<I want to write about the first time I did a pill. It was a turning point, one of those things you’ll think you’ll never forget. But I can’t. I don’t remember. I don’t remember any of my first-time meetings with drugs except for OxyContin.

It was my junior year of high school and OxyContin was showing up everywhere, in the hallways at school, parties on the weekend and in medicine cabinets all over central Appalachia. I was with my cousin Eric, who was like a brother, the first time I did an OC. It was fall and we were riding around in the hills when we came across a mutual friend. He was eager to share. OxyContin was unlike anything else. At that time people were excited to introduce anyone they could find to this new drug. We sat in the cab of his truck and split a 20-milligram pill between the three of us. And I knew right then that’s all I ever wanted. If I could feel that way for the rest of my life, everything would be okay. It would become a never-ending cycle, with specific memories sticking out more than others when I look back, but the first time is groundbreaking, life changing.

I was the senior class vice president of my high school. When I graduated in 1999, I left with a GPA higher than 4.0. I was a tennis stand-out. I was not supposed to be a drug addict.

But that’s exactly what I became. In 2002, after my third failed attempt at college and living away from home, I returned to eastern Kentucky — and I had no way of knowing what I was coming home to. Over the past year and a half, I had no communication with my friends in the region. OxyContin was everywhere. People I had known my whole life who would have never considered drugs were now full-fledged addicts.

By that time, the effects of Purdue Pharma’s aggressive marketing campaign were evident all-over eastern Kentucky. In a region plagued by high cancer rates and chronic pain patients due to the physical demands of the coal industry, the numbers for non-OxyContin opioid prescriptions were 2.5 to 5.0% higher than the national average. This was how Purdue Pharma decided where to spend its marketing dollars. During this time, pain became a vital sign, and there were trends to liberate the prescribing of opioids to treat general pain. Purdue Pharma targeted physicians with high opioid prescribing rates and courted them like it was Saturday night. They implemented a patient starter coupon program for free limited prescriptions up to a 30-day supply. If that doesn’t reek of a corporate attempt to get people hooked, I don’t know what does. This was a tactic that street dealers had used for years. But when you put on a suit, and it comes from a pharmacy, people are slower to catch on. By the time the program ended, 34,000 coupons were redeemed.

The line between nothingness and death is thin. Using is figuring out how much to take to find a magical state of equilibrium. My goal was to find a state of being so far away from living that my only function left was breath. Complete numbness of the body and mind, a shutdown of all parts of my brain that react and obsess over the outside world. The anxiety and obligations quietened as the brain was flooded with feel-good chemicals.

Immediately I was in a world of possibilities, flooded with boundless energy and no fears. All the social pressures and uncertainty lift. I am exactly who I want to be with no reservations. I liken this to waiting in line for a rollercoaster: Hours of anticipation and achy legs for a three-minute rush.

But for a brief moment, every day, I was balanced. I would find a job and get out on my own, out from under my mother’s watchful eye. I would finish that degree I had started a hundred times. I would get clean once and for all. This would be it. I didn’t need drugs; I wasn’t like everybody else that cycled in and out of here. I realized my potential. They were just junkies. But in the end, every day would bring the same pain, the same guilt, and shame that would drive my addiction forward. I would chase that relief from myself for as long as I could. I longed for the day that some contentment could be achieved without using chemicals. To move through the world as others do.

The opioid epidemic has been called “the deadliest drug crisis in American history.” Of the 105,000 people who died from drug overdoses in 2023, nearly 80,000 deaths were attributed to opioid abuse. I’m one of the lucky ones.

After years of active addiction and struggle, I finally found recovery through rehab and working the 12 steps. I’m now a small business owner in Hazard, Kentucky; I run a small independent bookshop called the Read Spotted Newt, which fuels my creativity and offers me a way to make amends to the community I abused for years....>

<....Representation is critical to finding your place in the world. I strive to curate a collection geared toward young readers growing up in eastern Kentucky so they have access to stories in which they can see themselves. In a world that often demoralizes rural Americans, and Appalachians in particular, it is imperative that we understand the value of our experience. For me, this is the antidote for the shame we have been taught to feel about our region.

