Another ICE murder in Minneapolis

ICE murdered an ICU nurse in cold blood.

I would love to see ICE completely defunded and disbanded. Do we need immigration and customs enforcement? Sure. But this program isn’t doing that. It’s simply being used by the Trump Administration as a provocation to justify martial law.

At the end of January 2026, the only lever of power Democrats have against the lawless Trump administration is the budget. But even if it were possible to line item veto the ICE budget, it would make no difference.

“Top Democratic appropriators who will support the package argue that a shutdown triggered by opposition to ICE would not actually stop ICE operations, but would instead hurt other agencies and programs funded under the DHS bill, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the Disaster Relief Fund, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) and more.

 

“ICE received $75 billion in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. In the event of a lapse in funding, ICE would be able to sustain regular operations for multiple years, while the other agencies under this bill would likely be forced to furlough workers and reduce operations,” a press release from House Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) reads.”

But maybe forcing the budget back to the table to include additional constraints of ICE *would* justify a shut-down. The alternative is an inexorable slippery slope to Stephen Miller’s wet dream—martial law.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/the-weekender/thirty-one-false-starts

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yes, the CDC can change its mind

The Nobel Laureate economist Paul Samuelson famously acknowledged in a Meet the Press interview: “Well when events change, I change my mind. What do you do?” This observation applies to the advice from medical authorities such as the CDC and WHO during the COVID pandemic. Some members of the public are fond of pillorying these agencies for having published different guidelines at different times, as though health officials are in the business of issuing ex cathedra dogma rather than responding to incomplete and ambiguous information. Science doesn’t deal in proof, it deals with the weight of evidence. A scientific hypothesis is one that is capable of being tested and falsified by experiment. I get it. I used to teach problem-based learning to first year medical students, and they often struggled with what to do with incomplete and ambiguous information, which is what physicians in clinics do every day. Sometimes, one cannot wait for all the tests to be completed and all the data analyz...
Read more

About that Trump lawsuit

So Trump is suing Rupert Murdoch for defamation because of the release of a salacious doodle. Nothing remarkable about Donald J. Trump weaponizing the legal system against his opponents, I know. But there are some things that do bear remark here: “ . . . he's suing Rupert Murdoch personally. But you know who he's not suing? Lachlan Murdoch, who's actually the chairperson of News Corp and Fox, who's actually the decision-maker. Rupert Murdoch has no official role there anymore. He's an adviser.   “So, I thought that was revealing in a lot of ways, because it isn't just about going after the entity. It's sort of this expansion spillover, trying to send as much of a message as you possibly can. He's sort of hitting every potential lever, not just against Murdoch and that empire, but then all the other media properties in the future. It's also about sending an example.” “HAYES: Yeah. That, to me, is the point here, is that these lawsuits are not lawsuits...
Read more

I agree with RFK Jr.

Though it feels weird to say it, RFK Jr and I agree on something: curtailing direct-to-consumer marketing of pharmaceuticals. “ The Trump administration is discussing policies that would make it harder and more expensive for pharmaceutical companies to advertise directly to patients, in a move that could disrupt more than $10 billion in annual ad spending.   Although the US is the only place, besides New Zealand, where pharma companies can directly advertise, banning pharma ads outright could make the administration vulnerable to lawsuits, so it’s instead focusing on cutting down on the practice by adding legal and financial hurdles, according to people familiar with the plans who weren’t authorized to speak publicly on the matter.   “The two policies the administration has focused in on would be to require greater disclosures of side effects of a drug within each ad — likely making broadcast ads much longer and prohibitively expensive — or removing the industry’s ability to d...
Read more