Politics

A daily roundup of the best stories and cartoons by Daily Kos staff and contributors to keep you in the know. What on earth are Elon Musk and Greg Abbott emailing about? And why are they working so hard to keep it secret? Trump’s approval with Latino voters craters as he carries out evil deportation agenda It’s surprising it took this long. Republicans block Epstein files release as they bow to Trump “This is about trust. Republicans said, ‘Trust us. Vote for us and we will release these files.’ Well here we are—they’re backtracking.” Cartoon: Extreme weather happening now! It’s a shame there’s no way to find out about it. Supreme Court further endorses Trump as king The court just keeps enabling illegal behavior. Top House Republican probes Biden for something he does himself Always nice to see tax dollars being well spent. Americans reject MAGA meanness as ‘Superman’ soars Seems like “truth, justice, and a better tomorrow” may actually prevail, at least at the cinema. Click here to see more cartoons.

www.patreon.com/keefknight the Keef Knight Project Keith Knight online store Related | Republicans block Epstein files release as they bow to Trump

While the Trump administration loves to boast about its immigration crackdown, it’s not eager to share the details of who is doing the cracking. And now it’s not just Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents who can hide their identities. Government lawyers representing ICE get to do so as well.  On Tuesday, The Intercept reported that at least two immigration judges are allowing government lawyers to hide their names. Does anyone else get to hide their names? Of course not. When Judge ShaSha Xu declared at the start of a hearing that “We’re not really doing names publicly,” she did so only after stating her name, the name of the immigrants, and the names of their lawyers. This is necessary, per Xu, because “privacy” and “things lately have changed.”  This is basically unheard of. Courts maintain a complete record of proceedings, and identifying the lawyers involved is a core part of that. Secret lawyers are just not a thing. This leaves immigrants unable even to identify who is pushing for them to be deported. But hey, some ICE attorneys think that it is “dangerous to state their names publicly,” and some immigration judges appear to agree. You might be wondering why immigration judges would go along with this. Immigration judges aren’t appointed and confirmed by the Senate, and they are not part of the judicial branch. Rather, they are employees of the executive branch, so their hiring, firing, and duties are dictated by the administration. That’s why they are complicit in the ruses that the administration is using to make easy arrests.  Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers detain a person, center, on Jan. 27 in Silver Spring, Maryland. In late May, immigration judges received a memo from the Department of Justice, telling them to let Department of Homeland Security lawyers make oral motions to dismiss, then grant the dismissal immediately. Once the immigrant leaves the courtroom, since they no longer have a pending immigration case, ICE arrests them and proceeds to deport them. If immigration judges will go along with that, there’s no reason to think they won’t let DHS attorneys stay anonymous. While the move to make the courtroom process opaque is new, it builds on the administration’s allowing ICE agents to wear masks and obscure their identities. Can’t really have a secret police unless you also have a secret court, because the intent here is to deprive immigrants of the due process they are owed. Since the Supreme Court has blessed the idea of deporting detainees without a meaningful opportunity for them to challenge their removal, it’s pretty clear that they’re not going to restrain the administration.  The administration has justified keeping the identities of ICE agents secret because of an alleged spike in violence against them. However, that number is ever-shifting. First, the violence had increased by 300%, then by 413%, and then by 700%. When The Washington Post’s Philip Bump analyzed the data last month, he found that violence against Customs and Border Patrol agents was down compared with the same period in 2024, and that the number of incidents was very low. For example, in March 2025, there were 20 incidents of violence against CBP agents. In April, it was 32, and in May, 21. That’s why the administration keeps using percentages rather than raw numbers.   There are other ways the administration is working to cloak their illegal actions.  Immigration lawyers have allegedly been blocked from seeing their clients. Members of Congress have been refused entry to immigration facilities despite a law allowing them to access the centers, but the administration has fixed that by simply stating it will not follow the law. Lawmakers now must give DHS 72 hours’ notice before visiting an immigration facility, and DHS can deny them access for any reason or no reason.  The Justice Department even told a court on Tuesday that the police report of activist Mahmoud Khalil’s March arrest was privileged and that they wouldn’t provide it, because of the law enforcement privilege, which protects certain data when an investigation is ongoing. The judge was dumbfounded, pointing out they were trying to apply the privilege to something that already happened. All of this is deeply anti-democratic. Secret courts, secret police, secret charges, secret deportations, secret facilities. The administration is building a parallel “justice” system for immigrants where everything is hidden from those it targets, where everyone colludes to facilitate illegal, swift, and brutal deportations. It’s the farthest thing from justice imaginable. 

