Tag: trump

“I Didn’t Vote for This”

I think over the past weeks, if I got a quarter for every time I heard or read about a Trump voter saying, “I didn’t vote for this.” I could buy a box of chicken tenders and a Dr. Pepper at the local Elk Creek Store.

Mostly I think it is a bullshit dodge, a cop out, a self serving excuse. Given the chance to vote for him again, I believe, they would. Trump was pretty clear where he stood on most things and clearly articulated what he intended to do. So they knew damn well who and what they were voting for. Why? I think Trump’s racist and bigoted words and actions resonated with a majority of them and continues to resonate with them to this day.

His islamophobia and animus towards black and brown people were on full display during his campaign for a second term. His racist rhetoric was so vile and repulsive as to be disqualifying for high office. And that is without even factoring in his disastrous first term and attempted coup.

Now we learn of a woman who claimed in an 2019 FBI interview that Trump sexually assaulted her in 1984 at his Atlantic City Casino. These interviews were initially withheld from release of the Epstein files, but journalistic sleuths pointed out clues to their existence and they were later released, the Justice Department claiming an oversight.

The victim was 13 or 15 when she was raped. I believe her and she should have her day in court to demand justice for herself and other victims. You may recall that Trump oversaw the Department of Justice and FBI as President in 2019. A civil jury in 2023 found that Trump had sexually assaulted another woman in the dressing room at a department store in 1996. Notice any patterns?

Those that voted for him knew about his sexual predatory behavior. In addition to the 2023 civil jury findings, a majority were also aware of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tapes where Trump bragged about sexually battering women. Over two dozen women came forward with allegations of sexual misbehavior during his campaign for his first term in office.

So, Trump voter, don’t tell me that you didn’t vote for this. Yes, you did, and you damn well knew what you were voting for.

Regime Change: Coming Soon this November

One day before the war on Iran, the Secretary of Defense announced that Scouting America had surrendered its’ honor and ethics in exchange for continued financial support from the War Department.  They, had according to the Pentagon, agreed to certain concessions.  For example, the ‘Citizenship in Society’ merit badge will be replaced by a new ‘Military Service’ badge.  In exchange, a tiger cub scout pack was allowed to name the operation against Iran.  Operation Farting Trump was a close second to Epic Fury.  

I am thankful that Hegseth, AKA He-Man Master of the Universe, was steely eyed focused on Scouting America and his perpetual war on American pluralism and women, just one day before sending our men and women into harm’s way in a surprise attack on Iran, an unjust and illegal War.  Such a role model for our young.

Where Have our Better Angels Gone? Four murders, four Americas

“The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely, they will be, by the better angels of our nature”

Abraham Lincoln, First Inaugural Address

George Floyd, Brian Thompson, Melissa Hortman, and Charlie Kirk were murdered.  Yet, how America responded writ large to these individual murders is a telling insight into today’s divisions in America, of who has political capital, the power to weld it, and importantly, who lacks it.  

Murder is not unusual in America. In 1991, for every 100K Americans there were almost 11 murders.  By 2014 that number dropped to about 5 per 100K.  In 2024 that number was relatively the same after a pandemic spike in 2020 of 7 per 100k.  Most were gun related murders, averaging about 17K to 18K per year.  The leading cause of death of kids under 18 in America is gun violence.  As a nation we offer them prayers, for a select few, we fight over their deaths.

It is not surprising then, that three of the four persons mentioned above were shot to death.  Floyd’s death was unusual, a prolonged public spectacle when a police officer used a knee to compress Floyd’s neck for a prolonged period on a busy street, in broad daylight ,while two other police officers stood by, and witnesses filmed the unfolding murder while pleading to not hurt him.

Today, I am not concerned with their manner of death but with American’s reaction to them.  

In 2020, George Floyd’s murder sparked nationwide protests over policing practices and culture in America and the disproportionate killing of black men by police officers; along with other issues of mass incarceration and disparate treatment by the justice system.  The Black Lives Matter movement emerged from these protests.  Backlash was immediate.  Conservative media outlets pointed to Floyd’s criminal record or his alleged drug use to exculpate the police officer’s actions.  

Despite the backlash, some reforms did occur at local and state levels, but not at the federal level.  Today, physical representations of that protest movement that pushed for nationwide police reform are literally being bulldozed.  In March of this year, the Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington DC was torn up and paved over after pressure from President Trump.  

In 2024, Brian Thompson, the CEO of the major health insurance company United Healthcare, was gunned down in midtown Manhattan in the early morning hours by a lone gunman.  Unlike most murders, it garnered national attention.  After a five-day manhunt the alleged shooter was arrested.  Again, unlike most murders, the shooter became something of a social media folk hero, a modern-day Clyde of Bonnie and Clyde Fame.  He even was given the nickname ‘the adjuster.’  This reflected deep anger by everyday Americans on both side of the aisle against health insurance corporate bureaucracy and greed.  Not much empathy for Thompson or his family.

