that polling places will be surrounded by ICE. Donald Trump has called on the GOP to nationalize elections.

These attacks threaten voters in blue states and red states alike. Registered voters must press their elected leaders at the state level to resist the DOJ’s efforts to seize sensitive personal information.

By now, the image of 5-year-old Liam Ramos being detained by masked federal agents is seared into our conscience. Liam and his father, who live in Minneapolis and are legally seeking asylum in the United States, represent the terror experienced by immigrant families at the hands of ICE and CBP. Liam is now reported to be depressed, sick, and no longer eating. Another example is a teenaged boy known as Anthony, who bravely attempted to deliver heart medication to his detained father--and was laughed at by guards.

These are just two examples of the abuses inflicted by ICE and CBP on some of the most vulnerable: children and people needing medical care.

Medical Neglect at Detention Centers

In October 2025, a US Senate investigation reported widespread medical neglect and denial of food and water in immigrant detention centers. 85 credible cases were revealed in the report, which cited accounts from credible sources including attorneys, detainees, and news reports, and a DHS employee. Examples of medical neglect include:

• Withholding of asthma medication and inhalers

• Detainee suffering heart attack after delayed treatment for chest pains

• Delays in filling prescriptions

• Diabetic detainee suffering complications after going without insulin

Besides the cases cited in the Senate report, other examples of medical neglect have occurred at ICE detention centers. The Nevada Independent reports that Emine, an asylum seeker from Turkey, has been detained at Nevada’s Henderson Detention Center since November 2025. She and her husband, Batuhan, fled Turkey in 2023 due to death threats.

Ermine’s asylum petition was denied after her hearing was moved up from 2028 to November 2025. While in detention, Emine discovered that she was pregnant. She had suffered a miscarriage the previous summer and was diagnosed with a high-risk pregnancy. Ermine’s detention violates ICE’s policy of not detaining individuals who are pregnant or nursing. Nevertheless, Ermine has not received prenatal checkups or care.

ICE Ceases Payments to Medical Providers

In October 2025, as detention population surged, ICE abruptly stopped paying third parties for detainee medical care. Since 2002, the US Department of Veterans’ Affairs had processed these third-party reimbursement claims, without diverting resources from veterans. However, right-wing critics falsely accused the VA of providing medical care for detainees at the expense of veterans. After a lawsuit was filed by the right-wing Center to Advance Security in America (CASA), the VA ended its agreement with ICE.

The result has been a $300 million shortfall in payments to medical providers, as reported by Popular Information. Also, many detainees have been unable to access lifesaving prescription medications, prenatal care, dialysis, and cancer treatments. Although ICE has contracted with private processing company Acentra, payments are not expected to resume until April 2026.

Children in Detention

Children under the age of 18 make up an especially vulnerable group of detainees. In the 1997 Flores case settlement, a federal court set a benchmark of 20 days as the maximum length of time for detaining children. Courts have interpreted the case to require the release of children as quickly as possible. However, more than 1300 children were held at detention centers for more than 20 days in 2025, according to analysis by the Marshall Project.

The same analysis found that 3,800 children--including 20 infants--were detained in 2025 after Trump’s inauguration. The Marshall Project cites reports by parents of abysmal conditions: moldy food, lack of access to clean water, showers, or the ability to brush teeth. According to the report, children played with rocks because they did not have access to toys, and highly stressed children were hitting themselves and wetting themselves.

Thanks to Those Who Speak Up

In spite of court orders and public outcry, ICE continues to inflict pain on the most vulnerable members of communities. Some of their stories are documented in images and videos, but many remain hidden. Fortunately, many advocates, journalists, and organizations such as the Marshall Project step up to shine a light on abuses and provide a voice where it is needed most.

Attacks against the LGBTQ community are escalating in the United States, especially since Donald Trump’s second inauguration. Transgender, non-binary, and intersex Americans are particularly being targeted by harsh and dangerous rhetoric, legislation, and executive orders. Scholars who study the history of genocide are warning that the United states may “already be in the early stages of committing genocide” against this community.

