<....Arrayed against him were a couple of women who are clearly bucking for careers as professional conservative victims. His principal antagonist was a woman fencer named Stephanie Turner, who “took a knee” rather than fencing against a trans woman in a local tournament. Because she refused to compete in a bout, she was disqualified from the tournament, which she should have been. You walk off the strip rather than fence, no matter what the reason short of injury, you are disqualified from that competition. Full stop. It was that way when I started fencing in the 1970s, and it was that way when my son started fencing in the 1980s. Everybody who’s ever hooked up to fence knows that. Ms. Turner certainly must have known that, and it didn’t stop her having fenced without complaint in a mixed-gender event not long before the tournament in question. She told the committee of the dark night of her soul that this horror occasioned.

“Each time a man competes in the women’s category with USA Fencing’s support, it removes fair sport and takes opportunities from women,” Turner told lawmakers. She said biological males have an advantage with speed and power in the combat sport. “That knee I took in protest was a cry for help and an act of desperation,” Turner said, telling lawmakers that it took her a long time to work up the courage to speak out about the perceived wrongs being committed against female fencers. Turner said she felt “betrayed” and “unwelcome” by USA Fencing.

Oh, give it a rest, lady. As we already have pointed out, Turner had fenced in a mixed-gender competition shortly before she made her brave career move. In addition, the opponent whom she had declined to fence was so terrifying and had such an unfair advantage that she lost her very next bout. On the bright side, somewhere in the vast cubicle farms of the wing-nut welfare universe, there probably is a desk waiting for her even now.

As a role model, Turner can look to her fellow witness, Payton McNabb, a former volleyball player who was injured when a ball spiked by a trans athlete hit her in the head. She now works as a “sports ambassador” for the Independent Women’s Forum, one of the older wing-nut welfare franchises, one that sprang up out of the defense of Clarence Thomas against charges of sexual harassment. In fact, one of the more nauseating aspects of Wednesday’s spectacle was watching the conservatives on the panel pose as defenders of Title IX, the landmark law that established equality for women’s sports. Conservatives hated Title IX. In fact, back in the day, the IWF, for which McNabb now works, joined several lawsuits brought by men’s sports organizations seeking to overturn the law.

So Damien had to sit through this barrage of vicious bafflegab only to find himself virtually ignored by the subcommittee’s Democrats, who spent most of their time bashing the president and his administration. The obvious absurdity of the “issue” at hand was allowed to stand. So when, one day, Secretary of Interior Payton McNabb shows up to testify, don’t blame me.>

<U.S. Senator Katie Britt (R-AL) first introduced the More Opportunities for Moms to Succeed (MOMS) Act in May 2024 during the Biden administration. The bill proposes creating a federally funded website (pregnancy.gov) that will provide grants to nonprofit organizations that “support, encourage, and assist women— (A) to carry their pregnancies to term; and (B) to care for themselves and their babies after birth.”

With President Donald Trump back in the White House and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services, the conservative mother of two is pushing harder to get the bill on the Senate floor for a vote.

As seen in the video below, Britt says: “I know firsthand there is no greater blessing in life than our children. I also understand the challenges women may face during their pregnancy journeys. Proud to lead the MOMS Act — commonsense legislation to help support moms, grow families, and help children thrive.”

Any nonprofit organization that “performs, induces, refers for, counsels in favor of abortions, or provides financial support to any other organization that conducts such activities” is not eligible to receive grants.

As seen below, one of the nonprofit organizations that meets the criteria for such grants, Susan B Anthony Pro-Life America, supports the MOMS Act.

(SBA Pro-Life America reported that in the 2024 election cycle, the organization “spent $92 million and reached more than 10 million voters in eight battleground states – including 4.3 million visits to targeted voter homes. Overall, more than 375 federal and state candidates have been elected with the group’s support.”)

Note: Prior to becoming HHS Secretary, and before he ended his presidential campaign in 2024, Kennedy said on his campaign website that if elected president he would support legislation to reinstate Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court case that gave women the federal right to an abortion. At his Senate confirmation hearing in January, Kennedy said: “I agree with President Trump that every abortion is a tragedy.” He added: “I agree with him that the states should control abortion.”>

<Ras Baraka, the Democratic Mayor of Newark, New Jersey, was arrested and taken into custody by federal police officers on Friday. The mayor was attempting to join three U.S. congress members — Reps. Robert Menendez, LaMonica McIver, and Bonnie Watson Coleman — on a tour of a New Jersey ICE detention facility.

Baraka was arrested for trespassing.

Coleman posted on X about the visit: “We’re at Delaney Hall, an ICE prison in Newark that opened without permission from the city & in violation of local ordinances.” The congresswoman said the delegation was “exercising our oversight authority to see for ourselves.”

Interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba, a Donald Trump appointee who previously served as Trump’s personal attorney, asserted that Baraka “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the ICE detention center.”

Habba wrote on X that Baraka had “willingly chosen to disregard the law.”

But Baraka, who was released from custody shortly after nightfall, disputed Habba’s version of events in the aftermath.

Baraka told CNN’s Kaitlin [sic] Collins: “The reality is, Alina Habba wasn’t there. She doesn’t know what happened. I was there for over an hour in that space, and nobody ever told me to move. I was in there for over an hour. Not a single person.. I did not enter that place unlawfully. I did not break any law.”

[NOTE: Baraka had made previous trips to protest the facility, which he — like Coleman — contends is operating without required permissions.]

Rep. Menendez Jr. also spoke after the event, saying that ICE brought “20 armed individuals to confront the mayor of Newark and three members of Congress,” calling it an act of intimidation.

“It was an act of intimidation not just to the mayor, not just to us, but to everyone watching,” Menendez said. “We know that the president lied, and the administration lies every day when they say they are going after criminals. It is not true. They feel no weight of the law. They feel no restraint.”

ICE, Menendez said, “put their hands on two members of Congress. How is this acceptable?”>

<The Department of Agriculture is reportedly asking states to supply personal details of people receiving food aid, including Social Security numbers, addresses and, in at least one state, citizenship status.

NPR reported Friday that the information collected has been used to disseminate false accusations regarding undocumented immigrants receiving public assistance and engaging in fraud, as well as to bolster enforcement and deportation initiatives.

The report states that NPR acquired emails indicating that the nationwide guidance for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) was issued in response to a request from federal auditors for information that included citizenship details. The request did not encompass other data usually used to confirm financial eligibility for the program.

In a letter dated May 6 addressed to all states, an advisor for Food, Nutrition and Consumer Services stated that the federal agency would be collecting personally identifiable information from SNAP applicants and recipients, including, but not limited to, "names, dates of birth, personal addresses used, and Social Security numbers" dating back to January 1, 2020.

