the story about brands trying to disalign themselves from the results of the politics they support a little heartier than they do the other side? Well, here are legislators working on the same thing, again, and if the companies do it, it could work. We’ve been saying we need this for a couple of years, at least.It would be a good time for we the people to increase our pressure on companies, as well.
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Congressional Black Caucus on Tuesday called on major corporations across the U.S., including those that previously expressed support for voting rights and racial justice, to oppose redistricting efforts by Republican-led states that seek to eliminate majority-Black U.S. House districts.
In a letter sent to more than 250 companies, members of the Black Caucus urge them to condemn the redistricting efforts, which the lawmakers describe as “coordinated efforts to silence Black voices at the ballot box.” Some of the companies had co-signed their own message to Congress five years ago urging lawmakers to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Act, a Democratic proposal to restore and update the Voting Rights Act.
That 2021 coalition, Business for Voting Rights, was backed by many of the country’s most valuable and influential companies, including Apple, Amazon, Google, Meta, Microsoft, Tesla, Salesforce, Target, PayPal, Intel and Starbucks.
Tuesday’s letter is the latest effort by the Congressional Black Caucus and its allies to gather support for preventing more Republican-led states from redrawing their legislative maps in ways that would dilute Black political representation. Several states have moved to eliminate congressional districts represented by Black Democratic lawmakers after a U.S. Supreme Court ruling last month that severely weakened a key provision of the Voting Rights Act.
“Corporations that have profited from Black consumers, relied on Black workers, and amassed wealth in part from Black communities cannot look away while Black political power is dismantled in plain sight,” Rep. Yvette Clarke, chair of the Black Caucus, said in an interview.
Clarke described the letter as “putting corporate America on notice,” but she said the caucus was not seeking an adversarial relationship with corporations. Among those receiving Tuesday’s letter were companies based overseas that have a significant presence in the U.S.
The caucus last week called for Black athletes to boycott public universities in states that are gerrymandering their congressional maps to eliminate districts held by Black lawmakers. The 59-member Congressional Black Caucus consists entirely of Democrats, including more than a third from Southern states.
Some lawmakers have said mass protests and federal legislation might be necessary to undo the efforts underway in Republican-led states. Any new federal voting rights law would almost certainly require Democrats to secure majorities in both chambers of Congress and win the presidency.
It is unclear how companies will respond to the demands. The Associated Press reached out for comment to dozens of companies that were sent a letter by the caucus, but has not recieved a response.
“Many companies that previously issued statements after the murder of George Floyd, pledged billions toward racial equity initiatives, and spoke forcefully in defense of democracy following January 6 now face a defining test of whether those commitments were rooted in principle or convenience,” the caucus’ letter states.
It also represents the latest instance of the caucus expressing frustrations with corporate America. A 2024 Black Caucus report noted that lawmakers were “troubled that some corporations that made pledges in 2020 have taken several steps in the opposite direction,” such as rolling back or failing to follow through on pledges to diversify their workforces.
“We understand who the occupant in the White House is and the reality of Republicans being in charge,” Democratic Rep. Steven Horsford of Nevada said of the caucus’ message. “But what corporate America also understands is that there will be a shift at some point.”
The letter calls on companies to publicly condemn the redistricting plans, meet with Black Caucus members to discuss corporate America’s role in protecting voting rights and disclose their political donations to Republican politicians in states that are redistricting their congressional maps.
President Donald Trump last year kicked off the unusual mid-decade round of congressional redistricting when he pushed Texas lawmakers to redraw their maps in a way that would add Republican seats. Democratic-led California responded, but it has been mostly Republican states redrawing their lines since as the party tries to maintain its majority in the U.S. House during this year’s midterm elections.
The effort was supercharged by the Supreme Court decision, which allowed even more Republican states to redraw congressional maps that previously had protected minority communities.
Horsford, who chaired the Black Caucus during President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration, said the caucus is demanding that companies “stand on the side of democracy, fairness and equal representation.”