United Nations Convention Against Genocide

Raphael Lemkin, who lost forty-nine family members during the Holocaust, coined the word “genocide” in 1944, to mean “the destruction of a nation or an ethnic group.” With encouragement from Lemkin, the United Nations acted to categorize genocide as an international criminal act. The UN adopted the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide in 1948, commonly known as the Convention Against Genocide. The United States signed the Convention in 1948 and ratified it in 1988.

The Convention Against Genocide defines genocide as follows:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; (e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

This definition is narrower than the definition recommended by Lemkin. Dr. Gregory Stanton, former president of the International Association of Genocide Scholars (IAGS), notes that Lemkin believed that “political groups, cultural groups, social groups, economic group should all be included in the definition of genocide.” Stanton further states his belief that Lemkin “also would have included gender groups.”

Experts such as former IAGS president Dr. Henry Thierault note that numerous attacks are currently targeting socially defined groups--particularly people who identify as transgender. The transgender community has been systematically targeted by national, state, and local legislation and executive orders. For example, according to their official website, the US State Department now “will only issue a passport with an M or F sex marker that matches the customer’s biological sex at birth.” The website also states that “we are only issuing passports reflecting sex at birth and will not honor attestations requesting a preferred sex marker.”

Anti-Transgender Legislation in the US

As of January 2026, there are 565 active anti-transgender bills across the United States and 107 active bills in the US Congress. Three bills have failed and one has passed. The bills share drastic characteristics that fit the UN Convention’s Article II(c) definition of “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part”.

Examples of active bills in the United States include

HB US498 Do No Harm in Medicaid Act: To amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to prohibit Federal Medicaid funding for gender transition procedures for minors.

HB US1017 Stop the Invasion of Women’s Spaces Act: To prohibit an entity from receiving Federal funds if such entity permits an individual to access or use a single-sex facility on the property of such entity that does not correspond to the biological sex of such person, and for other purposes.

Maryland HB1399 Life Imprisonment for Gender-Affirming Care: Licensed healthcare professionals can be sentenced up to lifetime in prison for prescribing, dispensing, or administering gender-affirming hormones.

Illinois SB244 Healthcare Ban for Minors: Prohibition on treatment for persons under the age of 18 for gender dysphoria or gender discordance.

West Virginia HR6 “Transgenderism” is a Mental Disorder: Cites the definition of “two biological sexes “since the beginning of history as described in the Bible.”

And these are just a few examples. Legislation that bans gender-affirming care can result in devastating consequences. According to the National Association of Social Workers (NASW), gender-affirming care includes non-medical and medical care. Major medical associations, including the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) affirm that gender-affirming care is medically necessary for the treatment of gender dysphoria. The AMA states that it reduces the risk of depression, anxiety, and suicide.

Early Warning Signs

Besides legislation, we are witnessing escalating transphobic, eliminationist rhetoric. In 2023, for example, conservative commentator Mike Knowles called for followers to “eradicate” what he called “transgenderism” from public life. As noted above, Donald Trump has issued executive orders that negatively impact LQBTQ health.

Dr. Elisa von Joeden-Forgey, founder and executive director of the Lemkin Institute for Genocide Prevention, notes that Republican politicians are using transphobic and anti-LGBTQ rhetoric to stoke fear. She warns that this tactic--along with legislation--is a symptom of “early-to-mid stages of a genocidal process against trans and nonbinary and intersex people.”

Stay informed about active federal and state legislation and tell your Congressional representatives to oppose such legislation. The anti-LGBTQ and anti-transgender rhetoric and legislation should terrify us all. We have historical records as well as the knowledge and research of scholars and experts. With all of this information, there is no excuse for ignoring the warning signs of genocide.

