Kash Patel lies and is pilloried for tRump.

The right’s inflamtory rhetoric and blaming the left for inciting political violence on the left clips From The Majority Report

Hacks star Hannah Einbinder ended her Emmys speech with choice words for Donald Trump’s secret police force and some solidarity with the people of Palestine.

About The Arrested In NYC-

These Are the 15 New York Officials ICE and NYPD Arrested in Manhattan

More than a dozen elected officials were arrested in or around 26 Federal Plaza in New York City, where ICE detains people in what courts have ruled are unsanitary conditions.

Police arrested more than a dozen New York state and city elected officials Thursday at 26 Federal Plaza, the Manhattan immigration court and an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) field office, many as they pressed to gain access to the building’s 10th-floor lockup, where recent court rulings—including a temporary restraining order—directed ICE not to cram immigrants into overcrowded, unsanitary conditions.

The lawmakers and other officials, arrested around 3:45 pm local time, say they were “attempting to conduct oversight” following claims that people appearing for court hearings were being confined for hours or days without proper food, medical care, or contact with attorneys.

A spokesperson for New York City comptroller Brad Lander’s office told WIRED by phone that Lander and 10 other elected officials were denied access and then arrested while “engaged in an action on the 10th floor of 26 Federal Plaza, where ICE inhumanely detains thousands of immigrant New Yorkers.” Lander was previously arrested at the same facility in June while accompanying a migrant man whom ICE targeted with arrest.

A joint press release issued by New York officials in the aftermath lists the electeds among those arrested:

NYC comptroller Brad Lander
State senator Julia Salazar
State senator Jabari Brisport
State senator Gustavo Rivera
Assembly member Robert Carroll
Assembly member Emily Gallagher
Assembly member Jessica Gonzalez-Rojas
Assembly member Marcela Mitaynes
Assembly member Claire Valdez
Assembly member Tony Simone
Assembly member Steven Raga
Public advocate Jumaane Williams
Assembly member Phara Souffrant-Forrest
Council member Sandy Nurse
Council member Tiffany Caban

At least some officials, according to Lander’s office, had been released at the time of writing. The final four on the list were arrested outside the facility, reportedly by the New York City Police Department. Dozens of New Yorkers who had gathered, holding signs and chanting “ICE out of NY,” were also arrested, officials said. A follow-up demonstration was planned for 6 pm ET at Foley Square, a longtime rallying point for immigrant rights protests in the heart of Manhattan’s Civic Center neighborhood.

NEW YORK NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 18 Comptroller Brad Lander joins 11 local elected officials inside lower Manhattans federal...

Neither the Department of Homeland Security nor ICE immediately responded to a request for comment. Reached by phone, a New York Police Department spokesperson declined to comment because “the incident is ongoing.”

Under federal law, members of Congress have explicit authority to inspect immigration detention facilities, including conducting unannounced visits. State and city lawmakers don’t have that authority and must rely on DHS or ICE to approve such requests. The Trump administration has instituted new policies, such as mandating advance notice and designating certain field offices and short-term sites off-limits, that have blocked or delayed congressional oversight visits in recent months.

Federal judges and civil rights groups have zeroed in on the conditions inside 26 Federal Plaza. This summer, a federal court issued a preliminary injunction against the government after allegations surfaced that the facility’s detainees were being crammed into severely overcrowded rooms and made to sleep on bare floors and were denied food, hygiene, and confidential access to their lawyers.

NEW YORK NEW YORK SEPTEMBER 18 Dozens of anti Immigration and Customs Enforcement protesters are arrested after...

The problems echo a broader pattern across the US, where watchdogs and courts have flagged overcrowding, poor sanitation, and blocked access to counsel in ICE facilities from Arizona to Louisiana.

Advocates say some of the most jarring overcrowding is happening on 26 Federal Plaza’s 10th floor, where detainees have estimated that between 70 and 90 people have been crammed into rooms measuring roughly 215 square feet. That would leave each person with roughly the space of a doormat—less room than a folded bath towel—in an area no bigger than a studio apartment kitchen.