“This is about power, who holds it and what it’s used for,” he said. “And when you’re diluting Black economic and political power, we need to know where these companies stand in this moment, and what side of history they’re on.”
More than two-thirds of adults oppose the construction of the massive and costly complexes used to power artificial intelligence, with a majority saying they’d prefer to have a nuclear power plant in their backyard instead. While women and men overwhelmingly expressed opposition, women did so more intensely. Out of 1,000 adults surveyed, 55 percent of women said they strongly oppose data centers, compared to 43 percent of men. In fact, men were more likely to favor data centers, citing their economic benefits and job opportunities.
Jeffrey Jones, a senior editor at Gallup and the study’s author, attributed the distinction to women having more empathy for public-facing issues like the environment and healthcare, and favoring Democratic policies that protect the environment. Resistance to data centers often focuses on the imposition of environmental and financial problems, like water scarcity, noise and air pollution, and excessive energy use that can result in higher utility bills and increased health complications for the low-income communities of color who live near where they are usually built.
“A lot of the opposition is based on environmental concerns about using too many resources, especially water,” Jones added. “Centers need a lot of water to cool the computing machines that they’re using. Land, electricity, and resources are the most common concerns people have.”
Gendered fears about the environment are nothing new, experts say. Women are disproportionately impacted by environmental degradation and at higher risk of poverty, food insecurity and gender-based violence when displaced by climate change, the United Nations reports. Studies have consistently shown that women are also key to driving inclusive, effective action to address the impacts of climate change.
“I’ve been organizing for 15 years, and it’s always been the case that women are leading our fights,” said Danny Cendejas, a campaign specialist for MediaJustice, who works with grassroots movements across the country that are opposing data centers. “We are definitely seeing everyone join the fight, but we have to recognize the truth, and it’s women, trans, queer and nonbinary people leading the work.”
Cendejas pointed to environmental justice movements in places like Memphis, Tennessee, and Amarillo, Texas, which have already been overburdened by environmental pollutants and health impacts from gas and oil industries. Those impacts are now being exacerbated by data centers.
“There’s a big connection where big tech is targeting Black, Brown and Indigenous communities,” Cendejas said. “The progress that has been made over the years to shut down coal plants or gain protections… a lot of that is being undone, by big tech and the demand for data centers.”
Data centers have become an increasingly pressing issue for candidates and their campaigns heading into the midterms in November. They’re also a rare source of bipartisan concern in a polarized political environment.
“There are really strong feelings about this. I see this playing out as a political issue, and now people who are running for governor, Senate, or local offices, are having to take a position on this, whereas this is not something people were talking about two years ago,” Jones said. “And now politicians across both parties are coming out as against data centers, which seems like the more popular viewpoint.”
During a House hearing on Wednesday featuring the Environmental Protection Agency’s Assistant Administrator for Water Jessica Kramer, Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York held up jars of an opaque, brown liquid that she said had come out of a rural community east of Atlanta where Donald Trump got 70 percent of the vote in the last election. Meta has disputed the claim.
“This is the current drinking water in Morgan County, Georgia, right after a data center was constructed, the Meta data center was constructed,” Ocasio-Cortez said. “The only difference between the clean water and this was that data center.”
In New Mexico, first-time candidate Daisy Maldonado is running for county commissioner in Doña Ana County on a platform that includes opposition to Project Jupiter, a $165 billion mega data center under construction in the area. Maldonado was recently endorsed by Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a proponent of data center regulation, adding to the national conversation about community resistance to AI infrastructure and environmental accountability.
“I see a lot of moms concerned,” said Ana Carolina de Assis Nunes, a researcher at the nonprofit Data & Society Research Institute who studied Pittsburgh’s data center industry. “It’s very connected to ‘I want a good future for my kids and if things go this way, I don’t know what world we will have for them in 15 years.’”
To Nunes, the Gallup poll’s results serve as a reminder and reflection of the gendered impacts of AI in society.
“A lot of the interviewees we had in Pennsylvania, when it comes to developers, or people in government, are mostly men, but people who are activists and doing work on the ground, they are mainly women,” Nunes said.