A federal judge ruled on December 29, 2025 that the federal government may share basic Medicaid recipient information with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). US District Judge Vince Chhabria issued a preliminary injunction limiting the information that ICE may obtain to basic identifying and location data, but blocked ICE from sharing broader, more sensitive information. The ruling overturns a lower court injunction that had completely blocked ICE from obtaining any Medicaid participant data. Twenty states, including California, had filed a lawsuit to block a data sharing agreement between the Center for Medicare Services (CMS) and ICE.

In the past, CMS has been prohibited from sharing sensitive patient information with other federal agencies, except to “administer a federal health benefits program,” or investigate “waste, fraud, or abuse of the program.” The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had at first claimed that ICE will collect the information to find undocumented immigrants who are improperly receiving Medicaid benefits.

Sharing such information with ICE does not make sense in this context because ICE does not administer the Medicaid program or investigate fraud, waste, or abuse. The agreement does in fact state that ICE will be using the data to “retrieve information concerning the identity and location of aliens in the United States.”

What Does ICE Have Access To?

The agreement gives ICE access to information stored in the Transformed Medicaid Statistical Information System (T-MSIS), which collects and stores data--such as medical conditions and symptoms, treatments, and personally identifying information--from Medicaid and the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). According to the agreement, ICE officials will have login credentials to T-MSIS. ICE will be able to view, but not download, Medicaid recipient data.

Judge Chhabria ruled last week that ICE can transfer only the most basic information: citizenship or immigration status, address, phone number, date of birth, and Medicaid identification numbers. The original agreement had allowed the sharing of more extensive information, including medical records, but the judge stated that the agencies had not justified the need for such sensitive data.

What Do the Numbers Really Say?

The Trump regime has zeroed in on Medicaid as an example of an agency rife with “waste, fraud, and abuse.” Trump and sycophants have insisted that Medicaid spending for undocumented migrants is out of control. However, undocumented immigrants are generally not eligible for Medicaid, with a few exceptions including emergency medical care.

The reality is, emergency care accounts for less than 1 percent of Medicaid spending. In FY 2023, for example, emergency Medicaid was 0.4 percent of total Medicaid spending. This figure includes undocumented immigrants as well as lawfully present immigrants who have not yet completed their five-year waiting period for Medicaid eligibility.

Emergency Medicaid: Who is Covered and Why

The government has enacted laws to ensure emergency medical care for low-income patients and undocumented immigrants. Two of these laws are known as EMTALA and PRWORA, which are explained below.

Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act

The Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA) requires Medicare-participating health care facilities to provide screening, examination, and stabilizing treatment to patients in emergency medical situations, regardless of ability to pay or immigration status. The EMTALA was enacted in 1986 to prevent the hospitals from prematurely discharging or refusing to treat low-income or uninsured patients.

Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act

Ten years later, Congress enacted the Personal Responsibility Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA). The PRWORA sets Medicaid eligibility restrictions for undocumented immigrants and requires a five-year waiting period after an immigrant secures “qualified” status such as green card, refugee status, or asylum. According to the law, undocumented immigrants and those who are in the five-year waiting period cannot access Medicaid benefits, with the exception of medical emergencies. Medicaid reimburses hospitals for emergency care of patients who are ineligible because of their immigration status.

Will the Ruling Discourage Immigrants from Seeking Emergency Health Care?

In January 2025, the Trump regime rescinded protections that barred ICE from sensitive areas such as hospitals and clinics. And now ICE will have access to Medicaid patient information. The current climate of fear is already discouraging immigrants--including those who have legal status--from seeking emergency medical care. For example, the New York Times 2025 reported in May 2025 that fear of arrest has caused immigrants to delay emergency treatment for serious conditions such as facial fractures after an assault, dangerously high blood sugar, and even gunshot wounds. Children who are citizens are missing crucial vaccinations, and some are missing out on trauma counseling.

Pregnant women and new mothers are cancelling or delaying treatment, according to the same New York Times report. For example, staff at a San Diego obstetrics hospital noted that the number of immigrant women who sought treatment dramatically dropped the night after Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, prompting fears of an increased maternal mortality rate.