In June 2025, Melissa Hortman, Minnesota’s state legislatures House Speaker, and her husband were gunned downed at their home by a lone gunman.  The gunman also shot two others at another home.  The nation was stunned and shocked by these politically motivated killings and shootings.  However, the right-wing and President Trump unfortunately decided to use the killings to score political points.  Attacking Minnesota’s Governor Walz, a political opponent who ran against him on Kamal Harris’s ticket, Trump called him “wacked out Walz” and refused to call him to offer condolences, saying it would be a “waste of time.”  Some on the right said the killer was a ‘Marxist.’ Elon Musk blamed the “far left” for the shooting.

For her and her husband, no reforms, no National Day of Mourning, no flag at half-staff, no White House rage at a political killing.  The other day, when asked about the double standard of ordering the lowering of the flag for Kirk but not Hortman, Trump, whose better angels are dead or deported, responded that he “wasn’t familiar” with the Minnesota shooting.  

On September 10, Charlie Kirk, a right-wing activist and influencer, was shot to death at an event at Utah Vallery University by a lone gunman.  Shock once again swept the country.  National leaders on the left expressed near universal regret and sadness.   The right expressed near universal outrage and anger.  Over the past week, that rage and anger grew, it seemed.  On the right, vengeance was promised and the White House vowed to investigate far left networks or groups for the Kirk killing, without evidence of a conspiracy.  

Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, who has already called the Democratic Party a terrorist organization, vowed to “identify, disrupt, eliminate and destroy this network.”   The Justice Department said it was going to investigate “hate speech,” although the Attorney General did back track after criticism.  Nonetheless, calls to criminally investigate the Soros organization and the Ford Foundation as terrorist funders were made.  Even labelling some domestic left leaning groups ‘terrorist organizations” was floated, to include by Trump, who said he wouldn’t mind appending the terrorist label to Antifa.  Antifa has no known organization to which to attach it to.  It’s more idea than organization.  

The Pentagon vowed firings and crack downs on posts deemed critical of Kirk or celebratory or his death. The Department of State also vowed a crackdown on visa holders who criticize Kirk or celebrate his death.  I don’t recall similar vows when Representative Hortman and her husband were killed.   

Elon Musk in a video played at a far-right protest in England said, “We either fight back or die.”  And in a post, demanded the arrest of one rapper for criticizing Kirk and accused universities of “programming people to murder.”  Some right-wing social media called for mass arrests and even civil war. 

It’s one thing for social media influencers, cranks and crackpots, and fringe elements to threaten and intimidate and engage in conspiracy theory spin.  It is completely another thing for senior government officials to threaten vengeance and engage in conspiracy theories while calling for the extirpation of left leaning speech and organizations. Is the criminalization of dissent coming in a forthcoming executive order?

In an example of our government’s authoritarian shift,  yesterday ABC cancelled Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night comedy show after threats by the Chair of the Federal Communication Commission to pull licensees after Kimmel made remarks about the Kirk’s killer’s political affiliation.  Meanwhile, Fox News host Brian Kilmeade said on-air last week that mentally ill homeless people should be executed.  His co-hosts offered no rebuttal.  No threats from the FCC to cancel licenses for advocating mass executions. Another example of our authoritarian government’s willingness to control speech of those that do not conform to the governments messaging.  

So, here we are.  Four murders, four different reactions, four different Americas it seems.  I do not want to flatten or simplify the reactions to the murders because there were many individual and collective responses by a broad range of folks, some good, some bad, some ugly.  But as a nation, we have struggled to find common ground or cause over politically motivated killings because we now instinctively split into our respective camps, which increasingly aren’t ideological – like a working-class consciousness — but ones based on race and religion.  80 percent of Trump voters were white.  

It is clear we are now led by a sectarian national government, a government increasingly narrow-minded and protective of ‘tribal’ affiliations.  Kirk was the personification of this sectarianism and white Christian nationalist identity politics for young Americans, young American men in particular. This white Christian nationalism movement dominates our national government.  

Kirk didn’t deserve a violent death for his racist commentary, trans bigotry, or anti-Islam sentiment.  However odious someone’s speech may be, they are engaging in speech protected by the First Amendment.  We must disagree through discourse and words, not violence and bullets.  Unfortunately, our government seems to have abandoned this principle and is playing favorites as to who has the right to speak freely without fear of government discipline and punishment.

How then, as a nation, can we find common cause and ground to express our views openly and without fear of retaliation when even our government has abandoned the principle of free speech, plays favorites?  Can we ever find that common ground as a nation, bring out our better angels?

It’s not coincidental that I end I began this essay with a quote from President Abraham Lincoln’ first inaugural address.  He too died from a cowardly assassin’s bullet. He spoke these words when secessionist war clouds threatened America over an intractable issue:  slavery.  I think as a nation we are at a similar inflection point over a myriad of seemingly intractable issues.  

Liberty’s Chrysalis

“The love of power is natural; it is insatiable; almost constantly whetted; and never cloy’d by possession.”