Never miss a single PoliticusUSA story by becoming a subscriber. Subscribe now Donald Trump keeps trying to make his base forget about Jeffrey Epstein, but with each passing day, bigger and bigger names are coming out in support of Trump releasing all of the information on the Epstein case, including the Epstein client list. The latest to break with Trump is one of the biggest names in Republican leadership, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson. Speaker Johnson said on Tuesday when asked if Trump should release everything on Epstein:  I haven’t talked to Marjorie (Taylor Greene) or Anna (Pulina Luna) about that specific subject, but I, I’m, for transparency, we’re intellectually consistent in this. Look, Reagan used to tell us we should trust the American people. I believe in that principle. I know President Trump does as well, and I, I trust him. I mean, he put together a, a team of his choosing and they’re doing a great job. It’s a very delicate subject, but we should, we should put everything out there and let the people decide it. I mean, the, the White House and the White House team are privy to facts that I don’t know. I mean, I, this isn’t my lane. I haven’t been involved in that. Uh, but, but I, I agree with the sentiment that we need to, we need to put it out there. Johnson didn’t have the strongest criticism that belonged to Rep. Lauren Boebert, who wants a special counsel appointed for the Epstein files. Read more

President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have become so fixated on becoming “America First” that a batch of prepurchased high-energy biscuits will never make it into the hands of those in need. As of Tuesday, roughly 500 metric tons of emergency food intended for children in Afghanistan and Pakistan are about to expire, according to The Atlantic. Now, instead of potentially being able to feed 1.5 million children for a week, the U.S. will waste extra money—on top of the $800,000 spent to purchase it—to destroy the unviable rations.  Federal workers reportedly attempted to contact the new head of the U.S. Agency for International Development, who could pull the right strings and make use of the nutritionally dense food. Ultimately, though, their attempts were unsuccessful. On one hand, it’s hard to argue against giving lifesaving resources to children. On the other (less rational) hand, if you ask the Trump administration, distributing food to countries like Afghanistan or Yemen could potentially feed terrorists, which is enough of a reason for them to cut off aid completely.  The flag of the U.S. Agency for International Development flies alongside the American flag in front the USAID office in Washington on Feb. 3. In April, NPR reported that USAID contracts were slashed in these countries just from the fear that they were benefitting terrorist organizations alone.  But other countries have starving children, so why weren’t the rations sent there?  While 500 metric tons of biscuits is a small number comparatively when it comes to USAID supplies, the Trump administration is heavily curtailing its assistance overall.  Rubio announced via Substack that starting in July, the Trump administration would hand out assistance only to countries that “align with administration policies,” a message that sounds oddly familiar to their ongoing battle with Harvard University, among other colleges.  As Rubio shuts the door on those in need, new projections show how this will impact those most vulnerable. According to a study published in The Lancet, upward of 14 million people are projected to die by 2030 as a result of the Trump administration’s cuts to USAID. One third of those deaths—about 4.5 million—are expected to be among children under age 5.  But this vast amount of avoidable death doesn’t seem to phase the State Department. “You can go back and relitigate all these little decisions. That’s not our focus. That’s not the secretary’s focus,” one state department official told ABC News when confronted with the study’s findings. “We are excited about what sort of the America First foreign assistance agenda is going to look like, and how much impact we can have moving forward.”  Nothing excites the Trump administration than unnecessary pain.

