February 28, 1919 Gandhi, 1919 Mohandas Gandhi launched his campaign of non-cooperation with Imperial British control of India. He called his overall method of nonviolent action Satyagraha, formed from satya (truth) and agraha, used to describe an effort or endeavor. This translates roughly as “Truth-force.” A fuller rendering, though, would be “the force that is generated through adherence to Truth.” More on Satyagraha (civil disobedience) Excerpt from The Core of Gandhi’s Philosophy by Unto Tahtinen on the concept of Satyagraha
February 28, 1946 Ho Chi Minh, the leader of the newly formed Democratic Republic of Vietnam, facing re-imposition of French colonial rule over his country, sent a telegram to President Harry Truman: “. . . I most earnestly appeal to you personally and to the American people to interfere urgently in support of our independence and help making the negotiations more in keeping with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco charters [founding documents of the League of Nations and United Nations].”
February 28, 1954 The U.S. detonated its largest thermonuclear blast ever, in a test of a new hydrogen (fusion) weapon design in the atmosphere at Bikini Atoll, part of the Marshall Islands. Castle Bravo had an explosive yield of 15 megatons (equivalent to 15,000,000 tons of TNT), it was double the maximum possible expected by the Atomic Energy Commission. Carried out in spite of adverse weapon conditions (the monitoring station was downwind at the time of detonation), the unexpected yield created a radioactive fallout plume that contaminated three other atolls of the 29 in the Marshall chain. Though too late to avoid their contamination, hundreds of Marshallese and U.S. servicemen were evacuated.To avoid another such radiological disaster, future tests required an exclusion zone 1370 km in diameter (850 miles), an area equal to about 1% of the earth’s surface. Because Bikini had been essentially destroyed, subsequent test weapons were detonated from barges. All about Castle Bravo
February 28, 1958 The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) was founded in London by philosopher Sir Bertrand Russell, then 86 years old, and the Reverend Canon (Lewis) John Collins of St. Paul’s Cathedral.The peace symbol was originally developed for CND. History of the CND The CND today
February 28, 1989 The Nevada-Semipalatinsk Movement to Stop All Nuclear Testing was founded in the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics). Olzhas Suleimenov, a popular Kazakh poet, was chosen to lead this first anti-nuclear non-governmental organization in Kazakhstan, formerly part of the USSR. Nevada-Semipalatinsk ended nuclear arms tests at the Semipalatinsk Polygon. Organizers had been inspired by the large Nevada Test Site anti-nuclear demonstrations and encampments outside Las Vegas in the mid-to-late 1980s. a Semipalatinsk test demo at Semipalatinsk, 1990 Read more
February 29, 1968 The National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders (Kerner Commission) warned that racism was causing America to move “toward two societies, one black, one white – separate and unequal.” Former Illinois Governor Otto Kerner and his commission were charged by President Lyndon Johnson to look into the causes of the many riots that had taken place in recent years. The 1968 Kerner Commission Got It Right, But Nobody Listened
February 29, 1984 U.S. District Judge Miles W. Lord held the officers of A.H. Robins Company personally liable for the injuries caused by the intrauterine contraceptive device they had produced and sold, the Dalkon Shield. Eighteen women had died, and more than 300,000 ultimately claimed injury. The top three executives had to pay $4.6 million personally, and the company paid out $220 million in compensatory and $13 million in punitive damages to thousands of women.
Judge Miles W. Lord Judge Lord: “The whole cost-benefit analysis is warped. They say, well you can kill so many people if the benefits are great enough . . . Once they put a price on human life, all is lost. Life is sacred. Life is priceless.” He also criticized Robins’s legal strategy of requiring witnesses to discuss their sex lives: ”You exposed these women, and ruined families and reputations and careers, in order to intimidate those who would raise their voices against you,” he said. “You introduced issues that had no relationship whatsoever to the fact that you implanted in the bodies of these women instruments of death, mutilation and of disease.” Judge Lord was called before a review panel for his professional and judicial conduct in the case but the charges were dismissed and he continued to serve until retirement. Read about the case
This story was originally reported by Mel Leonor Barclay and Jasmine Mithani of The 19th. Meet Mel and Jasmine and read more of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.
Organizations that provide services to LGBTQ+ victims of domestic and intimate partner violence expect much of the federal funding they rely on to dry up as the Trump administration’s executive orders target the work they have been carrying out for years.