The letter referenced President Donald Trump's March 20 executive order, "Stopping Waste, Fraud, and Abuse by Eliminating Information Silos," which mandates that agencies ensure the federal government "has unfettered access to comprehensive data from all state programs that receive federal funding," including data from "third-party databases," to help identify fraud.

DOGE has faced backlash for retrieving sensitive information across various federal agencies in recent months by citing allegations of wasteful and fraudulent spending.

Jon Davisson, senior counsel and director of litigation at the nonprofit Electronic Privacy Information Center, told NPR the demands are "absolutely alarming."

"It is an unprecedented extension of the administration's campaign to consolidate personal data," he said, adding that the database could be used as a "surveillance weapon" that "can be put to all sorts of adverse uses in the future."

The NPR report notes that in 2024, the Department of Agriculture reported that SNAP assisted an average of 42 million individuals each month, costing approximately $100 billion.

Eligibility for SNAP benefits is limited to certain categories of lawfully present noncitizens, while those lacking legal status are ineligible. But a noncitizen parent without legal status can still apply for assistance to support their U.S. citizen children.

AlterNet reached out to a DOGE spokesperson for comment.>

<An international student in western South Dakota overcame Kristi Noem’s attempt to stop her from graduating Saturday, while hundreds of people protested on the other side of the state where Noem received an honorary degree and delivered a commencement speech.

The international student is Priya Saxena, from India. She received two degrees from South Dakota Mines in Rapid City: a doctorate in chemical and biological engineering and a master’s degree in chemical engineering.

Noem’s U.S. Department of Homeland Security — which she has led since resigning as South Dakota governor in January — has been trying to deport Saxena since last month, asserting that Saxena’s permission to stay in the country should be revoked because she was convicted four years ago of failing to move over for flashing yellow lights, a misdemeanor. The action is part of a broader immigration crackdown by the Trump administration.

Saxena’s student visa is not scheduled to expire until 2027, and if allowed to stay in the country, she could apply for an extension to work in fields related to her degrees.

Saxena and her attorney, Jim Leach, of Rapid City, sued and won a temporary restraining order that assured Saxena’s graduation and will halt the government’s action against her until at least next week, when she has a hearing on her request for a court order to stop her deportation while the lawsuit proceeds. Saxena and her attorney have said in court filings that she has not committed a deportable offense, and have called the government’s actions “lawless.”

Saxena’s graduation went smoothly Saturday as she crossed the stage and received applause from the audience at Summit Arena in Rapid City. Her attorney and a university spokeswoman said Saxena preferred not to make any public comments.

About 350 miles to the east at Dakota State University in Madison, Noem’s speech and her acceptance of an honorary doctorate in public service went off without a hitch inside the university fieldhouse, where she did not reference the protesters or make any comments about her official duties.

Outside, she was loudly opposed.

Students and community members lined the sidewalks chanting phrases including “no honor for Noem” and “due process.” Protesters said they were spotlighting Noem’s “cruel” immigration policies and the university’s decision to invite her to graduation.

“One thing that immediately came to my brain when I heard she was coming here was I was genuinely scared for the massive amounts of international students that we have on campus,” said student Maya Plummer. “That’s something we take pride in.”

The ceremony in Madison included foreign students from countries such as Vietnam and India.

Noem’s department has pursued enforcement actions against more than 1,000 international students. It has also removed temporary protected status for immigrants who fled danger in their home country, wrongly deported a Maryland man to a notorious prison in El Salvador, aired TV ads warning migrants to self-deport or avoid coming to the United States, and launched an initiative to provide up to $1,000 in “travel assistance” to immigrants without legal authorization who self-deport, among other actions.

This week, U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut, accused Noem of running a department that’s “out of control,” saying it’s at risk of spending all of its $65 billion in funding before the end of the fiscal year.

The Dakota State University student senate and general faculty both voted against the honorary degree for Noem, citing concerns over Noem’s policies and the message her recognition would send to international students and marginalized communities.

University spokespeople said they extended the invitation for Noem to speak and receive the honorary degree while she was still governor of South Dakota. The invite was based on her longstanding support of the university’s nationally recognized cybersecurity programs.

Dakota State President José-Marie Griffiths said in her speech that Noem is among “a number of individuals who were instrumental in changing the trajectory of this institution” in recent decades. She said the university was transformed from one that was losing enrollment to one that’s thriving as a flagship institution for computer technology.

“And by the way, there were protests for that decision, too,” Griffiths said....>

<....Noem gave students a five-point bullet list of advice during her approximately 10-minute speech.

She told students their education is important, “But I will tell you that the world still revolves on relationships. People will be successful based on the people that they know and the people that they spend time with.”

Her other advice for students included, “You believed in Santa Claus for many years, at least believe in yourself for five minutes.”

Among attendees, there were conflicting views about the protest. Some family members of graduates expressed frustration that the controversy overshadowed the event.

“Honestly, it’s shocking because I feel like we should be here just celebrating the graduates,” said Anico David of Sioux Falls, whose sister graduated. “People are making it bigger than it should be with all this protesting. In my opinion, it’s kind of out of pocket and unnecessary.”

Max Lerchen, who earned a master’s degree, said honoring Noem “does not reflect the values that are held by the university,” such as inclusion. He said university officials should have expected opposition, and protesters should not be blamed for pushing back.

“They knew it was going to be an unpopular decision to begin with,” he said. “I think that’s similar to being picked on by a bully, and you decide to fight back, and then people go, ‘Why did you fight back?’”

Andrew Sogn, a spokesman for Dakota State University, said the institution hoped for “a celebratory atmosphere, and recognition of the graduates and their hard work.”

When asked about the students and faculty who opposed Noem’s honorary degree and speech, he said it was welcome, “because I think that we encourage open conversation and freedom of expression.”>

Time for that condescending <biyatch> to go to a gravel pit.

<Two Democratic antitrust commissioners fighting in court for their jobs this week blasted Trump’s attempt to fire them. In a court filing, they said the move would destabilize the economy and “brush aside a century of precedent.”

The Federal Trade Commission is one of two federal agencies tasked with enforcing antitrust law. In the past several years it has sued huge health care conglomerates, as well as big tech companies like Amazon, Apple, Google and Meta.

It also blocked the merger of grocery giants Kroger and Albertsons. So the FTC might not be terribly popular in some corporate boardrooms these days. Anticompetitive practices by giant players are thought to have resulted in lower wages and higher prices for consumers.

The other federal antitrust watchdog, the Antitrust Division of the Justice Department, has roots going back to 1903. But that department is overseen by the Attorney General, a presidential appointee.

In 1914, Congress passed the Federal Trade Commission Act creating an antitrust watchdog that is more insulated from politics. It provided for a minimum number of appointees from each party, provided them with seven-year terms and allowed reappointment. Crucially, presidents can only remove them for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.”

Despite that, news broke in March that Trump was trying to fire commissioners Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Slaughter, both Democratic appointees. Trump was doing so without alleging any of the deficiencies required by the law to allow for their dismissal.