The arrests came as part of a coordinated action by progressive Democrats, timed to amplify demands for Albany to reconvene and pass the New York for All Act. The bill would bar state and local agencies, including police and sheriffs, from sharing information or resources with ICE, aiming to stop what lawmakers describe as abductions of immigrants at court hearings and check-ins. Along with New York City Council’s proposed Trust Act—which would let people sue if city agencies unlawfully cooperate with ICE—the legislation is essential, Democrats say, to defend due process and prevent local governments from becoming de facto extensions of ICE.

“The criminalization, demonization, and state-sponsored violence against immigrants in this country has reached a fever pitch under this administration. All of us, and especially elected leaders, must do more to protect New Yorkers, regardless of when they arrived,” Assembly member Emily Gallagher, a Democrat who represents parts of Brooklyn, said in a statement.

Many elected officials have been arrested while protesting the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement tactics. Among others, in June, Senator Alex Padilla of California was handcuffed after challenging Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem at a Los Angeles press conference, and in May, Newark mayor Ras Baraka was arrested outside a federal detention center during an attempted oversight visit.

In a statement, Yasmine Farhang, executive director of the Immigrant Defense Project, applauded the lawmakers’ actions Thursday, accusing the US government of “egregious abuses of power,” and imploring New York governor Kathy Hochul to use her clemency powers to shield migrants dealing with overlapping punishments from the courts and immigration authorities.

“New York leaders cannot let this cruelty go unchecked,” she said. “The moment to act is NOW.”

Additional reporting by Andrew Couts.

Governmental Overreach

Brendan Carr Isn’t Going to Stop Until Someone Makes Him

In the wake of Jimmy Kimmel’s suspension, experts say the FCC commissioner’s conduct is flatly unconstitutional. They also expect him to keep going.

In what has become an all-too-regular display from Brendan Carr, the Federal Communications Commission chairman used a podcast appearance Wednesday to flex his regulatory power. In this instance, he threatened action against broadcasters that refused to punish Jimmy Kimmel for remarks he made on his ABC show Monday night.

“We can do this the easy way or the hard way,” Carr said on former Turning Point USA contributor Benny Johnson’s podcast on Wednesday. “These companies can find ways to change conduct to take action, frankly, on Kimmel, or there’s going to be additional work for the FCC ahead.”

Since taking over the FCC at the beginning of the year, Carr has tested how far the agency can limit speech without ever quite formally censoring it. By leveraging his position as chairman, he has relied on informal threats and regulatory incentives to keep broadcasters in line with the Trump administration’s politics—and experts say Carr won’t end this campaign until someone stops him. For now, it’s not clear who’s even willing to try.

“He’ll push it until he’s stopped. Congress has been silent on this, and there hasn’t been a basis to get to court,” former FCC chair Tom Wheeler tells WIRED. “He’s been very artful in not making formal decisions that are appealable to the court, but instead having these informal, coercive activities that are not appealable, and so until Congress or the courts say he can’t, he’ll keep pushing.”

Over the past eight months, Carr—a formerly light-touch telecom regulator turned MAGA hardliner—has shown how far he’s willing to take this crusade. He has threatened to revoke broadcast licenses for outlets the administration sees as “distorting” news content, targeting Comcast outlets over news coverage of Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s deportation in April. He opened investigations into NPR and PBS underwriting announcements, alleging that they crossed into commercial advertising. Carr oversaw the merger between Paramount and Skydance and extracted concessions on CBS’s editorial work, pressuring the company to do away with its DEI policies and promise “viewpoint diversity” in coverage. (David Ellison, son of billionaire Trump supporter Larry Ellison, founded Skydance and became Paramount’s chair and chief executive officer following the merger.) At the same time, Donald Trump was suing CBS for having edited a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris; after Paramount paid out $16 million to settle the suit, CBS said it would end Stephen Colbert’s show next spring.

“The FCC under Brendan Carr uses mergers and business interests of media companies as leverage to extract concessions, extract bribes, and extract censorship,” says Seth Stern, director of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

Carr did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

While Carr’s threats have chased social media companies and cable networks, they’ve hit companies with business before the FCC the hardest. Nexstar, which owns dozens of ABC affiliate networks, was one of the companies to pull Jimmy Kimmel Live! just hours after Carr’s Wednesday threat. The company is currently seeking approval from the FCC for a $6.2 billion deal to buy Tegna, which owns networks in major markets including Austin, Texas, and San Diego, California. Sinclair, another major broadcasting company, also relies on the FCC to periodically renew its licenses and allocate the company spectrum.