Over lunch a bit ago, I watched the finale of “The Late Show with Stephen Colbert.” What a mix of happy and sad. Joy Reid gives us a good rundown on her Substack, along with pertinent history. I subscribe for free, so do give her a click to finish reading and watching; I promise you’ll be happy you did! And sad, too.
Late night TV is all but dead, anyway, right? Colbert made it into the lifeboats before the ship went down.
Viewership of the three major network offerings is down 70-80 percent in the “money demo” (18-49) and 9 percent overall versus the peak year for the genre, 2015; the year Colbert took over The Late Show from David Letterman, Jimmy Fallon succeeded Jay Leno and Jimmy Kimmel moved to 11:35 p.m. That said, Colbert was the highest rated late night show and still brought in an audience north of 2.4 million every night; a number CNN would kill for.
In reality, the declines in viewership really only account for the very much dying medium of network (and cable) television. The realty is, most people who watched Colbert, and still catch Kimmel, Fallon and Comedy Central’s The Daily Show, watch on YouTube or catch (and share) the clips on social media (well not the clips – since these geezer broadcast companies will ding any creator who posts their clips on a YouTube channel – as if sharing their content hurts them…) Or they subscribe to the app where John Oliver’s show runs. The real death of the genre has nothing to do with the talents of the hosts. It’s about the audience moving online (and the younger audience choosing streamers over everyone): (snip; skipping to a fun part, but seriously do go read and watch in the entirety!)
Still, for the Ellisons to unceremoniously end not just Colbert’s tenure on The Late Show, but to end the show altogether, is a sign. It’s a sign of the right wing billionaire stranglehold on our media — with the MAGA Zionist family in control of Paramount CBS and soon of Warner Bros and CNN, too, Jeff Bezos ruining the Washington Post, and the Murdochs controlling Fox, the New York Post and the Wall Street Journal. Between that and the rotten billionaire boys club that controls every social media app, we live in a MAGA hellscape that answers the question: what would happen if old time South African apartheid went global?
And the number of CBS employees who are now unemployed because a Zionist family and their MAGA claque wants to give a weak, whiny president who can’t take a joke comfort TV to watch as he drools himself to sleep in his gold-covered Barcalounger every night is both sad and infuriating. (snip-skipping again)
My next appearance, and the first time we met in person was in July 20 2021:
(snip-skipping again)
But beyond the personal, I think it’s important to recall that Colbert has been, alongside people like Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Myers and others outside the very white, male confines of network late night — a brave voice of resistance against Trumpism and autocracy. And that voice will be missed. Silencing Stephen was clearly the Ellisons’ goal. But in this new world of independent media, silencing people isn’t so easy.
Good reads:
This throwback piece on the initial Colbert announcement is great, and not just because it also mentions me. And I love the title:
Eric Trump is threatening to sue Jen Psaki for a segment on her MS NOW show.
Psaki questioned on her show, The Briefing with Jen Psaki, if there’s a conflict of interest by Eric joining his father on his trip to China. She cited an article by the Financial Times that reported that Alt5 Sigma, a company with ties to Eric Trump, was pursuing a deal to build data centers in the US with a Chinese chipmaker that American lawmakers have warned is connected to the ruling Communist Party.
Presidents usually put a blind trust in charge of their finances while they are in office, but not Donald Trump. Instead of a blind trust, he has put Eric in charge of the family business. That does not prevent Donald from controlling his money, and in fact, he has been making a lot of trades and investments lately himself. Psaki pointed out that this arrangement with Eric was supposed to prevent conflicts of interest, “but there he is.” (snip-MORE)
Usually, when someone tells you about a news item you may not have heard about yet, they’ll leave out some pertinent facts. When I first heard that California had banned the Kars4Kids jingle, the most annoying song in the world, they did not tell me why. I thought to myself that California couldn’t do that because of the First Amendment. Right? No one has banned Nickelback yet.