Some received direct notices from the federal government to stop work that promotes what the administration is calling “gender ideology extremism” and to include disclaimers on their websites that the federal government doesn’t support their mission.
Federal grants make up significant shares of operating budgets for many domestic violence nonprofits, and losing that funding puts their continued existence at risk.
Groups that focus specifically on LGBTQ+ victims are part of a broader network of federally funded nonprofits that provide life-saving counseling, housing and legal aid to people experiencing violence from spouses, partners or family members. Some nonprofits also train social workers, therapists and lawyers in how to work sensitively with LGBTQ+ victims of violence.
The White House has promised to slash funding for programs that don’t align with the administration’s ideology on gender, race and immigration.
Domestic violence groups and the broader network of gender-based violence nonprofits have been on high alert since a temporary federal freeze in late January, as The 19th reported this month. The vague language of President Donald Trump’s executive orders — “illegal” diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility activities; “gender ideology extremism” — has left organizations scrambling to figure out if they stand to lose federal funding.
Some are trying to protect their funding by removing language or resources that they fear may be at odds with the executive orders. The people leading groups founded specifically to support LGBTQ+ people say that for them, there is no hiding: The executive orders specifically target the people they are focused on serving.
“Some groups are making an effort to kind of change the way they talk about their services and the populations they serve. Our organization literally has the words gay and lesbian in our IRS name — we’re not fooling anybody. And obscuring what we do and who we serve doesn’t help those services stay accessible,” said Audacia Ray, the interim executive director of the New York City Anti-Violence Project, officially the New York City Gay And Lesbian Anti-Violence Project Inc., which supports LGBTQ+ and HIV-affected victims of violence.
LGBTQ+ Americans, with the exception of gay men, are more likely to have experienced domestic violence, partner abuse or dating violence than cisgender and heterosexual people. Queer women are significantly more likely to have experienced intimate-partner violence in their lifetime than straight women, according to an analysis of federal survey data by the Human Rights Campaign.
Transgender people are four times more likely to be victims of violent crime than cisgender people, according to research from the Williams Institute at UCLA. Fifty-four percent of respondents to the 2015 U.S. Trans Survey — the most recent data available — said they have experienced intimate partner violence, and 47 percent reported being sexually assaulted. Transgender people are also more likely to experience severe physical intimate partner violence than the average American.
Nonprofits serving victims of violence have long relied on federal funding, especially since the Violence Against Women Act created specialized grant programs 30 years ago. They receive little support from private philanthropy: Most recent data from the Equitable Giving Lab shows about 0.1 percent of charitable giving in the United States goes toward LGBTQ+ causes, and less than 2 percent goes toward women and girls.
“The danger of this moment is that it becomes very nebulous to people how federal funding contributes to the basic social safety net. There aren’t donors. There isn’t all this money,” said the executive director of a regional nonprofit serving LGBTQ+ victims of violence that receives about 40 percent of its funding from the federal government. The organization helps offer shelter and direct cash assistance, among other services, to LGBTQ+ people fleeing violence.
The executive director spoke on condition of anonymity out of fear that their organization would be targeted further by the Trump administration.
“When people are facing imminent threat of being murdered, and there are no resources to give people funding to flee that situation … it is going to result in more death. Truly, I believe that.”
The need for targeted LGBTQ+ services
Nonprofits focused specifically on LGBTQ+ communities sprung up to meet the specific needs of this population, which experiences higher incidences of violence and also discrimination based on gender-identity and sexual orientation.
LGBTQ+ people are vulnerable to abuse related to their identity, including threats of outing that could cost them housing, jobs or other relationships. Queer survivors are often isolated from typical support systems like family who could help them in an abusive situation. Transgender people are more likely to be killed by intimate partner violence, and the risk is increased for people of color, especially Black trans women.
Groups focused on LGBTQ+ survivors serve as a critical safety net for LGBTQ+ victims, often accepting referrals from national and local groups without tailored resources. The Hotline, a national nonprofit that supports victims of domestic violence, describes the “fear of not receiving services” as an obstacle “to reaching safety that LGBTQ+ people might confront.” It offers referrals to service providers focused on LGBTQ+ people – the same providers that are now staring down the loss of federal funding.