In a social media post, Bedoya said Trump was trying to do a favor for his ultra-rich supporters.

“Now, the president wants the FTC to be a lapdog for his golfing buddies,” Bedoya wrote.

Trump has also tried to remove commissioners from independent agencies such as the Federal Election Commission, the National Labor Relations Board, the Merit Systems Protections Board and the National Transportation Safety Board. Critics, including Slaughter and Bedoya, said that undermining such independent agencies would undermine faith in and the stability of the national economy.

In a court brief justifying the FTC firings, Trump’s lawyers wrote that following the provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act would improperly limit the president’s authority.

“An order requiring the president to reinstate officials he has chosen to remove from office would be an extraordinary intrusion on the president’s exclusive authority to exercise control over the executive branch,” the filing said, according to Newsweek.

Lawyers for the Democratic FTC commissioners said that’s a gross misreading of the law and history.

Trump is asking the court “to brush aside a century of precedent in favor of an untenable reading of (the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Seila Law v Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) that ignores broad swaths of that opinion, misconstrues the FTC’s authority, side-steps much of U.S. history, and would overturn several Supreme Court decisions and invalidate two-dozen statutes adopted and adhered to by nearly every President and Congress over the last 150 years,” Bedoya and Slaughter’s lawyers said in a court filing.

Late last month, a Trump ally, Rep. Jim Jordan of Ohio, made another move that critics said was intended to protect the president’s wealthy supporters — particularly Elon Musk, the world’s richest man — from antitrust enforcement. From his perch as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Jordan tried to insert in a spending bill a measure that would move the FTC’s personnel and funding to the Justice Department....>

<....However, it wouldn’t have moved the FTC’s unique enforcement powers along with them. Jordan later withdrew the measure.

The Democratic FTC commissioners are fighting in court to stop Trump’s attempt to fire them, calling it “blatantly illegal.” They and lawyers for the president are asking the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia to decide the case on an expedited basis.

In a written statement, a lawyer for a firm representing the Democratic commissioners, Clarick, Gueron, Reisbaum, said Trump is ignoring past decisions of the judiciary.

“… it’s undisputed that his attempted firings violate the plain language of the FTC Act, and the President’s claim to inherent executive authority to fire FTC Commissioners defies 90 years of Supreme Court precedent,” the lawyer, Aaron Crowell, said.

A lawyer for another group representing Slaughter and Bedoya, Protect Democracy, said Trump is trying to ignore not only the courts, but Congress as well. And in so doing, the president threatens to destabilize the U.S. economy, said the lawyer, Amit Agarwal.

“Congress had good reasons for protecting regulators from at-will removal, not the least of which is that agencies like the Federal Trade Commission and the Federal Reserve need to have the ability to make critical decisions with integrity and to apply the law without fear or favor,” Agarwal said. “When the Supreme Court settled this dispute nine decades ago, it decided in favor of Congress’s right to protect the public interest. We hope the courts do so again.”>

<Trump is overplaying his hand.

Not just by usurping the powers of Congress and ignoring Supreme Court rulings. Not just abducting people who are legally in the United States but have put their name to opinion pieces Trump doesn’t like and trucking them off to “detention” facilities. Not just using the Justice Department for personal vengeance. Not just unilaterally deciding how much tariff tax American consumers will have to pay on almost everything they buy.

Polls show all these are tanking Trump’s popularity.

But one thing almost all Americans are firmly against — even many loyal Trumpers — (is) bribery. And Trump is taking bigger and bigger bribes.

Yesterday it was reported that he’s accepting a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane worth at least $400 million from the Qatari royal family, for use during his presidency and for his personal use afterward.

Trump just can’t resist. He’s been salivating over the plane for months. It’s bigger and newer than Air Force One — and so opulently configured that it’s known as “a flying palace.” (No report on whether it contains a golden toilet.)

Apparently he’s been talking about the plane for months. In February, he toured it while it was parked at Palm Beach International Airport.

He’s tried to redecorate the White House into a palace but that’s not nearly as satisfying as flying around the world in one, especially once he’s left the White House (assuming he will).

Attorney General Pam Bondi said it’s perfectly legal for him to accept such a bribe, er, gift.

Hello?

The U.S. Constitution clearly forbids officers of the United States from taking gifts from foreign governments. It’s called the “emoluments clause.” (See Article I, Section 9.)

Anyone viewing Bondi as a neutral judge of what’s legal and what’s not when it comes to Trump can’t be trusted to be a neutral judge of Bondi. Recall that she represented Trump in a criminal proceeding. Presumably he appointed her attorney general because he knew she’d do and say anything he wanted.

Oh, and she used to lobby for Qatar.

So, what does Qatar get in return for the $400 million plane? What’s the quid for the quo?

This week Trump takes the first overseas trip of his second presidency. He’ll land in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday, followed by a visit to Qatar, and then to the United Arab Emirates (U.A.E).

That’s a big boost for Qatar right there.

Trump also just did what Qatar has been wanting done for years — announcing that the Persian Gulf (as it’s been known since at least 550 B.C.) will henceforth be known as the Arabian Gulf.

Trump’s company has just announced a new golf resort in Qatar, reportedly partnering with a company owned by the royal family.

Qatar is also pushing the Trump regime to lift sanctions on Syria.

The payback could be any number of things. The only certainty is that you and I and other Americans won’t necessarily benefit.

This week’s trip to Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the U.A.E. is as much a personal business trip for Trump and his family businesses as a diplomatic trip.

Eric Trump, who officially runs the family business, has just announced plans for a Trump-branded hotel and tower in Dubai, part of the U.A.E.

The Trump family’s developments in the Middle East depend on a Saudi-based real estate company with close ties to the Saudi government. Saudi Arabia has a long list of pressing matters before the United States, including requests to buy F-35 fighter jets and gain access to nuclear power technology.

Trump’s family crypto firm, World Liberty Financial, announced that its so-called “stablecoin” — with Trump’s likeness all over it — will be used by the U.A.E. to make a $2 billion business deal with Binance, the largest crypto exchange in the world. The deal will generate hundreds of millions of dollars more for the Trump family.

I had assumed that Trump’s undoing would be his unquenchable thirst for power. It may yet be, but I’m beginning to think his insatiable greed will do him in. America’s Grifter-in-Chief knows no bounds.>

<Some Americans who have vivid memories of Watergate — including former Watergate prosecutor Jill Wine-Banks and 1970s Washington Post reporters Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein — aren't shy about saying that when it comes to attacking democracy and the rule of law, President Donald Trump is much worse than the late President Richard Nixon. Trump, according to those Watergate-era veterans, has crossed lines that Nixon wouldn't cross.

In an article published by National Public Radio (NPR) on May 12, reporter Scott Horsley describes a parallel between Trump and Nixon: a willingness to use the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) against political adversaries.