To Genevieve Lakier, a professor of law at the University of Chicago whose research focuses on free speech, Carr’s threats against ABC appear to be “a pretty clear-cut case of jawboning.” Jawboning refers to a type of informal coercion where government officials try to pressure private entities into suppressing or changing speech without using any actual formal legal action. Since jawboning is typically done in letters and private meetings, it rarely leaves a paper trail, making it notoriously difficult to challenge in court.

This Kimmel suspension is a little different, Lakier says. During the podcast appearance, Carr explicitly named his target, threatened regulatory action, and within a matter of hours the companies complied.

“The Supreme Court has made clear that that’s unconstitutional in all circumstances,” says Lakier. “You’re just not allowed to do that. There’s no balancing. There’s no justification. Absolutely no, no way may the government do that.”

Even if Carr’s threats amount to unconstitutional jawboning, though, stopping him could still prove difficult. If ABC sued, it would need to prove coercion—and however a suit went, filing one could risk additional regulatory retaliation down the line. If Kimmel were to sue, there’s no promise that he would get anything out of the suit even if he won, says Lakier, making it less likely for him to pursue legal action in the first place.

“There’s not much there for him except to establish that his rights were violated. But there is a lot of benefit for everyone else,” says Lakier. “This has received so much attention that it would be good if there could be, from now on, some mechanism for more oversight from the courts over what Carr is doing.”

Organizations like the the Freedom of the Press Foundation have sought novel means of limiting Carr’s power. In July, the FPF submitted a formal disciplinary complaint to the DC Bar’s Office of Disciplinary Counsel arguing that Carr violated its ethical rules, misrepresenting the law by suggesting the FCC has the ability to regulate editorial viewpoints. Without formal rulings, companies affected by Carr’s threats would be some of the only organizations with grounding to sue. At the same time, they have proven to be some of the least likely groups to pursue legal action over the last eight months.

In a statement on Thursday, House Democratic leadership wrote that Carr had “disgraced the office he holds by bullying ABC” and called on him to resign. They said they plan to “make sure the American people learn the truth, even if that requires the relentless unleashing of congressional subpoena power,” but did not outline any tangible ways to rein in Carr’s power.

“People need to get creative,” says Stern. “The old playbook is not built for this moment and the law only exists on paper when you’ve got someone like Brendan Carr in charge of enforcing it.”

This vacuum has left Carr free to push as far as he likes, and it has spooked experts over how far this precedent will travel. Established in the 1930s, the FCC was designed to operate as a neutral referee, but years of media consolidation have dramatically limited the number of companies controlling programming over broadcast, cable, and now streaming networks. Spectrum is a limited resource the FCC controls, giving the agency more direct control over the broadcast companies that rely on it than it has over cable or streaming services. This concentration makes them infinitely easier to pressure, benefitting the Trump administration, Carr, but also whoever might come next.

“If political tides turn, I don’t have confidence that the Democrats won’t also use them in an unconstitutional and improper matter,” says Stern. The Trump administration is “really setting up this world where every election cycle, assuming we still have elections in this country, the content of broadcast news might drastically shift depending on which political party controls the censorship office.”

Makena Kelly is a senior writer at WIRED focused on the intersection of politics, power, and technology. She writes the Politics Lab newsletter that helps you make sense of how the internet is shaping our political reality—sign up here. She was previously at The Verge, CQ Roll Call, and the … Read More

Useful Info & Resource

Understanding the Legal Framework Governing a Shutdown

September 17, 2025 | By Sam Berger

The government funding deadline is fast approaching. With the Trump Administration’s continued efforts to impound and rescind funding, complicating Congress’s ability to reach an agreement on funding bills for the upcoming year, it is important to keep in mind the legal framework that governs a shutdown, and the limits a shutdown places on the executive branch.

This primer focuses on the activities that can (and cannot) legally continue during a shutdown; it does not address the impacts of a shutdown on government programs or the people who use them.

Critically, while the executive branch has some discretion as to what activities continue during a shutdown — and it is impossible to predict whether the Administration will take unlawful actions under the pretext of a shutdown^[1] — a government shutdown does not provide the Administration any additional legal authority to fire federal employees, limit review of its actions by federal courts, or freeze funding once full-year appropriations are provided.