We have been given a unique opportunity to right the wrongs inflicted by the pharmaceutical industry. As part of a national settlement that includes opioid distributors and manufacturers, opioid abatement settlement funds are being distributed among the hardest hit areas of the country. Kentucky will be awarded more than $900 million dollars over the next several years. Through my work with the Sycamore Project at the Foundation for Appalachian Kentucky, I’ve made it my mission to ensure that communities and those who have been directly impacted are aware of the funding opportunities, with the understanding that this is blood money and they have a right to be in the room where decisions on spending are being made. This money cannot be used for enforcement, because we know that policing our way out of this problem hasn’t worked. Instead, it will be allocated for treatment, prevention, harm reduction and research.

Now, from my window at the bookshop on the corner, I see people like him every day. I wonder if he has a home. I wonder if he has anybody who cares where he’ll sleep tonight. That’s something that’s changed since Eric’s been gone. The homeless population. We are at least two, in some cases, three generations deep in the opioid epidemic. People have lost their family homes, and there’s no one to fall back on when times get hard. People are living on the streets, and the faces change every day. We make eye contact, and he reaches for the door handle. He stops outside just short of the door and finishes his cigarette, folding a bandana into a makeshift mask. His clothes are clean, and he’s wearing a backpack. I’m cautious, and that makes me feel judgmental. Right away, he comments that I sell Ale-8-One, an iconic Kentucky soda. “I like this place already,” pointing to the mini-fridge.

The silence sits between us awkwardly. Struggling to make eye contact, I notice his hands are red and swollen. It’s unseasonably warm, so he’s wearing a T-shirt. I can see knots under the skin in the bends of his arm. We strike up a conversation about a Tom Petty book. He throws out the term “memoir,” which catches me off guard. He tells me about the daughter of a woman he’s been staying with, how she’s an artist. Would I consider hanging her work in the store? He knows she’s good because his girlfriend has her paintings hanging around the house.

I wonder what her house looks like. I see it with a mattress on the floor, clothes thrown about, scarcely furnished. And then there are the paintings and canvases, too small and oddly proportioned compared to the wall. I agree to give her a shot and some space in the store to sell her work. Maybe that’s what she needs. I go back to his use of a literary term for which I didn’t give him credit. He tells me he wishes someone had helped him. He wishes for a do-over. I can see myself where he stands today. I had that chance. I had that do-over.

I think about Eric — how long he’s been gone, how he was robbed of the benefits of aging and hindsight, how he lives on through my work. How a do-over would have been impossible for him with everyone around him still using. There are a lot of tough decisions in those early years of recovery. Staying away from people you know and love, opening yourself up to strangers, and learning to trust. Trusting when you haven’t been able to trust anyone in years. Maybe you’ve never trusted anyone at all.

Early on, I stayed clean to please everyone around me. Many people invested time and resources into my recovery, and I didn’t want to disappoint them. I was so tired of letting people down. The people-pleasing kicked in because it’s all I’ve ever known. I had to be good and do good so they would love me. At some point, though, I started staying clean for me. I wouldn’t sabotage myself for fear of failure. I’d trust the process and relinquish control. The days got easier....>

<....I should have been nervous, maybe apprehensive, that he was here. He picked up a Stephen King book and told me his favorite serial is the “Green Mile” series. I can tell he’s a reader. Probably like a lot of other addicts, the type of personality that becomes obsessed with hobbies and new topics. The kind that becomes so passionate that they must learn it all. So talented and so sensitive.

I’m curious how often he wants to look around inside. I wonder if he’s only here now to escape the rain.

“How much for this one?” he asked as he held the Tom Petty book in his hands, carefully rubbing the cover. He begins flipping through the pages.

“$28.95,” I say as I go over to show him some cheaper paperbacks I have in stock. It’s presumptuous of me to think he doesn’t have the money for that book. Instead, he decides on an Ale-8 and an “Odyssey” button for his backpack. His wallet is worn black leather and is connected to his belt by a chain. He digs around until he finds a folded 20 deep in a side pocket. I wonder how long that 20 has to last him. As I ring him up and begin to make the change, he tells me about joining LinkedIn because the job market around here is so tough.

“Already found me one that pays people to write reviews about hunting equipment,” he looks up and makes eye contact when he begins to talk about writing.

“It’s only 400 words weekly, and you can work from home. Sounds like a dream gig to me.” I can hear the tone of his voice shift.