Given the executive orders, “there’s no universe in which some of the work doesn’t take a hit. I feel very clear about that,” said Ray of the New York City Anti-Violence Project. And at the same time, “we have to be able to answer the phone and support our community, who’s directly impacted by all this violence.”
NYCAVP runs a 24/7 hotline for victims of violence, as well as free long-term counseling, legal services and connections to support groups. About two-thirds of the organization’s budget comes from a mix of federal, state and local government grants. Most of its funding comes from programs targeting “underserved communities.”
Ray said that the New York City Anti-Violence Project, in addition to offering direct services to victims, including through its hotline, also spends resources advocating and advising lawmakers on legislation affecting LGBTQ+ people. For example, NYCAVP helped shape the 2013 reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act, the first federal funding statute that banned discrimination based on actual or perceived gender identity and sexual orientation.
“My immediate thought was we will do what we do as long as we can, and we’re not preemptively laying people off or shutting anything down,” Ray said.
“We have a couple different contingency plans around, ‘What are the services that we need to prioritize and center, and how do we continue to do that as long as possible?’”
The executive director who spoke on condition of anonymity said their organization connected with more than 600 LGBTQ+ people facing abuse and violence in the past year. Some came as referrals from domestic and intimate partner violence organizations that weren’t equipped to serve them, or who were working with a victim needing relocation to a state less hostile to LGBTQ+ people. “It’s kind of like an informal witness protection program,” they said.
Without federal funding, they said, their ability to help these victims will significantly shrink.
How nonprofits are fighting back
In a lawsuit filed Thursday by Lambda Legal on behalf of nine nonprofits that receive federal funding, the plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration’s executive orders, including the order calling for the end of federal funding for activities that promote “gender ideology extremism,” amount to “an existential threat to transgender people.” They argue the orders are unconstitutional because they violate the groups’ free speech, due process and equal protection rights.
“The executive orders force plaintiffs to silence their speech and viewpoints… that are not only of great societal importance but also central to plaintiffs’ missions… or forgo federal funding,” the complaint reads. “That choice is an impossible one.”
Among the plaintiffs suing Trump is FORGE, one of the only organizations in the country focused on supporting transgender people experiencing intimate partner violence. FORGE trains providers who assist transgender and nonbinary survivors of sexual assault, intimate partner violence and hate crimes. The 30-year-old organization also connects victims with wellness services.
According to the case filing, 90 percent of FORGE’s funding is derived from federal grants, the highest out of any listed plaintiff. It has received grants from a wide range of agencies including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the National Institutes of Health.
Several other plaintiffs that received funds from HHS programs, according to the complaint, were sent notices in late January to “immediately terminate, to the maximum extent, all programs, personnel, activities, or contracts promoting ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” or, separately, “gender ideology.”
“Trans and nonbinary people are scared and hurting – not only from the high levels of violence so many of us experience every day, but also because of the dehumanizing, erasing, and damaging impact of the Executive Orders. For the past 30 years, FORGE has been committed to serving trans survivors of sexual assault, stalking, and hate-fueled harm. We are not going anywhere,” michael munson, executive director of FORGE, said in a statement. “Conditioning federal funding on rejecting transgender identity and DEI not only harms trans people, but it also creates a world that is less safe and less free for us all.”
Deleting language and resources
The National LGBTQ Institute on Intimate Partner Violence urged fellow providers to “hold the line together” and stand in solidarity with LGBTQ+, immigrant and BIPOC survivors in an email obtained by The 19th. The missive explicitly called upon organizations to continue serving LGBTQ+ survivors, to not take down materials tailored to the queer community and to keep pronouns on public-facing materials. It also cited previous reporting from The 19th detailing how some groups removed mentions of LGBTQ+ people from their websites.
“For organizations that have removed LGBTQ+ materials, we encourage that these materials be restored,” the statement read. “We urge organizations to not cede our collective power as a movement and back down in our work to protect LGBTQ+ survivors.”
The group reminded organizations in its network that federal law — the same law that the New York City Anti-Violence Center helped pass — makes it illegal to discriminate based on actual or perceived gender identity or sexual orientation. “These federal non-discrimination policies remain in place and give us power to protect transgender survivors in the work that we do,” the organization said.
The Los Angeles LGBT Center, where the institute is housed, declined to speak on the record, citing the current lawsuit.