As it turns out, the supposed nonprofit group, Kars4Kids, has to stop airing its jingle in California because the judge found that it violated the state’s false advertising and unfair competition laws. (snip-MORE)
The $1.8 billion slush fund that the Justice Department is awarding to Donald Trump’s criminal allies is so blatantly corrupt that even Republicans can’t defend it. Some Republicans are so upset that they’re actually speaking out publicly against it.
Referring to acting Attorney General, Todd Blanche, and the fact that J6 terrorists are eligible for the so-called “anti-weaponization fund,” Mitch McConnell said, “So the nation’s top law enforcement official is asking for a slush fund to pay people who assault cops? Utterly stupid, morally wrong – take your pick.”
Senate Republicans derailed a massive immigration enforcement bill and left town until early today, despite Donald Trump ordering them to pass the $7o billion bill before June 1. How disgusting do you have to be to sicken sycophantic MAGAt Republicans? (snip-MORE)
Every day, hair salons sweep countless hair clippings off their floors and toss them into the trash without much thought. But in parts of France, Belgium, and Luxembourg, those discarded strands are finding an entirely different purpose: helping forests grow.
French recycling company Capillum has developed a surprisingly effective way to reuse human hair by turning it into biodegradable mulch that protects young trees from hungry deer. The company collects hair from participating salons and transforms it into flattened fiber sheets that can be wrapped around vulnerable saplings.
What sounds unusual at first actually solves several environmental problems at once.
A second life for salon clippings
Hair salons generate an enormous amount of waste each year. Most clippings are simply thrown away, even though human hair is remarkably durable because it is made largely from keratin, a fibrous protein that breaks down slowly over time.
Capillum saw potential in a material most people never think twice about. The company accepts hair regardless of texture, length, color, or whether it has been dyed. Once gathered, the hair is fed into a machine that minces everything together into dense fiber sheets that can be laid around the base of trees. The process transforms something typically viewed as garbage into a practical tool for conservation efforts.
Why young trees need protection
Many forests depend on saplings surviving long enough to mature and replenish the ecosystem. However, young trees often struggle in areas with large deer populations. Deer are known to chew on bark, especially during seasons when food is scarce. Because saplings have thin bark and delicate trunks, even small amounts of damage can stunt their growth or kill them entirely.
Foresters have historically relied on plastic fencing and tree guards to keep deer away. While those barriers can work well, they also create waste and require maintenance over time.
Capillum’s recycled hair mats offer another approach. The scent of human hair naturally discourages deer from getting too close to the trees, steering them toward other vegetation instead. The method protects saplings without harming wildlife.
A biodegradable alternative to plastic
Unlike plastic guards, the hair fibers gradually decompose and return nutrients to the soil. As the keratin breaks down, it releases nitrogen and amino acids that can support plant growth. That nutrient-rich quality is one reason some gardeners have long experimented with placing hair into compost piles or using it directly in garden beds. Knowing this, Capillum sells its eco-friendly hair mulch to home gardeners interested in more sustainable growing methods.
Human hair is more useful than most people realize(snip-MORE)
Surely there are people here in the US, in our profit-driven society, who could do this recycling, as well.
It’s horrifying that these Jewish settlers who want to eradicate entirely the Muslim population. One woman described Islam as a cancer and wants the Islamists killed or reeducated. Muslims who own businesses can’t even open their shops. But there is a small minority trying to protect the arabs. Hugs
Last week I flagged that oral argument was set in the D.C. Circuit for this past Thursday in the combined challenges filed by four law firms against Trump’s executive orders seeking to keep them from conducting much of their business. All four firms won in the lower courts. Based on the panel’s reception, they seem on track to do it again.
These cases are highly significant because they go to the heart of a major abuse of executive power: Trump’s insistence that he has the ability to put entities that oppose him out of business. Former Solicitor General for George W. Bush, Paul Clement, representing the firms, argued that Trump’s executive orders “run afoul of the better part of the Bill of Rights.” Not just one or two provisions, mind you, but “the better part.” He argued that they threaten the right to counsel, the separation of powers, and the rule of law.