I hand over his change. He doesn’t seem to notice that I didn’t charge him any sales tax. I’ll eat the 20 cents.

I hate that he is 44, and this could be it for him. Bouncing around from couch to couch, putting needles in his arm, and having to love everything from afar. I wish I could buy that Tom Petty book for him. I wish I could give it to him with no repercussions. As he turns to go, he says he’ll be back to support small businesses. He likes having something like this downtown. I wish there were a way I could do something to help him. But out the door and up the street, it’s pouring the rain, something I seem more concerned about than him. I’d like to know if he’s read “The Odyssey.”

Thirty years later, we are still learning how to navigate this epidemic. Gone are the old adages of tough love and hitting bottom. Now we approach this disease with community — with meeting people where they are. That’s why it’s important for me to live my recovery out loud. To give hope and instill empathy in those who are tempted to give up the fight. In the words of bell hooks, “rarely if ever, are any of us healed in isolation.”>

https://www.chessdom.com/lichess-re...

<President Trump’s plans to use the Justice Department to seek revenge against his perceived enemies may have just hit a major roadblock. Earlier this month, Memphis federal district court judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr. issued an opinion in the criminal case against Kilmar Abrego Garcia in response to a motion to dismiss for vindictive and selective prosecution.

The judge found “that the totality of events” surrounding the bringing of the Abrego indictment “creates a sufficient evidentiary basis to conclude that there is a ‘realistic likelihood of vindictiveness,’” entitling him to discovery and an evidentiary hearing before his motion is decided.

This decision has wide-ranging ramifications. It is likely the death knell of the indictments against former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James (D), as well as other perceived enemies whom Trump has threatened for prosecution solely for political revenge. Trump’s enemies list includes Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and former CIA Director John Brennan.

Abrego is the Salvadoran immigrant the government mistakenly sent to the notorious CECOT prison in El Salvador. After his lawyers obtained an injunction from the Supreme Court to facilitate his return to the U.S., the government relentlessly went after him, indicting him on human trafficking charges based on a traffic stop in November 2022.

Abrego contended that his prosecution was in retaliation for exercising his constitutional and statutory rights to sue the government. His lawsuit challenged his deportation to El Salvador through a federal civil action in federal district court in Maryland.

The court based its findings, in part, on the stunning admission of Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who told Fox News that the government had started looking into Abrego after a Maryland judge raised questions about the government’s case and “found that it ‘had no right to deport him,’” and was “doing something wrong.”

Additionally, the court found that “the timing of Abrego’s indictment” supports his assertion that the executive branch “may have induced” the U.S. attorney “to criminally charge Abrego in retaliation for his Maryland lawsuit” and for successfully obtaining an injunction from the Supreme Court directing the government to facilitate his return to the U.S. from El Salvador.

The court found that “only days after the Supreme Court’s decision,” the government “reopened its investigation into Abrego” and “ten days after that,” “Abrego was indicted.” It also relied on the “years-long delay” between the traffic stop and the indictment. The “903 days” was notably longer than “all of the criminal cases in the Sixth Circuit involving a traffic stop” over a 15-year period.

The significant outcome of this decision is that Abrego is now entitled to take discovery and present that evidence at a public hearing. The discovery ordered by the court will be focused on what motivated the “actual decisionmakers” who directed and approved his indictment.

Abrego can depose the Assistant U.S. Attorney Ben Schrader, who resigned on the day the grand jury returned the indictment, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche and others in the Justice Department and the Memphis U.S. Attorney’s Office who have knowledge of the reasons for filing the indictment.

He can also subpoena documents relating to the decision to prosecute him. This highly unusual opportunity for Abrego to pull back the curtain in a public hearing is likely to be highly embarrassing to the Justice Department and the White House....>

<....There is a direct line from Crenshaw’s opinion to the Comey and James indictments, which are also vindictive prosecutions. Exhibit A will be Trump’s Sept. 20 Truth Social post asking Bondi “not to delay any longer” against Comey, Schiff and James. There is also a litany of Trump statements over the years, designating Comey and James as two of his chief political enemies.

Those statements, coupled with the events leading up to the Comey and James indictments, reek of vindictiveness. When Trump’s handpicked U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, Erik Seibert, and others in the office refused to seek an indictment against Comey and James, Trump forced him out.