Several days later, Respect Together, the umbrella organization of the National Sexual Violence Resource Center and the Pennsylvania Coalition to Advance Respect, publicly apologized for removing resources for LGBTQ+ people from their websites.
“Federal and state funding accounts for the vast majority of our operational budget, and as a result, we acted too swiftly to the news from the current administration,” the apology reads. “We heard you, and recognize that this was the wrong choice,” CEO Yolanda Edrington said in the statement. “We are committed to rebuilding trust, learning from this experience, and ensuring that our actions align with our mission to support survivors of all communities, their allies, and advocates.”
The Hotline, which had deactivated a page on LGBTQ+ resources earlier this month, has now restored it. The organization did not respond to a request for comment on the restoration, but told The 19th earlier this month that it was reviewing its website to protect its federal funding.
Even if groups commit to still serve all people in need, regardless of identity, removing resources adds friction. Visibility and ease of navigating resources when you are in need of services is important, said Tandra LaGrone, the CEO of In Our Own Voices, a nonprofit supporting LGBTQ+ people of color in upstate New York, which has received a grant from the Office on Violence Against Women.
The erasure of information can lead victims to feel like they are at fault, LaGrone said.
Ray said that it’s a big risk to not change their organization’s public-facing content in anticipation of a potential loss of funding, but they think holding steady is the right thing to do. Backing down won’t reduce violence, they said.
“I really believe that complying in advance of direct demands and being forced to change those programs is contributing to the overall violence against LGBT people,” Ray said. “That sort of advance compliance is extremely worrisome to me, because it shows that those orgs are concerned about the org as an institution more than they’re concerned about the community as a directly impacted population.”
Reviewing a directive from DCPAS Director Daniel J. Hester. This applies to DOD civilian personnel. On Friday the 28th, they “must terminate the employment of all individuals who are currently serving probationary or trial periods in the DOD.” The document lists categories of exception: positions “designated mission critical,” “political appointees.” There are a few other technical exception categories. Document signed yesterday.
Yesterday I saw a video from VA Secretary Doug Collins (former member of Congress from Georgia) bragging about how they were cutting $2 billion worth of what were clearly, in his estimation, worthless and stupid contracts. They were in fact almost one thousand different contracts tied to everything from medical and burial services to cancer prevention and doctor recruiting programs. I’ve posted that video below. This afternoon I received this email from a longtime reader …
I’m a contractor working for a service-disabled veteran-owned small business (SDVOSB) for 15 years. I’ve worked on projects with the Veterans Benefit Administration and the Veterans Health Administration. During that time, I’ve run marketing campaigns to get veterans to enroll in healthcare, conducted program evaluations and process improvement efforts, and provided strategic communications support.
I’ve been very proud of my work and the VA mission. But today I’m devastated. My contract was one of more than 800 that were canceled last night. The cancellations were not based on any evaluation. DOGE appears to have simply identified all professional services contracts and canceled them.
The cancellations will not only have a terrible impact on VHA healthcare, it will destroy hundreds of SDVOSBs because a great deal of VA contracts go to SDVOSBs. I don’t know how Republicans in Congress can let this destruction continue when so many of them profess to care deeply about veterans.
This afternoon, VA appears to have reversed course, now saying their going to review and potentially reverse at least some of the cancellations. “Under pressure, VA halts contract cancellations in major reversal” reads the WaPo headline. It goes on: “Records show the 875 contracts at issue included support for medical and burial services, cancer programs, and efforts to recruit doctors for critical vacancies.”
“I don’t have a lot of hope that they’ll reverse many,” the TPM Reader followed up.
The last Trump administration might not have introduced the concept of disinformation, but 2.0 has taken propaganda to a new dangerous level. Are we better equipped to combat it this time around?
But I have some ideas that might help. Here is what I have learned from my work as a debunker and a cross-border reporter with a background in breaking news, where you have to learn to protect yourself and your information:
Limit the time you spend consuming news. The news cycle is being deliberately weaponized to make you feel hopeless in ways that many journalists are unable or unwilling to understand and mitigate at the moment.
Limit your time on social media unless you can have trusted private networks. And even then don’t talk about anything unlawful. Save those conversations for face-to-face meetings.
Embrace physical media. Write things down. Send letters to each other. No, really.
It’s possible to step up and help when others won’t. We can learn from previous disasters and do better, if we work together.