Henry Saint John, 1st Viscount of Bolingbroke

This spring my wife and I planted a small rain garden.  The plantings included several swamp milkweeds, the preferred plant for Monarchs to lay their eggs on.  It’s Latin name is Asclepias incarnata for the serious gardeners out there.  The other day, to our delight, we discovered a dozen monarch caterpillars denuding the milkweeds.  

It took several days for them to consume every leaf.  Fully fueled with toxic bitterness and relatively immune from predation, they slowly wandered off to other plants, leaving the bare stalks of the milkweed as testament to their presence.  One by one they moved on, rambling off into the garden seeking leaves or branches to safely transform into chrysalises.  

Within several days of the caterpillar migration, we spotted two bright green chrysalises hanging under leaves.  A third caterpillar wasn’t quite there yet. We hope that within 14 days, given the mild weather, the caterpillars will be reborn as butterflies.  A well-tended garden brings unexpected joys.

The discovery of the caterpillars reminded me of the words of Henry Saint John, that liberty is like a tender plant.  He penned these words close to 300 years ago and the metaphor could not be more relevant in our time: “liberty is a tender plant which will not flourish unless the genius of the soil be proper for it; nor will any soil continue to be so long, which is not cultivated with incessant care.”  

He wrote these words in the early 18th century, a time of upheaval in England: political factions vying for power in a deadly struggle.  He didn’t always choose wisely, backing the Stuart’s claim to the crown and the ensuing Jacobite Rebellion, ending up in exile in France for some time.  He is most famous, I think, for his essay “The Idea of a Patriot King,” arguing that a King should be above faction.

This idea of a King above faction is important in our own history. It informed how Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe, and John Quincy Adams saw the presidency.  A president above faction.  They tried mightily to be above faction, not always successfully, however.  Andrew Jackson threw the notion of a patriot president out a White House window along with the contents of a chamber pot.   

Today, we are ruled by an unsound and troubled president hell bent on hyper factionalizing our country, resorting to violence and armed soldiers patrolling city streets.   He has taken the notion of faction to new extremes in America, not seen since the late 1850s.   This includes sending the military to occupy blue cities to show his political muscle;  flaunting the rule of law; criminally investigating critics; ruling solely by dictate; musing publicly about being a dictator; rewriting our history; engaging in extrajudicial killings on the high seas off Venezuela; and setting the stage to nullify next year’s mid-term election results unfavorable to him.

Our garden of democracy needs tending.  And damn quickly.  

We must steadfastly feed and nourish our democracy.  Stay informed in the face of daily trespassing against our liberty.  Although in today’s world where most Americans get their ‘news’ through social media, ‘informed’ is perhaps obsolete.  There still are reliable news sources out there.  Social media is not one of them.  Social media is an avalanche of computer driven feeds designed to elicit clicks, rage, and profit.  Curate your news sources. Go old fashioned and read books, lots of them.  The more you read, the more you realize how little you actually know about things you thought you knew a great deal about. That’s a good thing.

We must clear out the authoritarian weeds that plague our garden of democracy.  We must elect leaders that reflect our values and are in tune with today’s generation and willing to fight.  The continual reelection of octogenarians does the party no good.  

We must go to the polls this November and elect Abigail Spanberger governor and weed out the noxious plants occupying Virginia’s governor’s mansion.  We must not just elect her but elect her in a historical landslide. We don’t want to become an autocratic state like Texas or Florida. 

We must seed our garden of democracy with plants that are robust and acclimated to our current political reality:  An opposition party bent on one-party authoritarian rule.  We can do that by supporting new faces and ideas in the Democratic party at all levels.  Starting with David Rogers who is running for the Mineral seat in our local board of supervisors.

We must amend the soil of our garden.  Get friends and family to register to vote, get them to the polls on election days.  Attend rallies or local meetings.  Donate to candidates you support.  If you can, canvas for that candidate. Volunteer with the Louisa Democrats.

We must not only resist the orange piped piper of Mar-a-Lago but fight him at every junction.  Write or call your representatives, write the Supreme Court Justices, write our governor.  Tell them your story and how you are impacted by Trump’s dangerous and illegal actions.  That food, housing, and healthcare will be unaffordable and unattainable once the full impact of Trump’s tariffs, deportation of farm and food processing workers, and regressive taxes are felt.   

Plant a garden an act of subversion against Trump’s war on climate science.  Whether you have only a south facing front door stoop, a small balcony, or quarter acre, or ten acres, plant a garden in the dirt or in pots.  Every plant you grow feeds or houses an insect or animal and soaks up carbon.  Get radical and grow a victory garden.

Our garden of democracy is in big trouble, but with our incessant care and nourishment our democracy can flourish once again.  Together we must tend the garden of democracy and create the space and time to protect and nurture liberty’s chrysalis from Trump’s insatiable drive to possess absolute power. 