"From utilizing tax data to trace immigrants without legal status to threatening Harvard University's tax exemption, President Trump has been trying to use the IRS for his own political purposes, in ways that may seem unprecedented," Horsley explains. "But they're not. Former President Richard Nixon laid the groundwork more than four decades ago, when he tried to use the tax collector to punish his enemies and assist his friends….. Nixon was angry at universities for not cracking down on Vietnam War protesters; Trump has similarly complained about Harvard and other Ivy League schools not doing more to silence protests against the war in Gaza, amid an administration crackdown on antisemitism on college campuses."

Trump, according to Horsley, is "drawing on Nixon's old playbook, despite laws put in place after Watergate to prevent that kind of meddling by the White House."

Joseph Thorndike, director of the Tax History Project at Tax Analysts, told NPR, "One of the things that Nixon did consider was threatening the tax-exemptions of universities. And that sounds very familiar if you're reading the paper these days…. Nixon tried very hard to misuse the IRS. Congress certainly saw that as a danger afterwards."

Thorndike continued, "If the president is developing enemies lists and sending them to the IRS and essentially saying, 'I want you to audit all these people I don't like,' that's worrisome. And so, Congress was very interested in preventing that."

Oval Office recordings from 1971, Horsley notes, "reveal how Nixon sought to install a hand-picked enforcer at the IRS to do his political bidding."

Nixon, in 1971, said, "I want to be sure he's a ruthless son of a bitch, that he will do what he's told. That every income tax return I want to see, I see. That he'll go after our enemies and not go after our friends. It's as simple as that.">

<Until recently, Rep. Mike Lawler (R-New York) was viewed as the most likely person to win New York State's 2026 GOP gubernatorial primary — and the most electable if he runs against incumbent Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul in the general election should he become the nominee.

Lawler is conservative, but he isn't far-right. And his frequent appearances on liberal-leaning MSNBC demonstrate that he is quite capable of having a polite conversation with Democrats.

Lawler's supporters view him as a Republican in the George Pataki vein. New York is a blue state, but Pataki served as governor from 1995-2006 and fared well among swing voters and centrist Blue Dog Democrats.

But New York State's 2026 gubernatorial race is becoming more complicated because of another possible candidate: Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-New York).

Stefanik was President Donald Trump's nominee for U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, but Trump withdrew the nomination — not because he is upset with her (Stefanik is a strident Trump loyalist), but because he reportedly wanted her to stay in Congress. Republicans have only a small majority in the U.S. House of Representatives, and Trump reportedly wanted to avoid the uncertainty of a special election in Stefanik's district.

GOP strategist Jay Townsend is concerned about how well Stefanik would fare against Hochul in the general election.

When Stefanik first entered Congress during the Barack Obama era, she was considered a traditional pro-business Republican along the lines of 2012 GOP presidential nominee and ex-Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney. And she was an outspoken Trump critic in 2016. But Stefanik later flip-flopped, taking a far-right MAGA turn and becoming a combative, in-your-face, highly performative Trump supporter.

Townsend told The Hill, "Elise's trouble will be after she wins the party nod, which I think she can if she wants to. But she's so far right that I'm not sure she'll sell in New York."

The Hill's reporting on Stefanik's possible gubernatorial run is drawing a lot of discussion on X, formerly Twitter.

Conservative strategist Rina Shah tweeted, "Elise Stefanik's potential run for NY Governor signals a GOP shift — trading suburban appeal for populist fire. Challenging Hochul in '26 could energize the base, but risks alienating moderates in a blue state. The Empire State's future hinges on this gamble."

Former CIA agent Matt Castelli posted, "Let's be clear: Stefanik hates this job. She's not from NY-21. She loathes the people. She invested a decade of her life with one aim: to get ahead. House leadership, VP stakes, UN Amb nominee-all dashed to end up back in the job she hates. She will be miserable and unbearable.">

<elise the attack dog> is already 'miserable and unbearable'.

<Like Jack Torrance in “The Shining,” the ghost of Jim Crow keeps rearing his ugly head in Alabama as the state continues to pursue a discriminatory scheme against its Black residents.

NPR reported last week on a three-judge panel (including two Trump appointees) at a federal district court, who ruled unanimously that Alabama purposefully diluted the influence of Black voters when it refused to draw a second majority-Black district as repeatedly ordered by federal courts.

Basically, Alabama defied court orders and a ruling from the Supreme Court that required the state to draw another majority-Black district, after Republicans in the Legislature were found to have diluted Black voters’ power through redistricting after the 2020 census. The maps Alabama voted on last year were drawn by a court-appointed special master after Republicans in the state Legislature repeatedly refused to draw fair ones. And their ongoing refusal to cooperate could lead to some sort of federal monitor down the line.

The judges wrote in the ruling:

[T]ry as we might, we cannot understand the 2023 Plan as anything other than an intentional effort to dilute Black Alabamians’ voting strength and evade the unambiguous requirements of court orders standing in the way.”

The stinging critique continued:

The Legislature knew what federal law required and purposefully refused to provide it, in a strategic attempt to checkmate the injunction that ordered it. It would be remarkable — indeed, unprecedented —for us to hold that a state legislature that purposefully ignored a federal court order acted in good faith ... And it would be unthinkable for us to hold that a state legislature that purposefully took calculated steps to make a court-required remedy impossible to provide, for the purpose of entrenching minority vote dilution, acted in good faith.”

The ruling also says that at a future date, the court will consider whether to require Alabama once again to get pre-clearance from the Department of Justice for its redistricting under the Voting Rights Act.

One might wonder whether the ascension of Harmeet Dhillon — a MAGA lawyer who has overseen the evisceration of the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division, which handles voting rights violations — could shape Alabama’s defiance on this front going forward. A significant number of the division’s employees reportedly quit rather than execute Dhillon’s perverse vision of turning civil rights enforcement into a weapon to wage Trump’s culture wars.

Redistricting is not the only front in the effort by some white Alabamians to amass more political power. Republican Gov. Kay Ivey recently approved a bill to usurp power from the water utility board in Birmingham — a majority-Black city — for herself, her lieutenant governor and the four majority-white counties that surround the city.

The Associated Press notes “proponents of the bill point to frequent rate hikes, old infrastructure and recent scandals” as a reason to strip power from the utility board. But as I’ve written, white officials have used such plans in recent years to sideline officials in largely Black communities. And Birmingham officials, including mayor Randall Woodfin, have filed a lawsuit alleging the bill “constitutes blatant racial discrimination.” (A spokesperson for the governor told the AP last week that they are reviewing the “highly unusual” suit.)

Jim Crow racism, purported by many as a thing of the past, seems to be hard at work in the Heart of Dixie.>

<Even before a foreign government eager to curry favor with the White House offered Donald Trump a superluxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet, those concerned with the president and corruption allegations focused their attention on his outlandish meme coin gambit, which has proved to be quite lucrative, which appears to have created influence opportunities that foreigners have reportedly taken advantage of, and which has been fairly described as “the most brazenly corrupt thing a president has ever done.”