Find and form trusted mutual aid networks.
Support your local libraries.
Do not waste your time appealing to authority that has demonstrated they are unwilling to fight for you. Fact-checking is always important, but it is only effective on its own in a healthy democracy. We are not in a healthy democracy.
Learn your regional history, particularly unresolved crimes against humanity such as slavery and genocide. Learn about vulnerable groups and how they are treated. Often, those painful histories are leveraged in the service of disinformation campaigns. Listen to marginalized people.
Follow people online who you have already observed having integrity. Give people the benefit of the doubt if you hear rumors. Do not give them the benefit of the doubt if you observe them engaging in bad behavior.
Toss toxic people out of your trusted networks.
Keep a journal. Write a few words in it every day, if you can; it doesn’t need to be a long letter to yourself. Writing down your thoughts will help you remember what you want to remember, and it will also provide you with a bulwark against weapons-grade gaslighting.
Take breaks and find joy somehow. This is going to really suck. Find or make a haven for yourself if you possibly can.
Take care of your health. Don’t forget to rest, eat, and hydrate. Find a place you can retreat and shut out the rest of the world if you have to.
Spend time with your loved ones.
Stand up for each other, even when it’s hard. (And it will be hard.)
We can get through this. But in order to do so, we all have to work together to debunk poisonous lies and preserve our memories and our thoughts, because that’s how we build resilience, real resilience, the type that gives us what we need in order to bounce back from the heartbreak and tragedies of the last few years and whatever is to come. We can do that if we work together, and the time to do so is now.
Fox host and loyal Trump ally Sean Hannity told a listener who was pleading for the jobs of military vets in the federal government that “there will be other opportunities.” The caller elaborated on their experience: “One of our tenants just recently got laid off from the USDA, and he’s a stable vet, multiple deployments overseas. And yeah, the guy is without a job now, and I’m just afraid that, you know, stuff like this is going to get out there.” The caller noted Hannity’s “soft spot for military and police and EMS and all those guys” and said that it’s “just a little concerning that we don’t let these guys, you know, fall off the wagon here and get neglected, because they’ve done so much for our country.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 2/21/25]
Another caller to Hannity’s show asked him to stand up for “rank and file” agents: “This appears to be a misstep in the wrong direction.” Hannity responded by saying, “There are going to have to be hard questions for rank and file members in terms of their priority and whether or not they challenged some of the higher-ups.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 2/5/25]
A listener called into The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show to say that they are “not happy with his [Trump’s] recent comments on Ukraine.” Travis appeared to cut the caller off, asking of Russia’s war with Ukraine, “How do you think this should end?” [OutKick, The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show, 2/21/25]
A caller into Hannity’s show who described themselves as a “strong supporter of this administration” pleaded for advice with the firings: “How do you make life decisions?” Hannity responded by saying, “The main focus is going to be on limiting the bureaucracy. How many of these jobs are redundant? … Just make yourself as essential as possible.” The caller elaborated: “Mr. Musk talks about cutting, you know, $2 trillion. Well, that’s beyond what the entire discretionary budget every year is, you know, roughly 1.7, 1.8 for discretionary. You would have to eliminate everything, the entire federal government to hit that.” [Premiere Radio Networks’ The Sean Hannity Show, 2/6/25]
A caller to The Alex Jones Show accused Trump of “lying” about birthright citizenship: “If they want to pass this, we’re going to get rid of 150 million U.S. citizens.” Jones responded by asking the caller if they like the “Chinese flying here one week before they have their baby, getting all their health care paid for?” The caller expressed that their “concern is I was born in this country.” [Infowars, The Alex Jones Show, 2/20/25]
A Canadian listener called into Hannity’s radio show to discuss boycotts there against the U.S.: “You’ve disrespected us to this point, and we have to respond.” The caller told Hannity that Canadians are “buying Canadian” and are not going to Florida for vacation, concluding that the “boycott’s already begun.” Hannity retorted: “Who would be hurt worse by” a “boycott war” between the U.S. and Canada? [Premier Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/25/25]