Clement explained, “The executive orders here strike at the heart of the First Amendment and the ability of lawyers to zealously represent their clients. Lawyers cannot zealously represent their clients while walking on eggshells for fear of reprisals; thus, the executive orders strike at the heart of the rule of law and the zealous representation on which the judiciary and the adversary process depend.” That seems entirely clear. It could even be possible that firms might avoid representing certain clients—one of Trump’s early attacks was on Covington and Burling, a D.C. firm that gave advice to Jack Smith, the special counsel during the Biden administration who oversaw the two prosecutions of Donald Trump.
Clement also explained the headlock Trump had put firms in: “I either keep my security clearance, or I can sue the Trump administration, not both.” For many defense firms, the ability to obtain a security clearance is essential to doing certain types of work. Trump’s orders purported to remove those clearances for lawyers at firms that ran afoul of him. He also tried to suspend active government contracts and prevent attorneys who worked at the interdicted firms from entering government buildings, including federal courthouses. As we discussed here, it was always going to be a nonstarter because the orders, if permitted to go into effect, would allow a president to pick and choose which attorneys could continue to make a living and put ones he didn’t like out of business.
During argument, the panel seemed unpersuaded that the executive orders were discretionary national security decisions made by a president that aren’t subject to review by the courts. If the case makes its way to the Supreme Court, Trump will undoubtedly argue that the district judges who first considered the case were biased. Assuming Trump loses at the Court of Appeals, the Supreme Court could take the case on appeal, but is not obligated to. For instance, Judge Richard Leon, one of first district judges to consider a law firm executive order case, is also the judge who issued a preliminary injunction halting construction of Trump’s ballroom, finding that the president is the “steward” of the White House and not the “owner,” and that Trump had no statutory authority to proceed, absent authorization from Congress. So prepare yourself for meritless arguments about judicial bias if Trump suffers a loss here. There is no way of predicting how long it will take the court to rule, and the administration is enjoined from putting the orders into effect while the cases are being litigated.
Closing the loop on mifepristone
With only two justices, predictably, Thomas and Alito, writing in dissent, the Supreme Court has prevented Louisiana’s law, which would make mifepristone unavailable via telehealth, from going into effect while the litigation moves forward.
It’s not skeptical to question whether this happened because the Court is well aware of the risk of agitating voters in advance of the midterm elections.
Trump is hyperfocused on trying to salvage the November election despite his sinking performance in the polls.
We always knew that, backed into a corner, Trump would become ever more willing to damage democracy to save himself. It’s on.
NOTUS is reporting that meetings are being held, out of the public eye, between the White House, DOJ, DHS, and the Postal Service to try and interfere with the election. The goal seems to be building a national voter database that can then be used to determine who can and can’t vote—which is up to the individual states—and implement Trump’s order that the Post Office should interfere with mailing ballots.
The report in NOTUS included comments from an unidentified White House staffer speaking on background, who declined to acknowledge that the conversations were taking place, but did say that “it is standard process for administration officials to coordinate on implementing President Trump’s executive orders. We do not comment on private meetings that may or may not have happened.” That’s as good as a yes.
Trump’s executive order directing USPS to interfere in state-run elections is under challenge in court. At a hearing last week, DOJ argued that the court can’t act because the issue being raised is an “abstract legal question unless and until the Postal Service actually issues a rule that injures the plaintiffs and it does so only because it was directed to by the president — rather than, for example, as an exercise of the agency’s own independent judgment.” Judge Carl Nichols seemed inclined to buy that argument at one point in the hearing, asking how there could be irreparable injury, which he must find before he can enjoin the executive order, when no action has been taken as of yet. But at other points in the hearing, he pushed the government on the constitutionality of the president’s executive order.
We’ll watch carefully for a forthcoming ruling in this case, which will tell us a lot about whether the courts will entertain presidential interference in each state’s administration of its own election. But the White House is making its position clear.
Stephen Miller, who it’s always worth noting is not a lawyer and doesn’t seem to appreciate what the Constitution says, seems to be continuing to look for a new way to militarize the country for reasons that don’t hold water in advance of the election. We’ll take up the issue of the illegality of sending federal troops or federal agents to the polls first breather we get.