Why We Should All be Concerned

The immediate harm to immigrants who delay emergency care are obvious. Serious injuries, out-of-control blood sugar, and other serious conditions call for immediate assessment and treatment. The sharing of Medicaid patient information raises real fears of arrest and deportation and cause psychological and physical symptoms of stress and trauma.

There are, however, long-term consequences that should worry everyone. Public health suffers when infectious diseases are not treated and vaccinations are missed. When treatment is delayed, patients often end up with more serious conditions requiring more expensive care. The result is increased health care costs and higher insurance premiums across the board, for everyone, according to the Annals of Family Medicine.

But there’s another reason why such data sharing arrangements should set off an alarm. As noted in an August 2020 article in Pogo, opening the door to interagency data sharing is an example of the chipping away of privacy protections:

“Like a standing domino unable to resist the force pushing against it, the sharing of CMS data with ICE is the latest — and perhaps the biggest — example of the administration obliterating privacy protections in a federal agency under the auspices of immigration enforcement or rooting out waste, fraud, and abuse.”

The article also points out DHS plans to cut most of its Office of General Counsel staff, who specialize in protecting Medicaid patients. From mass detentions to knocking down privacy walls, the regime is demonstrating its compete lack of regard for the rights of citizens and non-citizens alike.

The First Amendment has taken another hit. On Monday, December 8th, the US Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal of a ruling that allows Texas officials to remove public library books that they deem objectionable. The case, Little v Llano County, originated in 2022 in Llano County, Texas, when seven residents sued to challenge the removal of more than a dozen books from the public library. Some of the books covered themes relating to gender, sex, and race. Other books were removed due to objections to their humorous content.

In 2023, a lower court ruled that the book removal policy was an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In a preliminary injunction, US District Court Judge Robert Pitman, appointed by President Obama, ordered the reinstatement of the banned books.

At first, a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the District Court ruling. But in May 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decided en banc (full bench or quorum) to reverse the preliminary injunction. Trump-appointed Judge Stuart Kyle Duncan wrote in the majority opinion that “plaintiffs cannot invoke a right to receive information to challenge a library’s removal of books.”

Judge Duncan added that the book removals are merely part of a public libraries’ normal “weeding out” process in which books are periodically removed. The majority opinion also claimed that the book removal policy is not a book ban because if a “patron can’t find a book in the library, he can order it online, buy it from a bookstore or borrow it from a friend.”

Judge Stephen Higginson--an Obama appointee--wrote the dissenting opinion. He called the majority opinion “disturbingly flippant and legally unsound”, and stated that he “would not have our court ‘join the book burners’”.

The Fifth Circuit Court’s decision was appealed to the US Supreme Court.

Fast forward to December 8, 2025. Without explanation, the Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal. As a result, the Llano County book removal policy will remain in effect. During the appeals process, Mississippi and Louisiana were also added as plaintiffs; therefore, similar book restrictions will remain in place in those states, too.

Library associations and free speech advocates have decried the Supreme Court’s refusal to hear the case and have warned of the impact on free speech and education. In a December 8th statement, the American Library Association wrote that “The ruling threatens to transform government libraries into centers for indoctrination instead of protecting them as hubs of open inquiry.”

In an interview with Axios News, Carolyn Foote, co-founder of Texas Freedom Fighters, noted that the Llano County book removal policy is different from “weeding”, in which a librarian routinely reviews entire sections of a library. In contrast, the Llano County book removals are prompted by lists of books that public officials find objectionable. She also stated that the case will “embolden people who are trying to restrict books from the public, from students. “

Indeed, book censorship is “rampant and common” nationwide in 2024-2025, according to a report by PEN America. The report describes the current push to ban books as “unprecedented and undeniable.” A prime example is the state of Florida, in which more than 2,000 books were removed from school library shelves during the 2024-2025 school year. Utah and South Carolina implemented “no-read” lists in 2024. During the 2024-2025 school year, there were 6,870 instances of book bans in 23 states.