It’s against this backdrop that Trump is preparing to leave for the Middle East — his first major foreign trip of his second term — and a reporter asked White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt whether the president intends to meet with the Trump Organization’s business partners in the region. She apparently didn’t care for the line of inquiry.

“I think it’s frankly ridiculous that anyone in this room would even suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit,” Leavitt argued. “He left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service, not just once but twice.”

Leavitt went on to claim, with a straight face, that Trump “has actually lost money for being president of the United States.”

In response to a question about the meme coin controversy, Trump’s chief spokesperson added that the president “is abiding by all conflict of interest laws” and “has been incredibly transparent with his own personal financial obligations.”

So, a few things.

First, Trump didn’t leave “a life of luxury.” He lives in a presidential mansion, filled with a small army of people who call him “sir” and cater to his every whim, and spends most of his weekends at a glorified country club in Florida, where he’s surrounded by sycophantic supporters who pay handsomely to hang out at a playground for the rich.

Second, Trump oversaw a real estate empire, but to call it “very successful” is, to put mildly, a real stretch.

Third, given the frequency with which Trump has tried to profit off the presidency, I’d love for Leavitt to elaborate on why she considers this line of inquiry to be “ridiculous.”

Fourth, if the White House believes Trump has been “incredibly transparent” with his finances, I have a follow-up question about the tax returns he has fought to keep secret.

Fifth, Leavitt might want people to believe that Trump “is abiding by all conflict of interest laws,” but as she really ought to know, presidents aren’t bound by the most serious conflict of interest laws.

Sixth, the idea that Trump “has actually lost money” while serving as president appears to be at odds with reality.

To be sure, I don’t mean to sound unsympathetic. The president’s many grifts are the stuff of legend, and if I were his press secretary, I’d probably struggle to come up with a persuasive defense, too.

But if Leavitt believes her talking points are going to end the corruption discussion, she’s likely to be disappointed.>

<Donald Trump’s Treasury Secretary, Scott Bessent, has been front and center in the Trump administration’s trade wars.

His main function has been to puff Trump up, and then carry out Trump’s various cave-ins—most recently his folding to China. Bessent met with Chinese officials over the weekend, and the result was reducing tariffs (though onerous 30% tariffs remain), after Trump said he’d never back down from the 145% tariffs without concessions, which China never offered. And of course the economic impact is already underway with supply chain shortages.

Bessent’s other function is to go on television and try to spin it all as a win, though it’s been nothing but surrender after surrender for Trump on tariffs—and severe, lasting harm to the economy.

Despite the continued uncertainty, Bessent, a billionaire hedge fund manager whom the Wall Street Journal noted was previously “little-known” if respected in the financial world, now has a desperate Wall Street clinging to him as the person who they hope will save them from Trump’s lunacy.

He’s using that platform—and Trump—to promote himself as somewhat of an oracle. Bessent helps drive the markets back up after they’ve plummeted, as investors buy on hope and rumor—which he supplies to them—even when both might be false. (Inevitably the markets drop again on actual economic news and solid data, as well on Trump’s threats.)

But Bessent isn’t, as the media’s portrayed him, an “adult in the room” who’s a sort of Democrat-turned-Republican, trying to do the “right thing.”

JD Vance has been Bessent’s longtime friend, which should tell you enough about his character. The WSJ reported, in a piece last year, that Bessent supported Trump in 2016, and then, even after January 6th, “decided to go all-in [on Trump in 2024] when he saw that the legal cases against Trump were helping, not hurting, his approval rating. He told people the phenomenon reminded him of a stock that rises despite bad news, a bullish sign for some investors.”

Trump, always taken in by flattery, decided that Bessent was an oracle when Bessent backed Trump over Nikki Haley, who much of Wall Street’s Republicans got behind in the primaries. Trump then invited the ambitious Bessent to a 2024 North Carolina rally to speak, and called Bessent, “One of the most brilliant men on Wall Street. Respected by everybody.”

But Bessent was previously “little-known” on Wall Street precisely because he’s not an oracle—or, apparently, that brilliant. One of his biggest predictions—which he made at that very rally in North Carolina—has in fact been turned on its head.

“Kamala Harris will start with the Kamala crash in the stock market,” Bessent warned the crowd. “Then it will be the Kamala crash in the economy.”

Of course, the “crash”—the largest market drop in years because of Trump’s trade war, which saw the Dow have its worst April since 1932—was the “Trump crash,” not the “Kamala crash.” If Harris were president, there would be no tariffs, and no chaos imposed by tariffs, in the markets or in the economy. That is simply a fact.

There’s been much made of Bessent having worked for George Soros more than a decade ago, as chief investment officer of Soros Fund Management, as well as his having held a fundraiser for Al Gore in 2000. Hence the idea that he was a gay man who supported Democrats previously.

But in fact, as the WSJ, reports, he “didn’t agree” with a lot of the causes Soros’ foundation backed, and regarding one of them—proposing to restrict the fund from investing in companies doing business with Israel—Bessent threatened to resign. The idea subsequently “was dropped.”

And the same year he the held the fundraiser for Gore, Bessent gave money to John McCain. He’s mostly backed Republicans in fact—to the tune of over $15 million—but gave money to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which, as with Gore, seemed more like making sure he, as a business person, buttered both sides of the bread more than anything else. And Bessent has been on the Trump train since it began rolling down the tracks.

In 2016, Bessent told people they were underestimating Trump’s chances. After Trump won the election, Bessent scored a big win betting on a market rally and later gave $1 million to Trump’s inaugural committee.

Bessent also has taken sides in the types of culture fights Trump picks. In 2020, he lobbied to get the headmaster reinstalled at his son’s former Manhattan school, St. Bernard’s, after concerns about the school turning too liberal.....>

<....So Bessent is more MAGA—and opportunistic—than the liberal-ish adult-in-the-room he’s been portrayed as in the press. And it’s pretty appalling for a gay man, working for a president stripping LGBTQ rights while the Supreme Court Trump created is routinely carving out exemptions to LGBTQ rights for “religious liberty” reasons.

Bessent has been married to a former New York City prosecutor, John Freeman, since 2011. They have two school-aged children, and they buy, upgrade and sell mansions in posh places, and have sold at least 20 homes. Until recently, they lived in what they called the Pink Palace in Charleston, South Carolina, which they sold for over 18 million dollars.

Bessent, according to an interview in the Yale Alumni Magazine in 2015, never imagined he’d be able to get married as a gay man, and have children via surrogacy. It’s a comment that is quite jarring considering that, a year later, he’d support Trump— and is now working him:

In a certain geographic region at a certain economic level, being gay is not an issue. What’s fantastic is now, people in the rest of America, whether blue collar or white collar, have access to everything. If you had told me in 1984 when we graduated and people were dying of Aids that 30 years later I’d be legally married and we would have two children via surrogacy, I wouldn’t have believed you.