A caller told Hannity, “I cannot agree with you on the Gaza situation.” They continued, “As far as making those people leave their land and not being able to return, that’s just totally wrong.” Hannity defended Trump’s plan as “rebuilding Gaza, creating jobs, [and] building innovation,” to which the caller responded “that’s not innovative. That’s racist,” because “the president said those people cannot return” and “most of these people don’t have anything to do with Hamas.” When Hannity claimed that “the people in Gaza voted in Hamas’ leadership,” the caller told him that “what you’re saying is that everybody there is a terrorist, and that’s racist.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/13/25]
A listener called into Hannity’s show to discuss their child’s cancer diagnosis and advocate for cancer research funding: “With the lack of funding, basically, all you get is parents like me who have had a kid with this, starting organizations and coming up with money to carry on the research for them. So that’s why I wanted to call and … advocate for research.” Hannity responded by arguing that “most of the solutions for cancer are going to be found in the private sector, not with public money.” The caller noted that “with such a small number of kids getting this [cancer diagnosis], yeah, it’s definitely something that doesn’t get looked at as much.” Hannity responded that “even if the government spent … $300 million on this particular cancer tomorrow, it’s not going to be your answer.” [Premiere Radio Networks, The Sean Hannity Show, 2/12/25]
Chris Stigall, host of The Chris Stigall Podcast, noted that he’s received “quite a bit of outreach from you federal workers.” He read one email from a listener who remarked that “it’s difficult to get beyond your disrespect and disregard for federal employees.” Stigall noted that the email is “not the only one of these that I got on both X and in email.” Stigall responded to the reader’s email: “I’m going to talk to you like an adult here for a minute. Grow up. Grow up. If you work for the federal government, you need to grow up, respectfully.” [The Chris Stigall Podcast, 2/24/25]
A caller to Fox host Brian Kilmeade’s radio show accused Trump of trying to “bribe” people with DOGE dividends. The caller noted, “The last tax break that Trump gave was $1.9 trillion and 65% with the people making over a $130,000 a year. … If you’re going to get after the excess spending, you have to go after a military waste and the rich — make the rich pay. Instead, he’s trying out for a $5,000 bribe to people.” [Fox News Radio, Brian Kilmeade Show, 2/21/25]
A caller to Fox host Mark Levin’s radio show makes impassioned plea concerning the legal status of his fiancé: “We’ve been planning on getting married now for a few months. And it seems like I’ve read on the news now that, if you were paroled into the United States, you can’t file any forms, for immigration.” The caller also expressed concern with people turning against Ukraine, where his fiancé and her family are from. [Westwood One, The Mark Levin Show, 2/19/25]
It’s interesting because these shows have screeners so I assume they wanted their audiences to hear these complaints so that the hosts could knock them down. I don’t think they actually did. Those retorts are lame and I would guess that a lot of listeners get that.
The best way to make people understand what’s going on is to relay real stories of real people being affected by this chaotic purge. I’m surprised they are even letting them on the air. They have to realize that even allowing them to voice their pain is a mistake but it’s entirely possible they are so filled with bravado and hubris that they think their lame rationales will be convincing. And in fairness, they probably are to quite a few of their listeners. But I doubt it’s convincing to everyone.
House Republicans are becoming weary and wary of in-person town hall meetings after a number of lawmakers have faced hometown crowds angry about the Trump administration’s push to slash government programs and staffing.
Party leaders suggest that if lawmakers feel the need to hold such events, they do tele-town halls or at least vet attendees to avoid scenes that become viral clips, according to GOP sources.
A GOP aide said House Republican leaders are urging lawmakers to stop engaging in them altogether.
The town halls, and the rash of negative headlines, have been the first bit of public blowback for members who face voters next year. And the new reluctance to hold them indicates there are bubbling concerns about the impact the cuts could have on the GOP’s chances of holding its thin majority in the House next year.
The viral nature of video clips spreading from one district to another means a bad confrontation in safe Republican territory could influence voters in battlegrounds.
Good luck with that. Pissed off people are not going to be silenced. They should know that having been the beneficiaries of the Tea Party back in 2010.