Daddyism:How Conservatives Came to Hate the Nanny State but Love the Daddy State

It seems ancient history, but do you remember when conservatives blew up about being told what to eat, drink, and smoke?   In particular, New York City’s mayor Bloomberg’s public health campaign to combat obesity and heart disease.  This included limits on trans fats in foods, calorie labelling on menus, restricting smoking in restaurants and public spaces, hiking cigarette taxes, even trying to ban large sugary drinks.  Cries of excessive government intrusion into personal choice and freedoms were raised.   His public health campaign was derided as the personification of the “Nanny State,” which Cambridge Dictionary defined as “a government that tries to give too much advice or make too many laws about how people should live their lives, especially about eating, smoking, and drinking alcohol.”  Other definitions use ‘overprotective’ or ‘unduly interfering.’

In a great 2022 article in the Columbia Political Review, “The Nanny State:  A Conservative Concern or a Misogynistic Myth,” Alannis Jaquez, cogently argues that it is a misogynistic myth, concluding “If conservative politicians continue to dismiss certain policies merely because they appear to feminine, effective policies will continue to be lost.  It is only once we leave behind the language that connects the welfare state and paternalism to women and femininity that we will be able to extend beyond the limitations human prejudice poses in lawmaking.”  I think she hit the spot, especially considering more recent history.

Unsurprisingly, during the last election cycle, conservatives went full boar (no not a misspelling) on the nanny state, not only doubling down on misogynistic attacks on female candidates, particularly Harris, but going full tilt into fetishes of spanking errant girls and inventing what could only be termed the “Daddy State.”  How Epsteinian!

One only need recall Carlson Tucker’s introduction of candidate Trump at a political rally to understand the MAGA transformation into hypersexualized daddyism: “Dad comes home. He’s pissed. Dad is pissed. And when dad gets home, you know what he says? You have been a bad girl, and you’re getting a vigorous spanking because you have been a bad girl ….”   This followed shouts of ‘daddy, daddy’ at the Republican national convention.  

Fox News recently swooned over Trump’s “dad strength” following the NATO Secretary’s ill-conceived comment about ‘Daddy Trump.’  The White House even posted a video of Trump set to Usher’s sexualized “Daddy’s Home.”   Check out some of the lyrics:  “And I won’t knock, won’t ring no bells/You just float that bottom up in the air/I’ll get you hot, I know you, oh-so well/And when I walk in, all that I wanna hear.”   Given the Epstein sex trafficking and statutory rape scandal enveloping Trump, one would think the White House would avoid such postings.

This is all about sex, gender, and Patriarchy.  It is the main battleground in America’s culture wars.  For the evangelical right, it is grounded in biblical interpretations of God’s word and the reestablishment male preeminence as head of the family and government.  This is not new in American history.  It brings to mind the brutalist treatment of women suffragettes and arguments made by Southern slave holders desperate to redefine slaves as members of a broad loving family lead by a benevolent father, as the abolitionist movement gained traction in the north.  

To add complexity to this notion of patriarchy, MAGA Republicans have weirdly fetishized it, however.   This does make some sense given conservativisms long voyeuristic angst with women’s sexuality and bodies, homophobia and transgender folks.  If I were to define Daddyism it would be an American 21st century fetishized revival of patriarchy and male paternalism, white male paternalism in particular, of family and government.  

When you study Trump’s mannerisms, his dictates, his threats, his attempts to discipline and punish errant children, and his followers’ fervent shouts of daddy, his governing style comes into focus. It is extreme paternalism, it is authoritarian.  He is Pappa Don.  

What galls me the most, however, is conservatives hypocrisy.  They decry the so-called nanny state and an overbearing government, but welcome with open arms a patriarchal regime that wants to dictate practically everything in our daily lives, like a strong father is supposed to rule his family.  I welcome the quaint old days when government was interested in my health, not my reading list, not my history books, not my kids gender identity, not my daughters or wife’s body.

Remote Area Medical, Pop-up Clinics, and the Canary in Virginia’s Healthcare Mine

What awaits rural Virginians now that the big, beautiful bill is now law?  Now comes the hard part for vulnerable rural Virginians with limited incomes as safety net programs such as Medicaid, SNAP, and Medicare benefits shrink or disappear.  This is compounded by cuts in programs that provide meals to school age children whose families can’t afford to pack school lunches much less pay for the ones provided at school.  Even the anti-immigrant sentiment will have long term impacts to America’s healthcare system.  There is a tsunami of despair that will sweep rural America, compounding existing systemic troubles accessing timely health care for millions of un- or under insured Americans.

During the COVID epidemic my source for this essay – my wife – volunteered with the Remote Area Medical Volunteer Corp, a non-profit that provides dental, medical, and vision care at pop-up clinics across the U.S. (RAMUSA.org).  RAM was founded in 1985 with the mission to provide mobile clinics at remote locations outside the U.S.   It later began organizing these pop-up clinics to fill a need for underserved Americans that live in healthcare deserts.

The mobile clinics that my wife volunteered at were in Southwest Virginia.  She provided logistical support to the medical teams, such as registering patients.  Her stories are both sad and harrowing, they’re about folks that serve their communities, and the fortitude of the communities they serve. 