But who made it possible for Bessent to marry, and have children?

Not the Republicans he was supporting—nor Trump. And not the current Supreme Court Trump created, which, if the issue came to them now for the first time, would never rule for marriage equality. And everything they’re doing now is in fact chipping away at the Obergefell ruling, allowing for discrimination against gay married couples in public accommodations.

It was gay and lesbian activists, putting their own bodies on the line, who fought for Bessent’s rights, and Democrats, who finally took up the mantle that got marriage equality legalized in the states and then eventually upheld by the courts. Marriage equality was opposed by the GOP—and still is opposed among most those Republicans in Congress, and among Trump’s powerful base Christian nationalist—and we’ve seen Trump stripping LGBTQ history from government websites, removing anything with the word “gay,” targeting queer people in attacks on DEI and killing LGBTQ health initiatives.

Bessent, who once served on the board of God's Love We Deliver, an organization founded to deliver meals for homebound people with AIDS, is now part of an administration that is literally killing people with AIDS, having stopped lifesaving HIV drug treatments for millions through USAID. And Bessent is watching the abominable things this administration is doing to transgender people, destroying lives, denying they exist.

Bessent could have influence on Trump regarding LGBTQ rights if he wants. Curiously, we’ve not seen, for example, the Trump administration attacking Yale University the way it is attacking Harvard. Could that be because Bessent sits on the university council at Yale? In fact, he and his sister donated the Bessent Library to Yale, and Bessent has endowed three scholarships at Yale. Sounds like he might be protecting his alma mater from Trump. But he couldn’t care less about helping his own people under attack.

Bessent got his—his money, his marriage, his children, his homes—and now, opportunistically, he’s making a name for himself helping the very president who is harming LGBTQ people and so many other minorities every day, in addition to endangering democracy and sending the economy in a spiral downward, causing hardship for millions of Americans. There aren’t enough words to describe this kind of immorality.>

<An executive of the Florida Panthers who resides in Jupiter has been suspended following alleged statements made on social media.

According to a report by TSN, Florida Panthers vice chairman and alternate governor Douglas A. Cifu was suspended indefinitely by the National Hockey League for comments made on the social media platform X.

Cifu has been suspended from any involvement with the Florida Panthers and the NHL.

The comment allegedly made by an account associated with Cifu was made following the Panthers’ 2-0 win Sunday in Game 4 of the second-round Stanley Cup Playoff series against the Toronto Maple Leafs.

“Eat @#$% 51st state anti semite loser. Israel now and forever. Until every last Hamas rat is eliminated,” the social media post linked to Cifu said.

The comment was made during a conversation with a fan of the Maple Leafs that devolved into mentioning the Israel-Hamas war and Canada becoming the United States' 51st state.

“My behavior does not reflect the standards of the Florida Panthers organization and the Viola family.

“I sincerely apologize to all those affected by my comments. I am committed to working with the NHL to amend my actions,” Cifu said in a statement on Tuesday.

United States President Donald Trump has made several references to making Canada the 51st state of the United States of America, which was not well received by Canadians.

The Israel-Hamas war has led to the deaths of tens of thousands of people in the region.>

<An attorney with the Department of Justice faced tough questions and had a rough slog overall in a Washington, D.C., courtroom on Thursday as he continued his ongoing, one-man efforts to defend the Trump administration’s checkered crusade against Big Law.

Richard Lawson is the lone lawyer the government has decided to use during in-court efforts to push back against lawsuits filed by law firms like Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, and WilmerHale.

At one point during a two-hour motions hearing before U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan over the Trump administration’s efforts to defang Susman Godfrey LLP, the recently minted deputy associate attorney general was rendered quite literally speechless.

And it happened twice.

As the court unraveled several issues in President Donald Trump‘s April 9 executive order, key sticking points during the hearing concerned an allegation that the Los Angeles-based law firm “engages in unlawful discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of race.”

During his time at the dais, Susman Godfrey’s lead attorney, Donald Verrilli, said the president’s findings were “completely baseless.”

The Joe Biden-appointed judge, for her part, repeatedly tried to ferret out what, exactly, the government had based the discrimination allegation on.

And there, Lawson was admittedly lacking.

“I don’t have the hard data on hiring,” the DOJ lawyer said at one point.

Instead, Lawson tried to defend Trump’s order by suggesting the court shift to a more nebulous but more holistic inquiry into “the quantum of proof that must exist” for the executive to determine a potential policy. To that end, Lawson argued, the answer is: “it’s low.”

In other words, the government lawyer was trying to move the debate away from specifics and into a framework where the court would be amenable to giving the president broad discretion — even, and perhaps especially, if the specifics are difficult to come by. Lawson suggested the court could sign off on a policy where the president acts based on his subjective understanding of the law firm’s commitments to diversity.

“There has to be some level of discretion afforded to the executive,” he said.

But the judge was not having it.

“I don’t know how, if you’re relying on a legally erroneous statement, you’re allowed to exercise that discretion,” AliKhan replied.

The sole statement in Trump’s order supporting the allegation is: “For example, Susman administers a program where it offers financial awards and employment opportunities only to ‘students of color.'”

That line, it turns out, is a reference to the Susman Godfrey Prize, which the law firm describes as “[a]n honor awarded annually to up to 20 students of color who are finishing their first or second year at an eligible law school” and “part of the firm’s ongoing commitment to celebrate and promote diversity among civil trial lawyers.”

The government lawyer was pressed to concede that the prize is not unlawful discrimination in employment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, despite previous language in court filings highlighting the prize and suggesting it is unlawfully discriminatory.

“It doesn’t seem like anything you have alleged in section one constitutes unlawful racial discrimination,” AliKhan said.

The judge noted that the language regarding the prize is the only example of racial discrimination that Trump’s order contains — and that the line comes immediately after the allegation.

“I just don’t know how you square the circle,” AliKhan said.

While Lawson tried to move on to a different-but-related argument, the judge pushed him to account for the line about the prize.

“So, the only example in the executive order that has to do with racial discrimination isn’t actually an example?” the judge asked, waiting a beat before demanding an answer: “Yes or no?”

A long silence followed.

“Yes or no, sir,” the judge pressed.

More silence.

While the government lawyer did not have an answer, he finally spoke up to say as much.

“I would like to think about that, your honor,” Lawson said.

AliKhan replied: “I would like an answer before you leave my courtroom.”....>

<....The DOJ attorney then returned to the prize, initially noncommittal on whether knock-on effects of the prize might implicate Title VII but eventually conceding the point after some back-and-forth.

“So it seems like the quantum of proof is nonexistent,” the judge said, turning the attorney’s own verbiage back on him.