To ensure that Comey and James would be indicted, Trump appointed a new U.S. Attorney, Lindsey Halligan, who blindly followed Trump’s orders to indict. Halligan, an insurance lawyer, was never a prosecutor, has no understanding of federal criminal law and is clueless about how to formulate federal criminal charges.

Based on the judge’s reasoning, Comey and James should be able to pursue a highly aggressive defense and take testimony from all those who participated in or are knowledgeable about the bogus decision to indict them, subpoena relevant documents and present the results in a public hearing.

The ultimate outcome of these hearings is not just the dismissal of unfounded indictments ordered by Trump for vindictive political retribution. For the lawyers who take part in Trump’s revenge tour, the consequences could be quite severe — induction into the Rudy Giuliani hall of shame for disbarred former lawyers who did Trump’s illegal bidding.>

<“Waste, fraud, and abuse.”

It’s President Donald Trump’s battle cry as he dismantles federal agencies, fires hundreds of thousands of employees, and demoralizes the workers who remain. It’s also another of his false flag operations.

Rather than ferreting out corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in the federal government, Trump has undermined the very professionals who have that job: inspectors general.

The Role of the IGs

In the wake of procurement scandals and President Richard Nixon’s corrupt abuse of executive power for personal ends, Congress passed the Inspector General Act of 1978 to establish formally the duties and responsibilities of the office. Inspectors general pursue their missions with nonpartisan objectives and have a central role in holding government accountable.

Approximately half of the 70-plus inspectors general are appointed by the president, subject to Senate confirmation. They are the only independent offices within federal agencies designed to protect taxpayer money and root out corruption, fraud, waste, and mismanagement. IGs also investigate whistleblowers’ confidential claims.

Over the almost 50 years of their statutory existence, they have saved taxpayers billions of dollars.

Trump’s Escalating War on Independent IGs

For Trump and his allies, independent inspectors general have been a nuisance and worse. Following acquittal in his first impeachment, he replaced IGs for the intelligence community, State Department, Defense Department, Health and Human Services, and Transportation Department.

In his second term, Trump has moved more broadly and more rapidly. Typically, IGs remained in place when new presidents took office, underscoring their nonpartisan roles. But in violation of the statutory 30-day notice and “for cause” requirements for termination, Trump fired 17 of them during the first week of his second term. He had appointed several of them during his first term.

So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.

During post-termination interviews with the New York Times, the fired IGs said that their biggest concern was the “chilling effect” that their abrupt, unlawful, and unjustified terminations would have on others. Professor Timothy Snyder calls it “obeying in advance.” The inspectors general used similar language to describe their fears:

“Self-censorship”

“Why would you want to write a report that will get you fired?”

“Installing someone who has more loyalty to one person than to the mission of the office.”

“If you do the work that you’re intended to do and it’s not popular, then you will be punished.”

“Who will speak truth to power?”

The concerns were justified. Trump doesn’t want anyone speaking truth to his power.

On Tuesday, February 11, the inspector general for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), Paul Martin, issued a report criticizing Trump’s proposed dismantling of that agency and outlining the disastrous consequences. The next day, Trump fired him....>

<....Final Act of Destruction

On September 28, 2025, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announced that effective October 1 it was defunding the Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. It was a strategic kill shot because the council is the umbrella agency supporting all of the inspectors general offices.

Beginning on October 1, what had been the website for the council stated only:

Due to a lack of apportionment of funds, this website is currently unavailable.

The same line appeared at numerous Office of Inspector General websites, including the Departments of Agriculture, Education, Justice, Interior and Veterans Affairs, and by those of AmeriCorps, Export-Import Bank of the United States, Federal Trade Commission, International Trade Commission, National Archives and Records Administration, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Personnel Management, Smithsonian Institution, and Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration.

Contacting the watchdog website for the National Labor Relations Board’s OIG page resulted in a “404 error.” The Architect of the Capitol’s IG page said “Not found”; another new page offered only hotline information and blamed the change on a “funding issue impacting Oversight.gov functions.”

The council also runs Oversight.gov, which houses over 34,000 reports from most of the OIGs, and operates 28 OIG websites that host legally required hotlines for whistleblowers to report suspected cases of government corruption, waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement. That site was down too. The council site’s link to the “Inspectors General directory” stated only: “Not Found—the requested URL was not found on this server.”