 At a typical pop-up clinic, the patients arrive at mid-night when they arrive at the designated facility’s grounds, such as a county fairground.  They are given a numbered ticket and asked to stay in the designated parking area overnight.  It is first-come-first-served, and the tickets go fast.  The number of tickets is based on the number of volunteer doctors, dentists, nurses, other clinicians, and administrative folks.  The administrative task of registering patients begins first around 6 the next morning.

At the mobile clinics where she volunteered, the patients represented a wide spectrum of ages and life experiences, according to my wife, but mostly 50 and up, with young adults being the second largest group.  She recalled one young family — a woman and her three kids ages from 4 to 13.  They came for dental care but were quickly referred to the medical clinic.  The youngest shaking uncontrollably.  He hadn’t eaten breakfast and when he had his last meal was anyone’s guess.    At the medical conex, the crew scrambled to get breakfast for the kids and started to gather care kits:  toothbrushes, toothpaste, soap, combs, shampoo. Their home had no running water it was learned.

For many these mobile clinics are the only healthcare they get.  The services include eye exams, and if needed glasses donated by the Lions Club; hearing tests, and if necessary, hearing aids donated by a local audiologist; dental care is provided by dentists and student volunteers from dental colleges; prescriptions (one course) and follow up care scheduling; mammograms provided in a mobile RV provided by a non-profit hospital system.  

My wife noted that many of the medical students assisting the doctors were from South Asia and the Middle East.  That is international students attending American medical universities.  More on that later.

Most patients were on or had gone off the financial precipice:  Little to no health care insurance.  Per RAM, 50 percent of their patients have no health insurance.  It’s much worse for vision and dental insurance coverage.  There were elderly on Medicare seeking care.  They could pay their premiums but could not afford the co-pays for doctor visits.  Because the payment assistance program for Medicare premiums was severely cut in the big, beautiful bill, those that could not even afford co-pays will most likely loose complete access to Medicare health insurance.  

Another lifeline for these folks is Rural Health Clinics.  Medicare Part B and Medicaid payments subsidize these clinics, but billions in cuts will mean many of these rural health clinics, to include the one in Louisa, may close, worsening the crisis in rural health care. 

As context, the federal government’s first foray into healthcare came in 1946 with the Hospital Survey and Construction Act.  By 1981 there were 3000 new healthcare facilities and an additional 6600 beds.  60 percent of those beds were in communities of less than 25,000.  Medicaid and Medicare were created in 1965 followed by the Rural Health Clinic Services Act of 1977.  These were all bipartisan Acts; however, the zenith of rural healthcare seems to have passed long ago.  The partisan big, beautiful bill guts a neglected and crumbling rural healthcare infrastructure, eventually millions will be without timely adequate healthcare.  And for what, $40 billion in migrant concentration camps and a trillion-dollar defense bill, 10,000 more ICE agents, and $3.4 trillion in tax breaks to the top 10 percent?   

Profit driven hospital systems and insurers will not fill the gap.  No profit in it for them. Sad because of the top 20 hospital systems all but one reported net revenue gains.  The top company measured in total revenue – Kaiser Permanente — reported a whooping 15 percent increase in 2024.  Some smaller companies reported even greater increases.  Net revenue from patients also grew, according to Hospistalogy.com. Interestingly, the National Association of Insurance Commissioners, reported a 14 percent decline in net income for health insurers in the first half of 2024.  On a side bar, the NAIC statistics showed that claims per month per member for Medicaid and private insurance was about the same for Individual, Group, and Medicaid:  $408, $482, $481 respectively.  Medicare claims per member per month was $1146, almost triple.  But that is to be expected from an older age group.

Another threat to America’s healthcare system in general, and for rural America in particular, is the availability of healthcare providers.  According to the Association of American Medical Colleges, about 1 in 5 physicians are foreign born.  I have read other sources that indicate 25 to 26 percent of doctors in the U.S. are from abroad.  

Importantly, these foreign born and trained doctors are more likely to serve in areas with greater poverty, according to the American Immigration Council.  The Council further stated that areas with a 30 percent poverty rate, one-third of the doctors are foreign trained.  A University of California San Diego Website reported that while 20 percent of Americans live in rural areas, only 11 percent of US doctors work in these areas, and that foreign born and trained physicians fill the shortfalls.  It’s not just physicians.  About 15 percent of nurses in America are foreign born and trained.  

The current administration’s anti-immigrant fervor against migrants, whether legal, undocumented, or adjusting status, is sending chills across the globe I would think. Many are asking (I know I would), “do I want to come to America where I am unwanted, hated, potentially abused and imprisoned because of the color of my skin and accent?”   Travel bans, blanket visa denials and revocations, potential arrest and deportation for engaging in free speech on campus, all will drive away potential medical students and foreign-born healthcare providers. Imagine the impact if America lost 15 or 20 percent of its healthcare providers?  The MAGA Ebenezer Scrooges in Congress would respond, “What, are there no funeral homes and casket makers?”

While the number of international students at American medical schools is less than 2 percent, I imagine those numbers will drop significantly.  With a shortfall of 45 to 50K doctors, America is already in a healthcare crisis mode, further reducing the flow of healthcare professionals to the U.S. will only hurt the most vulnerable.