President Donald Trump has made it clear that he wants the 2026 midterms to be rigged in the GOP’s favor.  Speaking to Texas Republicans Tuesday morning, Trump outlined his redistricting wishlist: five new GOP congressional seats in Texas alone. The plan would significantly reshape the House, where Republicans currently hold one of the narrowest majorities in history. “I keep hearing about Texas ‘going Blue,’ but it is just another Democrat LIE. With the right candidate, Texas isn’t ‘going Blue’ anytime soon!” he wrote on Truth Social. To secure those extra seats, Trump has a key ally in Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, who scheduled redistricting for a special legislative session beginning July 21. The plan, which Democrats have called a blatant power grab, appears to aim at flipping two competitive South Texas districts and dismantling seven urban, heavily Democratic ones. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott is helping President Donald Trump in his gerrymandering efforts. Despite Trump winning just 56% of the vote in Texas in 2024, Republicans already hold two-thirds of House seats there. The 2021 map—one of the most gerrymandered in the country—created two new districts in majority white areas, even though people of color made up 95% of the state’s population growth.  And now they’re going even further. The Department of Justice recently sent a letter to Abbott and Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton suggesting that 4 existing Democratic districts may have been drawn using unconstitutional racial gerrymandering—a sharp reversal from the Biden-era DOJ, which backed a lawsuit claiming that the map diluted minority representation. GOP Sen. John Cornyn of Texas praised the move, writing that Hispanic voters have shifted rapidly toward the Republican Party and that redrawing the maps would lead to major GOP gains. But this is a risky strategy. Texas’ current map already maximizes GOP gains. Adding more Republican districts could carve up safe GOP territory, force incumbents into costly primaries, or cause early retirements. Finding five new red seats might require weakening current Republican strongholds. Even if it succeeds, it might not matter. Republicans gaining five seats in Texas wouldn’t come close to offsetting potential national losses. Trump’s first midterm in 2018 saw Democrats gain 41 seats. A similar result in 2026 would negate any advantage gained through redistricting. Meanwhile, Trump’s support in Texas is slipping. A June poll from the Texas Politics Project found that a majority of Texans disapprove of him, with 44% saying they strongly disapprove, and just 27% saying they strongly approve. California Gov. Gavin Newsom is among the Democrats fighting against President Donald Trump’s abuse of power. As Trump works on his map-rigging strategy, Republicans are still searching for a national message to promote their sweeping economic agenda, which cuts Medicaid and food aid to deliver tax cuts to the wealthy. Strategists are now pushing “Trump Working Family Tax Cuts” and highlighting popular items like eliminating taxes on tips to win back moderate Trump voters. But Democrats are not staying silent. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has hinted at a countereffort, though it’s unclear whether state law grants him the authority to act.  “Two can play this game,” he wrote on X. Democratic Sen. Adam Schiff of California warned, too, that if red states keep bending the rules, blue states may be forced to respond similarly. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Texas Democrats held a press conference Tuesday morning to condemn the “aggressive and egregious gerrymander,” calling it a move to “disenfranchise millions of people in Texas.”  DCCC Chair Suzan DelBene also pointed out the irony that redrawing the map could actually cost Republicans voters.  “It’s basic math,” she said. Trump may view redistricting as his insurance policy, but it only works if Republicans win. If they stumble in 2026, no map—no matter how rigged—will be enough.

Chris Lehmann The president’s denial of the existence of government material on Jeffrey Epstein isn’t going over well with his followers. The post Trump’s Deep-State Conspiracy Theories Are Getting Beyond His Control appeared first on The Nation.

Gia Ruiz U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continues to conduct mass immigration arrests all around the country, leading to overcrowding in detention facilities, with reports of unsanitary and inhumane condition. The post Cold as ICE appeared first on The Nation.

Over the last few days, millions of Americans have gone to the movie theater to watch James Gunn’s new “Superman,” making it the No. 1 movie in the United States.  The movie’s success is another humiliating loss for the MAGA movement, which campaigned against the film’s pro-immigrant themes. But the film is also a resounding rejection of the bitter, cynical meanness that’s been a hallmark of President Donald Trump’s second term. Since its release on July 11, the movie has earned more than $122 million and received a rating of 83% from critics and 93% from audiences on Rotten Tomatoes. That resounding success follows a full-throated meltdown from the right, slamming the movie as “woke” and predicting its failure. Conservatives were triggered after Gunn said that the film is about an “immigrant that came from other places.” Director James Gunn is seen at the premiere of “Superman.” Actor Dean Cain, a Trump supporter who starred as Superman in the television series “Lois & Clark,” was representative of the ill-informed right-wing complaints about the film. Cain whined that the film was “woke” and said that calling the iconic character an immigrant would “hurt” box office receipts.  Similarly, Fox News pundit Tami Lahren predicted the “woke” film’s demise.  “The new ‘Superman’ movie went woke and will probably flop,” she said. Not only were these predictions wrong, but the right’s comments about the superhero were also woefully misinformed. I have been a fan of Superman’s for more than 40 years, and his origin has been consistent since he debuted in Action Comics #1 in 1938. Superman, the sole survivor of the planet Krypton, landed in Kansas and was adopted by a family who passed him off as their own child. Superman is an undocumented immigrant—and he has been for all 87 years of his existence. YouTube Video And the character has been “woke”—that is, a champion of social justice—since the beginning as well. Superman is described in his debut comic as a “champion of the oppressed” and a “physical marvel who has sworn to devote his existence to helping those in need.” In that comic, Superman also fights spousal abuse, an unjust execution, and political corruption. These are notions that have been in place since 1938 and have been part of the character in the comics published every month since. Conservatives’ complaints have demonstrated how out of touch they are with one of America’s most well-known cultural icons. In fact, the new movie is more in touch with the classic portrayal of Superman as a beacon of hope and optimism than the character’s grittier portrayal in more recent films like “Man of Steel.” Related | Trump declares himself Superman amid MAGA meltdown over ‘woke’ reboot The new “Superman” was written and filmed before Trump won the 2024 election, but audiences can see the clear contrast between the film’s embrace of kindness and the daily meanness of the Trump administration.  For Trump, cruelty is the point. But for Superman, that is absolutely not the way. Superman stands for truth and justice—the complete opposite of what MAGA is all about. He is a fantasy, an ideal that doesn’t exist in the real world. But at the box office, despite the right’s fuming, Superman—and his values—has triumphed once again.