Not a Funding Issue

But the so-called “lack of funds” asserted on the inoperative council website was not the result of the simultaneous government shutdown. The council’s budget did not require additional congressional authorization.

Rather, the OMB under the leadership of Director Russell Vought decided not to fund it. Vought, a self-described Christian nationalist, was a primary architect of Project 2025—a 900-page blueprint for expanding executive power (“the unitary executive”) and imposing an ultraconservative social vision. During the 2024 campaign, Project 2025 was so toxic that Trump repeatedly disavowed and claimed to know nothing about it; as president, he’s boasting about working with Vought to implement it.

Asked about its defunding decision, the OMB asserted without evidence that it shut down the IGs because they had “become corrupt, partisan, and in some cases, have lied to the public.”

Republicans Are Concerned?!

Even Senate Republicans were outraged. Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine), the chairwoman of the Appropriations Committee, and Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chairman of the Judiciary Committee, called on the White House to release the funding immediately.

So far, it hasn’t.

So the next time Trump and his allies say they’re eliminating “waste, fraud, and abuse” in the federal government, remember that Trump is actually doing the opposite: clearing away key guardrails of accountability.

And remember that when Republicans in Congress say they are “outraged” at some action Trump has taken, don’t expect them to do anything about it.>

<[Event "21st World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1993.06.29"]
[EventDate "1993"]
[Round "1"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Fishbein, Alexander"]
[Black "Barry, Steven M"]
[ECO "B46"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 g6 3.Bg5 Bg7 4.e3 O-O 5.Nbd2 c5 6.Be2 b6 7.c3 d6 8.b4 Nbd7 9.O-O Bb7 10.Re1 Rc8 11.Bf1 Nd5 12.bxc5 dxc5 13.Rc1 h6 14.Bh4 g5 15.c4 Nb4 16.a3 gxh4 17.axb4 cxb4 18.Qb3 a5 19.e4 e5 20.dxe5 Nc5 21.Qe3 a4 22.Nb1 Qe7 23.Qf4 a3 24.Rcd1 Rfd8 25.Rd5 a2 26.Nbd2 Bxd5 27.cxd5 b3 28.Nc4 b5 29.Nb2 Na4 30.d6 Qe6 31.Nxa4 bxa4 0-1>

My page, my content, my rules.

<[Event "21st World Open"] [Site "Philadelphia PA"]
[Date "1993.07.05"]
[EventDate "1993"]
[Round "9"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[White "Formanek, Edward"]
[Black "Atutubo, Rodrigo"]
[ECO "D13"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.cxd5 cxd5 6.Bf4 Be7 7.e3 O-O 8.Bd3 Nc6 9.Ne5 Nd7 10.Nxd7 Bxd7 11.O-O a6 12.Rc1 b5 13.h3 f5 14.Bh2 g5 15.Ne2 Rc8 16.Bb1 Be8 17.Kh1 Bh5 18.Qd2 1/2-1/2>

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 exd4 4.Bc4 Nf6 5.O-O Nxe4 6.Re1 d5 7.Bxd5 Qxd5 8.Nc3 Qd8 9.Nxe4 Be7 10.Bg5 f6 11.Bh4 O-O 12.h3 Be6 13.Qe2 Bf7 14.Rad1 g5 15.Bg3 f5 16.Nc3 Bf6 17.Qb5 Qd7 18.Be5 Nxe5 19.Nxe5 Qxb5 20.Nxb5 Rad8 21.Nxd4 Rfe8 22.Nxf7 Rxe1+ 23.Rxe1 Kxf7 24.Nxf5 Rd2 25.Ne3 Bd4 26.Kf1 Bxe3 27.Rxe3 Rxc2 28.Re2 Rc1+ 29.Re1 Rc2 30.Re2 Rc1+ 31.Re1 Rc5 32.f3 h5 33.g3 Kf6 34.Re2 h4 35.Kf2 Kf5 36.g4+ Kf6 37.a3 a5 38.b4 axb4 39.axb4 Rc4 40.Rb2 Ke5 41.Re2+ Kd6 42.Rd2+ Kc6 43.Rb2 Kb5 44.Ke3 c6 45.Kf2 Ka4 46.Rb1 b5 47.Ke3 Ka3 48.Kd2 Ka2 49.Rc1 Kb2 50.Re1 Rd4+ 51.Ke3 Rxb4 52.Re2+ Kc3 53.Kf2 Rc4 54.Re5 b4 55.Rxg5 b3 56.Re5 b2 57.Re1 Rb4 58.Rb1 Kc2 59.Rxb2+ Kxb2 60.g5 c5 0-1>

Yet another 'database dump'.