No money, no clinics, and no doctors is what awaits rural America.  Don’t buy the bit about Medicaid scofflaws or Medicare cheaters being the problem, this is about wealth and greed, income inequality and regressive Republican tax policies.  It may take a year or two for the tsunami to reach the shores of rural America, but it is coming.  If you don’t believe me, volunteer at RAMUSA.org.  They have clinics looking for volunteers.  

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health: Fake Research Papers, Windmills, and Wildebeests

As of May 30, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Trump’s personal battle of evermore with Harvard continues, with the administration banning foreign students from enrolling at Harvard and then a federal court issuing a temporary injunction.  Trump further ordered a freeze on all federal government contracts with Harvard, putting on ice about $100 million in funds.  This includes several hundred grants for medical research.

But who cares about real medical research when you can just make it up.  Health and Human Services Secretary Kennedy released a report on Making America Healthy Again (MAHA).  The report however, is riddled with problems, primarily that many scientific studies referenced in the report do not exist.  Yes, they were made up, fabricated.  Additionally, the FDA issued a statement opining that pregnant women and healthy children do not need COVID vaccinations.  Two issues, one, normally the Centers for Disease control makes vaccination recommendations, not the FDA, and two, pregnant women are at greater risk for bad outcomes from COVID infections, the science says.  Sadly, after Kennedy’s intentions were made clear, the CDC followed suit.  So, here we have it.  Science based policy decisions are thing of the past.  It’s Kennedy’s magical mystery tour.

The Department of Justice announced FBI investigations into several old closed cases. 1) They will reinvestigate pipe bombs left at the Democratic and Republican offices on January 6, you know the day Trump attempted a coup.  Conservative conspiracy theories are that the FBI planted them.  2) The Dobbs Supreme Court leak will also be reinvestigated.  My guess the “investigative results” it will be used to impeach one of the three remaining liberal justices. 3) During the Biden administration, a bag of cocaine was found and the FBI will reopen that investigation.   This follows previous weeks of charging a democratic house member with assaulting a federal agent, dragging former FBI Director James Comey before investigators for allegedly threatening Trump by posting a number on line: 8647, and investigate New York’s Attorney General Letitia James for mortgage fraud. 

Regarding foreign affairs, the U.S. Trade Court ruled this week that Trump’s global tariff regime was unconstitutional and that he overstepped his authority to issue such blanket global tariffs.  An appeals court promptly stayed the Trade Court’s ruling until that court can weigh in early June.  I imagine it will end up in the Supreme Court. It is anyone’s guess how that will end given the court’s propensity to hand over more and broader executive powers to Trump, basically fatally undermining the fundamental structure of separate and equal branches of government.

Meanwhile, Trump in a Friday missive lashed out at China for violating a ‘trade truce’ pending resolution of negotiations, which according to America’s negotiator, has stalled.  I imagine he will have TACOs for lunch later this week. This lashing of China comes on the heels of the administrations announcement that it was reviewing visas issued to China.  Trump is reimagining the America’s 19th Century “Chinese Exclusion Act.”  

Not to be outdone, Rubio’s State Department, announced a new policy targeting foreign government official that allegedly censor social media.  The intent of the policy is to target Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Morae, who has made rulings against the social media company X and Elon Musk.  This will no doubt alienate one of our largest partners in South America.  I guess Putin and Orban and other foreign government officials that censor social media will be target.  Just joking.  

Meanwhile, after condemning social media censors, the Department of State announced a freeze on foreign student visas pending the imposition of “expanded” social media reviews to detect anti-American or antisemitic posts.   I guess our censorship is a different type of censorship, no?  

In sum, Trump is picking a fight-to-the- death confrontation with Harvard, basically summoning all the coercive control levers of federal executive power.  As I see it, Trump thinks that if he slays Harvard, the rest of academia will quickly surrender.  He may be right.  I expect him to ratchet up the pressure in the coming weeks.  

China is another case of Trump tilting at windmills.  I understand our strategic need to address China as an economic competitor – one that is kicking our butts, especially in technology – and a potential peer military opponent, but I just don’t see a comprehensive, well thought out strategy.  For instance, on one hand he said he is imposing tariffs on China (and around the world) to bring manufacturing back to America.  Yet, in the ‘big, beautiful bill,’ all the billions in investments in American clean energy domestic manufacturing is being killed.  It makes no strategic sense.  

Trump’s policies and management of foreign and domestic affairs are helter-skelter, undisciplined, score settling, and a way to line his and his family’s pockets with millions.  An like a herd of wildebeests charging headlong in to a crocodile infested river, the Republican party follows. 

Finally, so long Elon.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of May 16, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

The big issue this week was the arguments before the Supreme Court regarding the Trump’s executive order eliminating birthright citizenship.  The arguments were more about whether federal district judges can issue nationwide injunctions, or pauses, not so much the constitutionality of the executive order itself.  