Activities That Can Continue During a Government Shutdown

Under the Antideficiency Act, agencies can neither spend, nor make commitments to spend, money without appropriations from Congress.^[2]

Some activities continue during a shutdown because they are separately or already funded. For example, activities funded by multi-year or indefinite funding, such as disaster relief, continue, with payments made as normal. Likewise, if some appropriations bills have been enacted prior to a shutdown, activities funded by those enacted appropriations also continue (a scenario sometimes described as a “partial” government shutdown). The Administration has no legal authority to impound or freeze these funds.

Based on long-standing Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance, there are also a limited set of activities for which the federal government can make commitments to pay — though it still cannot make payments — during a shutdown^[3]:

Activities expressly provided for in law to continue during a shutdown. Some laws expressly provide that certain activities can continue in the absence of appropriations, such as the Department of Defense’s “feed and forage” authority allowing it to obtain certain types of necessary supplies for military personnel.
Activities to protect against imminent threats to life or property. This includes activities related to law enforcement, national security, air traffic control, and federal prisons, among others.
Activities that are necessary to prevent significant damage to a funded program. For example, activities necessary to ensure Social Security payments (which themselves are funded under law) are made in a timely way can continue during a shutdown even if those activities themselves do not have funding.
Activities necessary to discharge the President’s constitutional duties. This includes, for example, the President’s Commander-in-Chief responsibilities.

Different administrations have interpreted these exceptions to apply more or less narrowly, meaning that the activities that continue during a shutdown have differed to some extent from administration to administration. The first Trump Administration took a more expansive view of the public services that should continue.^[4] However, to date, a core set of services — such as defense, law enforcement, transportation safety, Social Security, and Medicare — have continued during every shutdown.

Executive Branch Restrictions During a Government Shutdown

While the executive branch has some latitude in what activities it continues during a government shutdown, there are clear limits on its actions.

If an activity is not funded, no actual payments can be made during a shutdown.

Even for activities that continue during a shutdown because they are subject to one of the exceptions described above, funding to pay for them cannot be provided without appropriations. The federal personnel required to work — including law enforcement, prison guards, and the staff that process Social Security benefits — only receive IOUs that will be paid when appropriations are enacted. Federal contractors required to work or provide services also go unpaid during the shutdown.

Under current law, when the shutdown ends all federal employees receive backpay for the time the government was shut down regardless of whether they were working on an activity that could continue during a shutdown or were forced to stop work until the shutdown ended. However, federal contractors do not receive pay for this time period except for any work they were required to perform during it.

Each branch of government determines which of its activities can legally continue during a shutdown.

Congress and the judiciary make their own independent determinations about what activities continue during a lapse. The executive branch is not involved in those determinations.

In prior shutdowns, the judiciary has had sufficient funding in the absence of new appropriations to continue normal operations for the duration of the shutdown. Courts have said in previous shutdowns that in the event they ran out of funding during a shutdown, they would continue to hear cases and otherwise fulfill their constitutional responsibilities.^[5] Thus, litigants who are suing in federal court would be able to bring suits against the Administration during a shutdown.

When DOJ does not have funding during a shutdown, its lawyers may request extensions from courts for filing deadlines and other procedural steps. Individual courts have the discretion to determine whether to provide such extensions, and courts have both granted and denied such requests depending on the circumstances.

A shutdown would not provide the Administration with any additional legal authority to engage in widespread firing of federal employees.

A temporary lapse in funding does not provide grounds for an agency to fire employees. In addition, during a shutdown most agencies will not be able to legally conduct personnel actions unrelated to the shutdown itself because their HR departments will not be funded and these types of actions do not fall under any of the available exceptions.^[6]

A shutdown would not impact the Administration’s legal obligations to spend money once full-year appropriations are provided.

While many activities would cease during a shutdown because of a lack of funding, the shutdown would not provide the Administration with any authority to impound or freeze funds once appropriations are provided.

While this primer focuses on the legal framework that governs during a shutdown, the Administration has shown itself willing to take actions that are inconsistent with the law, which presents major challenges for the country at all times, not just during a shutdown.

Topics: Federal Budget, Budget Process

End Notes

^[1] Sam Berger, “Trump is ignoring the law to keep the shutdown from causing him political pain,” The Washington Post, January 15, 2019, https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/15/trump-is-ignoring-law-keep-shutdown-causing-him-political-pain/.