<House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., slammed the expiring Obamacare subsidies at the center of the government funding standoff as a “boondoggle” as the shutdown approaches the two-week mark with no end in sight.

“The Covid-era Obamacare subsidy that they’re all talking about that’s supposedly the issue of the day doesn’t expire until the end of December. And by the way, it is the Democrats who created that subsidy, who put the expiration date on it,” he told reporters at a press conference Monday, the 13th day of the shutdown.

“They put an end date on it because they knew it was supposed to be related to Covid, and it’s become a boondoggle,” Johnson added. “When you subsidize the health care system and you pay insurance companies more, the prices increase.”

Johnson’s comments escalate the battle one day before the Senate is slated to return to Washington, albeit with no clear path to end the shutdown. It will test the patience and resolve of both parties as federal employees — including members of law enforcement, air traffic controllers and TSA staff — are slated to miss paychecks

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., has maintained that Democrats won’t relent and support a short-term GOP funding bill through Nov. 21 unless it includes their priorities, most notably an extension of the health care funds. The money in question, first passed in 2021, limits premiums of a benchmark insurance plan to 8.5% of the buyer's income.

“Speaker Johnson chose vacation over fixing this healthcare crisis,” Schumer recently wrote on X. “In his own state, 85,000 Louisianans will lose their health insurance and thousands will see their premiums skyrocket. But he’s keeping the government shut down instead of fixing this.”

Johnson has kept the Republican-led House out of session since Sept. 19, and he is continuing the recess through this week, drawing heavy criticism from Democrats and even some Republicans who say they want to return to work.

The speaker said Monday that at a minimum, “If indeed the subsidy is going to be continued, it needs real reform. But there’s a lot of ideas on the table to do that.”

He didn’t get specific, but Republicans have discussed a range of ideas such as an income cap for eligibility, a requirement that every Obamacare enrollee pays something into the system, a phaseout after two or three years and stricter abortion limits.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, D-N.H., the author of a bill to extend the Obamacare, or Affordable Care Act, funds permanently, said she’s open to a negotiation on the details.

“There are a number of changes that can be made to the program to address some of the concerns,” she said. “One of the things, though, I think we need to be very thoughtful about is where you start to make changes that show a dramatic drop-off in numbers of people who are helped. And that needs to be a longer discussion that people need to really look at some data and get the information before making decisions about that.”

But Shaheen flatly ruled out stricter abortion restrictions, saying existing law already blocks Obamacare funding for abortion — despite some conservatives wanting to make it more stringent.

“That’s a nonstarter,” she said. “It’s not an issue. We already dealt with that issue.”>

<Over the past ten years we’ve seen countless letters signed by experts and former officials decrying something President Donald Trump has said or done. Whether it’s scientists, economists, national security and intelligence veterans or doctors, just to name a few, thousands of people with impeccable credentials and decades of experience have put their reputations on the line by publicly sounding the alarm about the Trump administration’s illiberal, destructive policies. None of it has seemed to make any difference.

But those five-alarm warnings are still important and necessary, if only to maintain an historical record of dissent should we manage to emerge from this dark time with some shell of our nation intact. Legal scholars, former judges and law professors are having a collective heart attack over what the administration, particularly the Justice Department and Supreme Court, are doing to the rule of law and the Constitution. Right now, the only bulwark appears to be the lower courts.

Before the 2024 election, the New York Times interviewed fifty highly respected members of the legal establishment. Both parties were evenly represented; those interviewed had held essential jobs in every presidential administration since Ronald Reagan. Most told the Times they were concerned about a second Trump term based on what he had done in the first.

Even so, some who had previously worked with Trump vouched for the Justice Department’s inherent integrity, stressing that, given the department’s structure, it would be very difficult for its employees to act in bad faith. And since Trump preferred appointees with elite credentials, they assumed he would only hire qualified and experienced people. When the Times recently caught up with these former officials, their hair was on fire.