In the end, Lawson agreed there was no support for the racial discrimination claim in Trump’s order. Still, he insisted that some discretion should be given to the executive by the courts.

“I understand that, I just don’t understand why I’m supposed to defer to something I can’t read,” AliKhan said. “The president wrote these words and they were probably the best words.”

Another major source of conflict came with the government’s other justification for the claim that the law firm illegally discriminates.

The DOJ lawyer, moving away from the text of Trump’s order, said the real issue here is Susman Godfrey’s commitment to “racial balancing.” He then cited a portion of the law firm’s website about opportunities for “underrepresented” communities. Such language, Lawson said, assumes an “adequate representation” based on race or ethnicity and is “quite suspect” in light of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling barring race-based affirmative action in college admissions.

Here, however, the judge was audibly aggrieved.

AliKhan launched into a lengthy series of questions and hypotheticals about women in law. The judge noted that women are the majority of law school graduates in the country but only make up a substantial minority of partners at law firms.

Pointedly, she asked whether language about this state of affairs, where women are statistically underrepresented, would also run afoul of the Trump administration. The government lawyer said statements alone would not be a problem.

“The concern would be true hiring,” Lawson said. “Actual hiring decisions based on hiring to hit a representative, however determined, number.”

As the discussion continued for several more minutes, the tenor and number of questions from the judge on the issue of representation suggested she viewed the government’s position unfavorably.

On rebuttal, Susman Godfrey’s attorney sought to ridicule the Trump administration’s admitted evidence as “a website statement that uses the word ‘underrepresented’ and a pledge to gender parity — that’s it.”

Then, Verrilli took a turn at rephrasing Lawson’s verbiage.

“The government may have some discretion in terms of contracting, but they don’t have discretion to violate the Constitution,” he said.

AliKhan ended the hearing by promising she would rule on both the parties’ motions for summary judgment and the plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction as soon as she could.>

<Another typical, unnecessary perfidubious post: His growling narcissistic insult of another, as if their point of view is irrelevant to Alan Shaw's POV....>

You nailed 'narcissistic'; I was ready to go to my dictionary, thinking your speciality 'narcistic' was correct.

<....The problem is, the goon was too lazy to provide any game analysis for us, any proof whatsoever that FTB was wrong in anyway.

We know from past posts that pervicious often just reads the kibitzing looking for someone he hates (plenty of folks to choose from) and then writes up a mean response without actually playing through the game itself! Al does not have a clue how the mobility of the kings changed after the B-N exchange, except for what he reads of FTB's post....>

<life700player>, you have no clue what my understanding is, cos you haven't got any.

<....Perhidiously had all the time he needed to craft an intelligent post, but puny failed miserably. That corrupt judge of others is just a lazy, angry old man trying not to be forgotten....>

Look in the mirror, <boy>.

<....Oh, BTW Al, you are an amateur yourself. 98% of the posts on this website are by amateurs. If you don't like amateurs, why have you overstayed your welcome for years? And, it's late spring, no ice to cut for a shmuck like you.>

Of course, civility would require yielding power to someone who actually has ethics and good taste, good manners. It is easy to see when the line has been crossed, lacking public decorum, for someone who was raised with decency. It is quite doable with the right people in place....>

<....Acceding to dishonest people w/a thug mentality is never a good way to go.>

That is why my opposition to your evil campaign against me is implacable, <fredremf>.

Capisce?

'Terrific contributions'?

Hahahahaha!!

<At a recent academic conference, I noticed a familiar unease ripple through conversations about “soft skills.” Many participants winced at the term. They recognized the inadequacy of the term, yet struggled to agree on a better alternative. People floated around suggestions like “human skills,” “essential skills,” or “power skills,” but none seemed to stick.

This persistent terminology problem reflects a deeper tension in our educational system. There’s a long-standing bias that elevates “hard” technical competencies over the nuanced, deeply human capabilities that actually define long-term professional success.

Historically, hard skills emerged from the natural sciences—quantitative, measurable, and increasingly automatable. Soft skills, on the other hand, draw from the liberal arts, humanities, and social sciences. These disciplines help us understand human behavior, expression, and interaction. These qualities are notoriously difficult to quantify and even harder to teach.

In business analytics, the field I teach, technical fluency is the price of entry. But what propels careers isn’t just knowing which model to run. It’s being able to explain it to a client, manage a team under pressure, adapt when the data shifts, and negotiate conflicting priorities. The multiplier is the human element.

If we want students—and professionals—to thrive in the age of artificial intelligence, we need to stop treating soft skills like fluff. They’re complex, teachable, and foundational to success. And they need a better framework.

Reframing the spectrum of soft skills

The term “soft skills” has served as a catchall for too long. It flattens a vast range of human capabilities into a vague, undervalued category. Let’s unpack what it typically refers to:

Character traits: These are innate or deeply ingrained qualities—curiosity, empathy, resilience, integrity. They are difficult to measure and even harder to teach, but they can be reinforced through self-awareness and mentorship.

Behavioral habits: This includes punctuality, follow-through, and active listening. These are habits that form the scaffolding of daily effectiveness. Unlike traits, habits are trainable through repetition, reflection, and reinforcement.

Teachable skills: Think negotiation, critical thinking, presentation, and conflict resolution. These are skills that we can structure, improve, and break down.

Contextual competencies

Some soft skills shift with the situation, like cross-cultural communication, executive presence, or stakeholder management. Mastering these skills requires knowledge, as well as adaptability and emotional intelligence.

This structure isn’t just an academic exercise. It provides a road map for how higher education can teach, assess, and elevate these skills with the rigor they deserve.

Why the liberal arts are more relevant than ever

This entire framework—traits, habits, teachable skills, and contextual competencies—rests on a liberal arts foundation. Yet many continue to undervalue liberal arts education in the race to produce technically skilled graduates.

That’s a mistake. The liberal arts cultivate intellectual agility, ethical reasoning, and cultural literacy. Rhetoric and composition shape communication. Philosophy and history sharpen critical thinking. Literature and anthropology nurture empathy and emotional intelligence. Ethics and moral philosophy develop character. These are not “extras”—they are essential human capabilities, which humans have forged across centuries of thought and reflection.

Even in the case of STEM education depends on these “soft” capacities for its practitioners to thrive in real-world scenarios. The traditional liberal arts saw this clearly. To build capable and thoughtful citizens, you need people who understand science and the humanities. The two disciplines complement one another....>

<.....The technology paradox

Enter artificial intelligence. As AI grows capable of executing routine cognitive tasks and even mimicking creative ones, the gap between human and machine narrows in some areas—but not in others.

AI can analyze data, but it can’t coach a team through a moral crisis. It can summarize a policy, but it can’t build consensus across ideologically opposed stakeholders. It can write a headline, but it can’t lead a classroom, negotiate a truce, or inspire trust.