By the way, in that mid-term, the Democrats lost 53 House seats and six Senate seats. That was after Obama had won by a huge margin compared to Trump last November. I don’t know that such a landslide can be possible in these days but you never know. I certainly wouldn’t bet on them holding their majority in any case. (snip)
February 27, 1939 Flint sit-down strikers, 1937 The Supreme Court outlawed sit-down strikes in its decision NLRB v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp. Such strikes had become a very effective strategy employed by workers to organize unions. The 1937 Flint sit-down strike of autoworkers against General Motors forced GM to recognize the United Auto Workers as the representative of its hourly employees, and negotiate wages and working conditions. The text of the Supreme Court’s decision:
February 27, 1973 Hundreds of Oglala Lakota Sioux and members of the American Indian Movement (AIM) occupied the village of Wounded Knee, South Dakota. Angered over a long history of violated treaties, mistreatment, family dismemberment, cultural destruction, discrimination, and impoverishment through confiscation of resources, they particularly demanded the U.S. live up to the terms of the 1868 Fort Laramie Treaty. That treaty recognized the Sioux as an independent nation in the western half of South Dakota. Additionally, there had been a recent campaign of harassment and violence by tribal and FBI officials. Wounded Knee was chosen because of the 1890 massacre there of several hundred men, women and children by U.S. troops. The occupation lasted until May.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Tuesday threw out the conviction and death penalty for Richard Glossip, an Oklahoma man who has maintained his innocence for more than a quarter century, and who came so close to execution that he three times ate what was supposed to be his “last meal.”
But on Tuesday, three of the court’s conservatives joined the court’s three liberals in concluding that prosecutors had denied Glossip a fair trial, not once, but twice.
The six-justice court majority said that prosecutors had violated Glossip’s rights by concealing evidence helpful to the defense — including information about the drug use and mental status of the prosecution’s star witness, and by persuading that witness to change his testimony when it conflicted with his prior testimony.
Glossip’s lawyer, Don Knight, said his client is “beyond thrilled,” noting that “He actually has a future that’s not going to be on death row.”
Prosecutors never contended that Glossip himself bludgeoned motel owner Barry Van Trease to death with a baseball bat. Rather, they ultimately settled on the theory that Glossip, who managed the motel, commissioned handyman Justin Sneed to murder Van Trease. The alleged motive being, alternately, to steal a wad of cash from the owner, or to conceal embezzlement of funds.
There was no physical evidence to tie Glossip to the crime, so prosecutors initially offered to take the death penalty off the table if he testified against handyman Sneed. But when Glossip continued to maintain his innocence, the prosecution offered the deal instead to Sneed, who was sentenced to life in prison, while Glossip was convicted and sentenced to die.
The case, in many ways, is as remarkable as a True Crime mini-series. Most extraordinary is that Glossip’s Supreme Court appeal was supported by Oklahoma’s Attorney General Gentner Drummond, a conservative Republican and supporter of the death penalty. After two separate independent investigations found that both Glossip trials had been tainted by prosecutorial misconduct, Drummond took the very rare step of formally asking for a new trial.
The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals, however, refused to accept the attorney general’s so-called “confession of error,” and the state court maintained that its decision was not reviewable in federal court.
On Tuesday the Supreme Court vociferously disagreed. Writing for the Court majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that the prosecutors had violated their constitutional obligation to correct false testimony elicited from Sneed, the only witness to tie Glossip directly to the crime. The obligation to correct such false testimony, the court observed, is a clear violation of the court’s precedents dating back more than 65 years.
Joining Sotomayor in the majority were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Elena Kagan, Brett Kavanaugh, Ketanji Brown Jackson, and, for the most part, Amy Coney Barrett.
Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented and accused the majority of bending “the law at every turn to grant relief to Glossip.” Justice Thomas said that the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear the case, and that Sneed’s false testimony did not significantly alter the outcome for Glossip anyway.
Justice Neil Gorsuch was recused from the case, presumably because it came before the appeals court he served on prior to his appointment to the Supreme Court.
Much of the credit for Tuesday’s win goes to to Attorney General Drummond, said defense attorney Knight. “Only he had the courage to say, ‘we’re not going to continue to try to kill this man.’ That’s a tremendous amount of political courage for a man who is now running for governor as well. He saw something that was wrong and he tried to make it right, and he did.” (Emphasis mine-A.)