“Eight months into his second term,” they reported, “Trump has taken a wrecking ball to those beliefs. ‘What’s happening is anathema to everything we’ve ever stood for in the Department of Justice,’ said another former official who served in both Democratic and Republican administrations, including Trump’s first term… The responses captured almost universal fear and anguish over the transformation of the Justice Department into a tool of the White House.”

The story noted that, this time, many more refused to speak on the record because they feared retribution from the White House, which is chilling in itself, if unsurprising. For every political elite who has the guts to speak out right now, there are five more who have been cowed into silence.

Remember, this group includes half Republicans, quite a few of whom worked for Trump in the first term. And yet “all but one of the respondents rated Trump’s second term as a greater or much greater threat to the rule of law than his first term. They consistently characterized the president’s abuses of power — wielding the law to justify his wishes — as being far worse than they imagined before his re-election.”

Ahead of Trump’s inauguration in January, we knew congressional Republicans would rubber stamp everything the president wanted, so there’s no surprise there. And it was no secret that the administration would be prepared to push the envelope beyond anything from Trump’s first term. Nevertheless, I didn’t think Trump would appoint internet trolls and far-right agitators, such as Kash Patel and Dan Bongino — who became the director and deputy director of the FBI — to such important roles. Even loyalists like Attorney General Pam Bondi and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, I expected, would be concerned about maintaining a face of seriousness and professionalism....>

<....The Times pointed out that in Trump’s first term, especially toward the end, the system held mainly because even sympathetic loyalists like former Attorney General Bill Barr and Deputy Attorney General Jeffrey Rosen refused to go along with the president’s bogus election claims. This time around, the former officials know that will not happen: “‘No one in the room now will say no,’” said the Justice Department official from Trump’s first term. The lesson Trump drew from his first term, the former official continued, is that the lawyers who talked him out of ‘bad ideas’ were the wrong kind of lawyers.”

These former insiders were apparently unable to see just how radicalized Trump and his accomplices had become once having learned how to maneuver the levers of power. No one is more responsible for that than the Supreme Court.

The court’s immunity decision alone gave Trump the green light to do whatever he wanted and let everyone else pick up the pieces. Coupled with the misuse and abuse of the court’s emergency — or “shadow” — docket, the conservative majority has only reinforced the idea that the president is to be given total latitude without constitutional restraint.

A number of lower court judges have expressed concern about the high court’s terse orders on these shadow docket rulings, most of which have overturned their judgments to favor the president’s position — and leaving them vulnerable to threats from right-wing commentators, and even the White House. White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller recently posted on X that judges who rule against the president are committing “legal insurrection” and claimed: “There is a large and growing movement of left-wing terrorism in this country. It is well organized and funded and it is shielded by far-left judges, prosecutors and attorneys general. The only remedy is to use legitimate state power to dismantle terrorism and terror networks.”

It takes courage to maintain integrity in the face of comments like that by someone with such power.

Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh have all issued rebukes to lower courts that deigned to question their reasoning. Justice Amy Coney Barrett, appearing on Fox News over the weekend, explained that the court didn’t want to provide reasoning for using the shadow docket to overturn these lower court rulings — many of which actually upheld established precedent in denying Trump’s radical power grabs — because the justices might change their minds later. Meanwhile, the author of the immunity decision, Chief Justice John Roberts, has appeared so blind to the consequence and destruction the court has wreaked that leading legal scholars have compared him to Roger Taney, the chief justice whose illustrious reputation was forever defiled by his Dred Scott opinion.

Some have suggested that all this adds up to a constitutional crisis. Justice Barrett had insisted it does not. But there can be little doubt we are in the midst of an historic legal emergency — and, so far, the only people who appear to be preventing our system of justice from crumbling entirely are the states and lower federal courts. May they have the fortitude to hold out, or things will get much worse.>

<Leading news organizations are rejecting new rules for the press laid out by the Pentagon, saying they would muzzle reporters and undermine decades of coverage of the U.S. military.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s office has given Pentagon beat reporters until Tuesday to sign a pledge agreeing not to obtain or use “unauthorized material” in their reporting. The rules threaten to immediately strip any reporter found in violation of their press credentials. The ultimatum has drawn a rare, unified backlash from nearly every outlet in the nation’s capital.

CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox News issued a joint statement Tuesday rejecting the Pentagon’s requirements, calling them “without precedent” and warning they “threaten core journalistic protections.” Before joining the Trump administration, Hegseth worked as a host for Fox News.

“We will continue to cover the U.S. military as each of our organizations has done for many decades, upholding the principles of a free and independent press,” they said.

Reuters, the Associated Press, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlantic, and NPR also refused to sign the pledge. Several Trump administration-friendly outlets also balked at the restrictions. Conservative network Newsmax said they would refuse, describing the rules as “unnecessary and onerous.” The only outlet known to have accepted the terms is One America News.

The Pentagon Press Association said the new rules “gag Pentagon employees and threaten retaliation against reporters who seek out information that has not been pre-approved for release.” The group warned that potential expulsion from the building “should be a concern to all” and argued that the restrictions “appear to violate the First Amendment” in a statement shared by CNN.

“This kind of Orwellian censorship is a blatant violation of the First Amendment,” the progressive nonprofit group Public Citizen wrote on X. “Pete Hegseth does not get to decide what is reported to the public. You would think a former news host would know that?”

The new restrictions come after the Pentagon was embarrassed by a leak of war plans in Yemen. The Atlantic’s editor-in-chief was accidentally added to a group chat between top Trump administration officials discussing an attack. He then published a story on the massive lapse in security before sharing details of the conversation.

Hegseth has publicly mocked the outcry from journalists, claiming on social media that the new guidelines simply mean the press can no longer “solicit criminal acts.” He reposted several outlets’ statements on their refusal to comply, adding a waving goodbye emoji.>

<Some of MAGA’s loudest voices are starting to turn on Donald Trump over his mass deportation efforts. Podcaster Joe Rogan and Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia have publicly condemned the administration over its immigration crackdown.

According to Nicolle Wallace, that criticism is evidence that Trump’s grip over his base may be slipping. “If Donald Trump’s political power lies in being able to convince his supporters of anything and everything, then loud public dissent from inside his coalition from prominent MAGA influencers might be the thing that will melt his carefully crafted alternative, fact-based reality faster than the Wicked Witch in ‘The Wizard of Oz,’” Wallace said on Monday’s “Deadline: White House.”

In recent weeks, social media has been flooded with images and videos of what Wallace described as the administration’s “brutal and ugly and clunky and wildly unpopular mass deportation scheme.”

“The sight and the sound and the smells of heavily armed federal agents sweeping up people with no criminal records — everyone from grandmas to kids — with arrests everywhere, from outside of schools to outside of bakeries, even to a Marine base. The sights and sounds are proving to be too much for arguably the most influential podcaster in the MAGA-adjacent universe,” she added.

Wallace then played a clip from Thursday’s “Joe Rogan Experience,” where the popular podcaster called Trump’s deportations “horrific.” He went on to say, “When you’re just arresting people in front of their kids and just normal, regular people that have been here for 20 years — everybody who has a heart can’t get along with that.”

While the “Deadline: White House” host acknowledged that Rogan has spoken out against Trump and his immigration policies in the past, she said it was important to note that he was “not alone.”

During an appearance on “The Tim Dillon Show,” Greene, who is usually among the president’s fiercest defenders in Congress, said she’s seen the damage of Trump’s immigration crackdown firsthand. “We have a labor force in America, across many industries, that has been built on illegal labor,” Greene said. “That’s a fact that also cannot be ignored, and as a conservative and as a business owner in the construction industry and as a realist, I can say we have to do something about labor, and that needs to be a smarter plan than just rounding up every single person and deporting them just like that, right?”

Greene stated she knew she would get “pushback” for her comments, but said she was just “living in reality from here on out.”

Wallace said that while there was “plenty to not like about Marjorie Taylor Greene and Joe Rogan,” those who oppose Trump’s crackdown should welcome their newfound criticism, noting that “if we could have done this on our own, we wouldn’t be here.”

“The reality of Trump’s mass deportation campaign and how it is impacting every one of us, everyone is going to be touched by it, regardless of who you vote for — it’s starting to sink in,” Wallace said.>