Also …
On Wednesday, the state of Tennessee has a court date to defend itself against the NAACP’s allegations that it cannot, without violating state law, redraw its voting maps this late in the decade.
On Thursday, SCOTUS will be issuing more opinions.
By Friday, the Government has to produce discovery to the defendants in the Minnesota church protest case against Don Lemon and individual protestors who were indicted for violating the FACE Act. A judge ruled that heavily redacted discovery that prevents the defendants from identifying witnesses, including members of law enforcement, so they can prepare their cases violates the law. He has given the government until Friday to rectify its errors and “produce discovery consistent with its Rule 16(a) obligations, unredacted as to all victim and witness names, addresses, and telephone numbers; as well as fully unredacted as to law enforcement PII [personally identifiable information]” to every defendant who has agreed to abide by a protective order preventing its public dissemination. The government’s case has been widely viewed as likely violating the First Amendment from the outset.
Next up on the list of bad cabinet secretaries
Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins is being sued for violating employees’ right to be free from establishment of religion by the government. She’s been proselytizing in emails to the captive audience that is her workforce.
I recall once handling a case where a public employee was being subject to far less overt religious commentary, and the government agency immediately conceded error and fired the offender. This case is even more clear. Government employees are not disciples of Christ.
In new federal lawsuit, employees accuse Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins of "sending increasingly proselytizing communications to the entire USDA workforce, promoting her own preferred brand of Christian beliefs and theology to the captive audience of employees"
But don’t hold your breath for the president to fire her. This was a weekend characterized by a full-scale display of support for Christianity being promoted by the White House. The administration held a “Rededicate 250,” which many observers, both approvingly and disapprovingly, referred to as a Christian religious service featuring high-ranking government officials on the National Mall.
Rededicate 250 was “a White House-backed prayer festival dedicated to America’s Christian roots.” Trump gave a video speech. Speaker Mike Johnson, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio were present, standing with evangelical leaders on the stage. Johnson told the crowd, “Our founders boldly proclaim that our rights do not derive from the government. They come from you, our Creator and Heavenly Father.”
Podcaster Brian Allen posted this snippet from MAGA radio host Eric Metaxas’ speech at the federally funded prayer event on the National Mall today: “It’s hard to believe that it would take two centuries for the Lord to raise up a great man to bring that ballroom finally to stand where it needs to stand. It’s extraordinary. We only had to wait two hundred years.”
As Allen put it, Metazas “told a crowd of thousands of Christians that God spent two centuries waiting to raise up Donald Trump — to build a ballroom.” The crowd responded by cheering.
The only way to overcome this sort of thing, a clear violation of the Constitution, is with a relentless commitment to telling the truth and sharing it widely. We know from Trump’s poll numbers that some of it is breaking through. The utter lunacy of the Christian God wanting a ballroom is something to ask people to stop, and instead of just following like sheep, spend a moment thinking about.
More Kleptocracy
Bloomberg is reporting that Trump’s disclosure forms for the first quarter of 2026 show that he made 3,600 Stock trades, and that they are worth as much as $750 Million (the reporting is done in bands, so it’s impossible to determine the exact amount from the forms). Former Undersecretary of State Rick Stengel pointed out that Bush and Clinton kept their assets in a blind trust and neither Obama nor Biden traded stocks or bonds while in office.
“3,700 trades,” Stengel tweeted, “is probably more than all the trades of all the presidents until now. And he is trading stocks that are affected by his decisions. A walking conflict of interest, at the least, and perhaps insider trading. Just as members of Congress should not be able to trade stocks, so too the president.” Stock trades aren’t official acts; they’re clearly personal ones. Stengel has certainly identified reasons that merit a closer look at these trades.
So, lots happening this week. We’ll be here through everything as we head into the Memorial Day weekend, trying to make it make sense. I’m grateful to all of you who spend part of your week here with me, thinking carefully about the law, democracy, and where we go from here. Thank you for being a part of Civil Discourse.
Scottie's Playtime 