February 25, 1941 A general strike was called in Amsterdam to protest Nazi persecution of Jews under the German Nazi occupation. The previous weekend 425 Jewish men and boys had been imprisoned (only two survived the war). Truck drivers, dock and metal workers, civil servants and factory employees — Christians, Liberals, Social Democrats and Communists — answered the call and brought the city to a standstill. The work stoppages spread to Zaanstreek, Kennemerland and Utrecht. Two days later the strike was called off: nine people were dead, 50 injured and another 200 arrested, some of whom were to die in the concentration camps. “The Dokwerker” is a statue by sculptor Mari Andriessen in Amsterdam’s Jonas Daniel Meyer Square commemorating the February 1941 strike. It is frequently the rallying point for demonstrations against racism. Read more (pdf)
February 25, 1968 Discussing the war capacity of North Vietnam, a country that had been fighting for its independence for 23 years and had just staged the massive, successful Tet Offensive, U.S. General William C. Westmoreland stated, “I do not believe Hanoi can hold up under a long war.” He was replaced as commander in Vietnam less than four months later. Vietnam commander General William Westmoreland meeting with President Lyndon Johnson Westmoreland’s life and career (It’s NYT’s obit.)
February 25, 1971 Legislation was introduced in both houses of Congress to forbid U.S. military support of any South Vietnamese invasion of North Vietnam without prior congressional approval. This bill was a result of the controversy that arose following the invasion of Laos by South Vietnamese forces. On February 8, the Army of the Republic of Vietnam had launched a major cross-border operation into Laos to interdict activity along the Ho Chi Minh Trail and destroy the North Vietnamese supply dumps in the area. The Ho Chi Minh Trail, named for the leader of North Vietnam, was an informal network of jungle trails down which supplies came from the north, supplying insurgents and troops in the south.
February 25, 1986 The newly elected Philippine president, Corazón Aquino, was sworn in, bringing to an end years of dictatorship under Ferdinand Marcos. In the face of massive demonstrations against his rule, President Ferdinand Marcos and his entourage had been airlifted from the presidential palace in Manila by U.S. helicopters.
February 25, 2011 A Day of Rage saw demonstrations across the Middle East. Protesters in Iraq, Yemen, Egypt, Tunisia, Jordan, and Bahrain showed their support variously for an end to corruption and income inequality, political reform and better public services, and the replacement of long-running dictatorships with democratic regimes. Day of Rage in Taiz, Yemen Reports from throughout the region
By KRYSTA FAURIA Updated 7:34 PM CST, February 23, 2025
SANTA MONICA, Calif. (AP) — Hunter Schafer says “it’s important to just keep track of where things are in our country,” a day after the “Euphoria” star posted a video in which she revealed her new passport had been issued with a male gender marker.
Speaking to The Associated Press on the red carpet at the Independent Spirit Awards on Saturday, the 26-year-old actor, who is trans, said she felt “it was a good, necessary point” to share. Schafer, also a presenter at the award show, was nominated for best lead performance for “Cuckoo. ”
President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office instituting a new and narrow federal government definition of the sexes. As part of the order, the federal government defines sex as only male or female and says that must be reflected on official documents, like passports. The State Department, responsible for passports, is no longer issuing passports with the “X” marker that’s been available since 2021 and is not honoring requests to change gender markers between “M” and “F.”
In an 8 ½-minute video posted to TikTok on Friday, Schafer, who transitioned as a young teen, said the passport that was meant to carry her well into her 30s was stolen while she was filming in Spain. After receiving an emergency passport, she later had to apply for a new, permanent one in Los Angeles. Having had female gender markers on her license and passport since she was a teenager, Schafer marked “female” on her application — but received a passport that identified her as male, she said. In the video, she said she had not had her birth certificate amended.
Schafer acknowledged the executive order in her TikTok video: “Because our president, you know, is a lot of talk, I was like, ‘I’ll believe it when I see it.’ And, today, I saw it,” Schafer said, holding up her new passport page with the “M” marker. She said she was making the video not to “fearmonger or like create drama or receive consolation,” but to note the reality of the situation.
“I wasn’t even really looking for support, but I have an amazing community around me and it’s one of the greatest blessings of my life and so I felt very supported throughout, before and then now,” she told the AP on Saturday.
The State Department said in response to a request for comment that it was implementing Trump’s executive order but declined to comment on specific cases, citing privacy laws and restrictions.
“It doesn’t really change anything about me or my transness. However, it does make my life a little harder,” Schafer said in the video, saying she has to travel for the first time with the new passport next week.
“Trans people are beautiful. We are never going to stop existing. I’m never going to stop being trans. A letter and a passport can’t change that,” she concluded.
Associated Press journalist Andrew Dalton contributed reporting.
Scottie's Playtime 