^[2] Government Accountability Office, “Antideficiency Act,” https://www.gao.gov/legal/appropriations-law/resources.

^[3] Walter Dellinger, “Government Operations in the Event of a Lapse in Appropriations,” Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, August 16, 1995, https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/olc/opinions/attachments/2014/11/10/1995-08-16-lapse-in-appropriations.htm.

^[4] Juliet Linderman, “Selective shutdown? Trump tries to blunt impact, takes heat,” Associated Press, January 13, 2019, https://apnews.com/article/66b50739f4b84063a2ff56dff3156712.

^[5] United States Courts, “Judiciary Has Funds to Operate Through Jan. 31,” January 22, 2019, https://www.uscourts.gov/data-news/judiciary-news/2019/01/22/judiciary-has-funds-operate-through-jan-31.

^[6] Office of Personnel Management, “Guidance for Shutdown Furloughs,” January 2024, https://www.opm.gov/policy-data-oversight/pay-leave/furlough-guidance/guidance-for-shutdown-furloughs.pdf.

Racist bigot Stephen Miller is trying to use the death of Charlie Kirk which was done by a republican to attack / destroy the left. It is the way of authoritarians.

https://www.tumblr.com/reagan-was-a-horrible-president/794802531188506624

This Was In The News September 10th-

I saw a few headlines about it on Monday, and meant to post it but didn’t get it done, then Tuesday was what it was. So, it’s been a week, but here it is: there is universal childcare in New Mexico, and they are heroes for getting that done. -A

New Mexico will be the first state to make child care free

Chabeli Carrazana of The 19th. Meet Chabeli and read more of her reporting on gender, politics and policy.

In an unprecedented move, New Mexico is making child care free.

Beginning in November, it will be the first state in the nation to provide child care to all residents regardless of income, Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham announced this week.

The state has been working to lower child care care costs since 2019, when it created the Early Childhood Education and Care Department and started to expand eligibility for universal child care. This latest change removes income eligibility requirements from the state’s child care assistance program altogether and waives all family copayments.

The initiative is expected to save families $12,000 per child annually.

“Child care is essential to family stability, workforce participation and New Mexico’s future prosperity,” Lujan Grisham said in her announcement. “By investing in universal child care, we are giving families financial relief, supporting our economy, and ensuring that every child has the opportunity to grow and thrive.”

The United States allocates some federal funding to states to lower the cost of child care for low-income kids, but eligibility for that funding is very limited and by and large, most families are paying an average of $13,000 on child care annually. It’s much higher in many states.

In the absence of a federal universal child care system, some states have worked to build their own systems, and New Mexico has been a leader in that effort over the past several years.

The state’s Early Childhood Education and Care Department got a budget increase of $113 million in the most recent legislative session, taking its total operating budget to nearly $1 billion. Half of that money goes specifically to child care payment support.

The state also established a fund in 2020 with money earmarked for early childhood education. Thanks to tax collections from the oil and gas industries, the fund has grown from $320 million to $10 billion. Latinas in New Mexico led the charge in 2022 to help pass a constitutional amendment in 2022 that ensured a portion of that fund went specifically to universal child care. Funding for the new initiative will come at least in part from there, and Lujan Grisham will also be requesting an additional $120 million in state funding next year, a spokesperson for the governor said.

The news also comes with improvements for child care facilities and, potentially, raises for their staff. As part of the rollout, the state will establish a $13 million loan fund to construct and expand facilities, launch a recruitment campaign for home-based providers and incentivize programs to pay staff a minimum of $18 an hour.

The state hopes the initiative will lead to the creation of 55 new child care centers and 1,120 home-based child care options.

Still, response to the initiative so far has been mixed. Republican state Rep. Rebecca Dow told the Albuquerque Journal that she believes child care vouchers should be reserved for children most at risk for child abuse and neglect. Since the state’s child care assistance program expanded eligibility over the past five years, fewer low-income families have participated in the program, the Journal reported.

But Thora Walsh Padilla, the president of the Mescalero Apache Tribe, praised the initiative, saying during a press conference Monday that it addresses various challenges the tribe has struggled with, including raising wages for providers. There are only three child care facilities on the 463,000 acre reservation.

“It is so timely and it answers so many needs,” she said. “A building? Oh my goodness, we’ll be one of the first to apply.”