The more technical our world becomes, the more vital our human capabilities become. The paradox of progress is that it puts a premium on precisely those soft skills many continue to dismiss.

Reclaiming the term

Perhaps the answer isn’t to replace the term “soft skills,” but reclaim it. Let’s reframe “soft” not as “easy” or “secondary,” but as “sophisticated,” “subtle,” and “distinctively human.” These are the skills that make teams functional, leaders inspiring, and organizations resilient. They’re not antithetical to technical skill, they’re actually the multiplier.

We do our students a disservice when we teach them how to code but not how to communicate, or how to calculate but not how to collaborate. We handicap their potential when we separate technical and human education into silos. And we shortchange society when we undervalue the disciplines that teach us how to be human together.

The future doesn’t belong to those who can merely execute technical tasks. It belongs to those who bring the full spectrum of human capability to our most complex challenges.

So yes, “soft” skills may be the hardest to master. But they’re also the ones that matter most.>

<....I've had my say today. I've said plenty. I will not be posting for a few days. Nobody needs to waste their time sitting, waiting, playing watchdog on ticked off FTB this weekend.>

<An interview between CNN host Boris Sanchez and Rep. Nicole Malliotakis (R-N.Y.) got heated on Friday during an exchange about Republicans' plans to cut Medicaid funding.

The Republican-controlled House Budget Committee failed to pass President Donald Trump's so-called "big, beautiful bill" on Friday, with five Republicans joining all 16 Democrats to shoot down the legislation. While the bill imposed stricter work requirements on Medicaid recipients and made other changes to the program that would lead to less money for the low-income and disabled Americans who rely on it, those five Republicans sought deeper cuts to Medicaid and opposed the bill on those grounds.

Malliotakis defended the bill's current changes to Medicaid's funding structure as a "compromise" that ought to "move forward." She also said she would oppose any legislation that made deeper cuts to the program than those already in the current bill. But when Sanchez asked the New York Republican how many of her own constituents were at risk of losing their health coverage, she balked at the question.

"Some 40% of your constituents in New York's 11th district rely on Medicaid. 89,000 of them are actually kids," Sanchez said. "Do you have an estimate on how many of them would lose eligibility under this plan?"

"Under the current plan, they don't lose eligibility," she responded. "I mean, again, we particularly made sure that we protected the people who Medicaid was meant for. The individuals who will have a problem are fraudsters, people in the country illegally ... But if they're able-bodied and they have no dependents, then they should be contributing to society and working."

Sanchez pushed back, and pointed out that there are people who will nonetheless fall through the cracks of means testing and that people who meet eligibility requirements can still be denied coverage through no fault of their own. The congresswoman maintained that the only people who would be cut off of Medicaid rolls are "illegal immigrants" and people who refuse to work. But when Sanchez asked her for a hard number of her constituents who would be included in that group, Malliotakis couldn't answer.

"I'm explaining to you right now, if you're if you're listening to me," she said curtly, as Sanchez continued to ask her about numbers pertaining to New York's 11th Congressional District. "If you're not eligible, you should not be receiving benefits. It's as simple as that. That makes you a fraudster."

"Now look, it seems to me that you guys just want to try to act like Republicans are trying to kick off people who are eligible for the program. That is not the case," Malliotakis insisted. "If you are a fraudster, one of the 1.5 million taking advantage of the program."

"I'm trying to clarify the reason i'm asking you this question. There are concerns that folks that may be eligible may be kicked off of these programs because they don't meet some of these requirements, even though, in the view of many Americans, they should be receiving some kind of help," Sanchez said.

"Okay, so you don't let me explain. I'm trying to explain to you. So if you don't want to hear the answer, then don't have me on the show," Malliotakis snapped.>

Don't like the questions? Bugger off!

<Last fall, Kyle Sweetser was a Republican, but an unhappy one. For the third time in a row, Donald Trump had secured his party’s nomination for president — this time without anyone being able to credibly deny what MAGA actually meant for America. The GOP candidate had already been president once, during which time he floated bleach as an antiviral and rejected the outcome of a free and fair election, urging a mob of his supporters to march on the U.S. Capitol and demand that he remain in power despite a majority of Americans asking him to leave.

As a small businessman in Mobile, Alabama, Sweetser, who voted for Trump the first time around, had been hurt by the president’s rejection of a traditional conservative value: free trade. Tariffs on steel imports had raised costs for his construction firm, but the president, from his perspective, seemed unperturbed by the impacts of his erratic approach to trade policy. Still, what was a Republican to do in 2020: Vote Democrat?

By 2024, Sweetser was indeed ready to betray his longtime Republican partisanship. The Jan. 6 insurrection made it impossible to deny that Trump poses a threat to American democracy; his refusal to condemn Russia’s full invasion of Ukraine showed that he was unwilling to defend it abroad, either. Standing in front of Independence Hall in Philadelphia last October, Sweetser — by then an active participant in “Republican Voters Against Trump,” the brainchild of former GOP strategist Sarah Longwell — spoke to Salon about why he was ditching “tribalism” and backing the Democratic nominee: then-Vice President Kamala Harris.

The turning point wasn’t any one thing, Sweetser told Salon at the time, but simply opening his eyes and ears. “I started to pay attention to things that he said,” he explained. And those things, as longtime listeners can attest, are often at odds with reality, any notion of personal responsibility and arguably even conservatism itself — at least the variety that values free markets and constitutional governance over devotion to one man who cares little about either.

The November election was the final straw in terms of party registration. Today, though, Sweetser is not just a registered Democrat but is hoping to be the Democratic candidate next year who takes on U.S. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, R-Ala. As with convincing Republicans to turn on Trump, he has chosen an uphill battle in what is practically a one-party state: the last time Alabama sent a Democrat to the Senate it was because the Republican nominee was accused of soliciting sex from minors.

Speaking this month with Salon, Sweetser, a married father of two, explained why he ditched the GOP and why he thinks many in Alabama may be willing to do the same by the 2026 elections.

This interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Salon: We spoke briefly right in front of Independence Hall, something like six months ago, and back then you were still a Republican against Trump. How did you end up becoming a Democrat against Trump? What happened to make you switch?

Sweetser: So basically, you know, to put things bluntly, that was like a last-ditch effort, really, to try to stop the direction the GOP was going. After 2020, specifically after January 6, I decided to do everything in my power to kind of fight against — speak out against — the direction the GOP was going in. Aside from economic issues, I noticed, you know, societal issues, especially down here in the South. My wife is half Thai and going in and out of houses and working in construction, people are a lot more comfortable having people tell you that, basically, they hate immigrants. That is essentially what it boils down to. It just got to a point where, to me, it's about not only helping our state, because this is taught behavior. They're teaching people to be xenophobic, they're teaching people now to be racist, and they're teaching people to be sexist, and that was going away. So like I said, I decided I had to do everything for power to fight back against it....>