The justices, from what I gathered, seemed conflicted about whether to limit federal judges ability to issue nationwide injunctions, especially if letting the law go into effect nationwide will cause great harm while the case winds its way through the courts.  I would think revoking birthright citizenship, or invoking the Alien Enemies Act, or suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus would fall into that category of immense national harm should the executive order or law be permitted to go forth while it is being fought over in the courts. 

It the Supreme Court limits nationwide injunctions, it would have to devise a clear set of rules for when a judge may order a nationwide injunction or limit the injunction to their district.  I don’t see that happening, if they do, they are crazier than I thought.  Or worse yet, rule that federal district court rulings are limited to the district in which the court resides.  There are 94 federal court districts, chaos would ensue.  

If the Court eliminates nationwide injunctions outright while the constitutionality of the law is being challenged, that would trigger the very real possibility that half the country will have one set of constitutional rights while the other half would have a different set of constitutional rights. For example, if Trump suspends the Writ of Habeas Corpus, five or six district judges may impose an injunction in their districts, but a district in Texas where an immigrant detention facility is located, may not see the suspension of the Writ as unconstitutional.  That would then permit hundreds if not thousands of deportations without due process. The harm would be immense.

In another important ruling, the Supreme Court did extend a block on deporting migrants from Texas using the Alien Enemies Act today (May 16).  Sending the case back to a lower court for additional litigation.

Republicans should be wary of Trump getting his way on this issue of nationwide injunctions and executive orders.  The next Democratic president could declare that the second amendment does not protect the manufacture or possession of AR-15 or similar type weapons.  The president could use an executive order to prohibit the possession, manufacture, sale, and transportation of these items across state lines.  

Republicans are painting themselves into a very small separation of powers corner.  Mitch McConnel basically shanked the Senate years ago.  Mike Johnson turned the House of Representatives into a spittoon full of, you know spit.  Chief Justice John Roberts, just can’t get his head out of his butt, all but declaring Trump King last term. Although, I must say, after creating this Frankenstein presidency, he is doing his best to cage the beast.

Republicans act as if the Democrats will be forever in the wilderness, a token political party for show during elections, but powerless.  If that was their goal, we shall see how they react to losing in the mid-terms and in 2028  Will they accept the outcome(s)?  And once the Democrats return to power, how can they ever, ever, claim overreach?

Amazingly, because of court action and popular backlash to the excesses of the Trump White House by DOGE — and don’t forget the tariff mess — the guard rails are bending, but still in place in some places.  Where the guardrails are missing is Congress.  They are not checking the accumulation of congressionally enumerated powers into the executive branch and seem not to have any interest in checking his power, mostly out of fear I suspect. Then again, some just that holy grail, $5 trillion in tax cuts. most of which will go to the top 1 percent (that is them and their millionaire class)

Some examples of Congressional nonfeasance revolve around Trump’s personal corruption and  profiteering from office .  For instance his ongoing attempt to accept a $400 million 747 from the Emir of Qatar for use as Air Force 1, and it being ‘decommissioned’ and transferred to his presidential library foundation following his presidency; his sale contest of  $Trump (a crypto currency) for White House tour (access?); pocketing tens of millions of dollars in crypto fees through the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial, are all examples of Republicans in Congress looking the other way while Trump engages in what appears to be unconstitutional and corrupt practices.

While there have been some tactical and strategic setbacks for Trump, as the initial 100 days passes into the next 60 days, we are not out of harms way. He will become more dangerous. And, like a trapped and cornered animal, will attack, hard and fierce.  Hang on, it will be like holding on to the ears of an angry wolf.

For a cumulative list of backsliding and erosion of our democracy, please click ‘benchmarks’ or menu above. Updates are in bold.

Tom’s Report on the State of America’s Democratic Health

As of April 18, 2025

Benchmarks of Democratic Backsliding and Erosion

Are we there yet? Have we arrived at a constitutional crisis?

This week’s actions and reporting primarily focused on two stories. The first centers on the court actions surrounding the illegal deportation of Maryland man, Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Mr. Garcia is legally permitted to remain the the U.S. but was nonetheless wrongly detained and deported to the El Salvadoran super max prison.  The U.S. Supreme Court directed the administration to ‘facilitate’ his return.  ‘Facilitate’ is a pretty poor choice.  What does making it easier even mean in the context of a court order? It’s like facilitating your child to eat broccoli.

Nevertheless. after the Supreme Court’s ruling, government lawyers balked on providing a lower court judges request for information on the government’s plans to return Garcia and his status. The following day or so, during a visit by the El Salvadoran President Bukele to the White House on April 24, Bukele stated he won’t return the Garcia. This all played out before TV cameras during a press event with Buckle. Trump directed a reporter’s question regarding Garcia and the Supreme Court ruling to Attorney General Bondi, who said was it was up to the El Salvadorian President. Taking his cue, Buckle said he didn’t have the power to release Garcia. Sitting to his left was Trump, who smirked like the woman in the Mona Lisa. I was shocked, shocked, given that Buckle was dressed worse than Zelenskyy, he would have been badgered, attacked, and humiliated.