PEN America states in the same report that “banning books is a way of erasing stories, identities, experiences, and peoples and reshaping understandings of the past.” For example, censorship of books that deal with racial or LGBTQ+ topics have the effect of erasing stories and altering our perception of history.

Fortunately, there is resistance against these censorship efforts. Pushback continues from library organizations, educators, authors, parents, and free speech advocates. It appears that--as with many issues this year--it is up to us all to hold the line against censorship and protect our First Amendment rights.

Stay brave and stay loud.

In a move that is drawing criticism and sparking outrage from public health and environmental experts, the FDA is withdrawing a plan that would require testing for asbestos in talc-based cosmetics. Asbestos is recognized as a highly toxic, carcinogenic mineral. It causes mesothelioma, an aggressive cancer of the lungs, and is linked with ovarian and other cancers. It is often found in talc deposits in the earth. Talc is used in many cosmetic products, from baby powder to eye shadow, because of its texture and ability to absorb moisture.

Asbestos fibers were once widely used in the construction industry to make insulation, fire prevention, and roofing, and to strengthen cement and other materials. It is completely banned in 50 countries. The subject of many lawsuits and linked with 40,000 US deaths annually, asbestos has been banned in the US in a patchwork of regulations over several decades. For example, a series of restrictions in 1973 and 1978 banned the use of spray-on asbestos fireproofing and insulation. Attempts at outright bans have failed, beginning in 1989, when the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected an asbestos ban.

The most recent action taken by the EPA was its 2024 ban on chrysotile asbestos, which will take place over a five-year transition period. No amount of asbestos is considered safe; however, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) allows companies to label a product asbestos-free if it contains less than 1% asbestos.

Back to cosmetics testing. The public was made aware of the presence of asbestos in cosmetics in the 1970s (companies had actually known about it since the 1950s). However, the FDA allowed companies to use tests that detect only some of the asbestos fibers found in cosmetics. Baby powder has been regularly found to contain asbestos; in 2020, after 38,000 lawsuits, Johnson & Johnson discontinued the sale of its talc-based baby powder in the US. Products that contain alternatives to talc, such as cornstarch-based baby powder, are now available for purchase.

The Biden administration began implementing the Cosmetics Modernization Act of 2022, which required asbestos testing of talc-based cosmetics. Now, the Trump regime is preparing to scrap this critically important measure. After receiving 49 public comments on the testing requirement, the FDA issued a statement that offered a vague explanation of its decision. The statement claimed that the proposed rule would have “unintended consequences” on products other than cosmetics, including drugs. The FDA did not specify what was said in the public comments, but it appears that drug companies opposed the testing requirement.

Environmental and health advocacy groups have expressed concern and disappointment over the FDA’s decision to reverse the asbestos testing measure. Dr. Axel Frank, a professor of environmental and public health at Drexel University, noted the need for a proper standardized technique allows all to properly measure asbestos in talc, replacing a current methodology that purposefully has been used that misses such contamination.”

Scott Faber of the Environmental Working Group (EWG) called the FDA decision “irresponsible and dangerous.” Faber also questioned the legality of the FDA’s action, pointing out that “Congress clearly required the FDA to mandate tests for talc in cosmetics.” Tasha Stoiber, PhD., a senior scientist at EWG, noted that “Inhaling even the tiniest amount of asbestos in talc can cause mesothelioma and other deadly diseases, many years after exposure.”

Protection against asbestos exposure is a critical matter. If you are outraged over the FDA’s abrupt action against asbestos testing, call your Congressional representatives. Let them know that you support rigorous, standardized testing for asbestos in all talc-based cosmetics and mandatory recalls for contaminated products. Express support and ask your US Representative to cosponsor the Safer Beauty Bill Package, which includes:

HR 4433--The Toxic-Free Beauty Act

HR 4434--The Cosmetic Supply Chain Transparency Act

HR 4435--Cosmetic Hazardous Ingredient Right-to-Know-Act

HR 4436--Cosmetic Safety Protections for Communities of Color and Salon Workers

Stay loud and stay courageous.