House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer is leading an investigation into former President Joe Biden’s occasional use of an autopen. But according to a new report, Comer hasn’t exactly been putting pen to paper himself. NBC News revealed that Comer’s signature on letters and subpoena notices related to the investigation is a digital image, inserted by someone else. Metadata confirms these weren’t created by Comer, and hovering over his signature in Adobe Acrobat shows it’s a digital stamp, not a handwritten signature. In other words, Comer is investigating Biden for using an autopen while relying on a digital signature himself. A cartoon by Tim Campbell. “Using digital signatures for official correspondence is a common practice for both Republicans and Democrats in the House of Representatives,” a House Oversight Committee spokeswoman told NBC in response to a list of questions. “Chairman Comer has never hidden the fact that he uses a digital signature when appropriate, and he approves all official correspondence that is signed digitally.” The spokeswoman added: “Legally binding subpoenas issued by Chairman Comer always bear a wet signature and are never signed using an autopen or digital signature. Comparing Chairman Comer’s use of digital signatures for letters to the unauthorized use of an autopen in the Biden White House for legally binding executive actions is absurd and misleading. The two are not even remotely comparable.” NBC also found that all 16 letters Comer sent to former Biden White House officials requesting transcribed interviews were signed with inserted digital images, meaning they were not signed by the chairman himself. To be clear, using digital signatures isn’t new in Washington. It’s long been standard practice across Congress and the White House, especially for routine correspondence. Members of Congress often rely on staff or digital stamps to respond to the large volume of mail they receive. Even the Jan. 6 committee used digital signatures on its official letters. But critics argue that’s precisely the point. “Comer using an autopen to investigate an autopen is just so James,” quipped Democratic Rep. Jared Moskowitz. “That’s what we love about him, his attention to detail.  Autopens also have precedent. The Department of Justice approved their use in 2005. Former President Barack Obama was the first to use it on legislation in 2011. Trump used the autopen, too, although he initially lied about it. What’s changed is the Republican narrative: that Biden’s use of an autopen somehow proves he wasn’t aware of what he was signing.  Trump has gone as far as to call it “one of the most dangerous and concerning scandals in American history” and ordered a Department of Justice investigation. Biden has denied the claim, recently telling The New York Times, “I made every single”[ decision. “I understand why Trump would think that, because obviously, I guess, he doesn’t focus much,” Biden said. Related | Biden smacks down GOP’s fake scandal Comer’s committee has eagerly joined in, suggesting the use of the autopen may indicate Biden wasn’t in control. But they’ve yet to produce a single document proving that—or any actual evidence that Biden’s use of the device was inappropriate. Comer has tried to distinguish between the practices. “Presidents use the autopen, just like I use an autopen, or [Rep.] Jim Jordan or anyone else in Congress to sign correspondence to the massive amounts of messages that you get,” Comer told Newsmax this month. “But no one uses an autopen for legal documents. I can’t use an autopen to sign subpoenas. That’s my legal document. Subpoenas. I have to fly back to Washington, D.C., just to sign one piece of paper.” Democrats disagree with this distinction. They argue Biden’s use of the autopen is within legal norms and far less troubling than Comer and Trump’s attempts to turn a nonissue into a scandal, while secretly using similar tools themselves. “I think the American people are far more concerned about what Trump has to hide about his connections to Jeffrey Epstein than Biden’s legal use of autopen—a practice enjoyed by Comer, Trump, and virtually every elected official in Washington,” a Biden White House official said.