Given the governments failure to adhere to instructions, the judge stated that there is “probable cause” that the government is in criminal contempt of the court. That is serious. Here is the thing however. Should the judge impose a penalty, for instance sending someone to jail, the US Marshal Service would be the ones making the arrest. The Marshals work for the Department of Justice and the Attorney General. Basically, the courts can’t really enforce their rulings. It needs the Executive Department in general, and in particular the Department of Justice regarding criminal matters, to enforce the rulings.

That is the crux of a constitutional crisis we now faces. James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers that the Constitution was a parchment barrier, highlighting is takes acts of good faith for the constitution to survive. If the President and Executive Department does not act in good faith, then the barrier is broken.

The second issue is the battle between Harvard and Trump and his administration regarding funding pauses to the university and a list of demands in how the university operates. The good news is that Harvard pushed back at Trump. This is a pivot point. Below is a copy of the letter. The government now claims the letter was sent in error. Hmmm.

Dr. Alan M. Garber President
Harvard University Office of the President Massachusetts Hall Cambridge, MA 02138

Penny Pritzker
Lead Member, Harvard Corporation Harvard Corporation
Massachusetts Hall
Cambridge, MA 02138

Dear Dr. Garber:

April 11, 2025

The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement. It depends on Harvard upholding federal civil rights laws, and it only makes sense if Harvard fosters the kind of environment that produces intellectual creativity and scholarly rigor, both of which are antithetical to ideological capture.

Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment. But we appreciate your expression of commitment to repairing those failures and welcome your collaboration in restoring the University to its promise. We therefore present the below provisions as the basis for an agreement in principle that will maintain Harvard’s financial relationship with the federal government.

If acceptable to Harvard, this document will constitute an agreement in principle, which the parties will work in good faith to translate into a more thorough, binding settlement agreement. As you will see, this letter incorporates and supersedes the terms of the federal government’s prior letter of April 3, 2025.

● Governance and leadership reforms. By August 2025, Harvard must make meaningful governance reform and restructuring to make possible major change consistent with this letter, including: fostering clear lines of authority and accountability; empowering tenured professors and senior leadership, and, from among the tenured professoriate and senior leadership, exclusively those most devoted to the scholarly mission of the University and committed to the changes indicated in this letter; reducing the power held by students and untenured faculty; reducing the power held by faculty (whether tenured or untenured) and administrators more committed to activism than scholarship; and reducing forms of

governance bloat, duplication, or decentralization that interfere with the possibility of the reforms indicated in this letter.

  • ●  Merit-Based Hiring Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based hiring policies, and cease all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin throughout its hiring, promotion, compensation, and related practices among faculty, staff, and leadership. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All existing and prospective faculty shall be reviewed for plagiarism and Harvard’s plagiarism policy consistently enforced. All hiring and related data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.
  • ●  Merit-Based Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and cease all preferences based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof, throughout its undergraduate program, each graduate program individually, each of its professional schools, and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes. All admissions data shall be shared with the federal government and subjected to a comprehensive audit by the federal government—and non-individualized, statistical information regarding admissions shall be made available to the public, including information about rejected and admitted students broken down by race, color, national origin, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests—during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028. During this same period, the dean of admissions for each program or school must sign a public statement after each admissions cycle certifying that these rules have been upheld.
  • ●  International Admissions Reform. By August 2025, the University must reform its recruitment, screening, and admissions of international students to prevent admitting students hostile to the American values and institutions inscribed in the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, including students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism. Harvard will immediately report to federal authorities, including the Department of Homeland Security and State Department, any foreign student, including those on visas and with green cards, who commits a conduct violation. As above, these reforms must be durable and demonstrated through structural and personnel changes; comprehensive throughout all of Harvard’s programs; and, during the reform period, shared with the federal government for audit, shared on a non-individualized basis with the public, and certified by deans of admissions.
  • ●  Viewpoint Diversity in Admissions and Hiring. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit the student body, faculty, staff, and leadership for viewpoint diversity, such that each department, field, or teaching unit must be individually viewpoint diverse. This audit shall begin no later than the summer of 2025 and shall proceed on a department-by-department, field-by-field, or teaching-unit-by-teaching-unit basis as appropriate. The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and

the federal government no later than the end of 2025. Harvard must abolish all criteria, preferences, and practices, whether mandatory or optional, throughout its admissions and hiring practices, that function as ideological litmus tests. Every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity; every teaching unit found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by admitting a critical mass of students who will provide viewpoint diversity. If the review finds that the existing faculty in the relevant department or field are not capable of hiring for viewpoint diversity, or that the relevant teaching unit is not capable of admitting a critical mass of students with diverse viewpoints, hiring or admissions within that department, field, or teaching unit shall be transferred to the closest cognate department, field, or teaching unit that is capable of achieving viewpoint diversity. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to establish viewpoint diversity every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Reforming Programs with Egregious Records of Antisemitism or Other Bias. By August 2025, the University shall commission an external party, which shall satisfy the federal government as to its competence and good faith, to audit those programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.

o The programs, schools, and centers of concern include but are not limited to the Divinity School, Graduate School of Education, School of Public Health, Medical School, Religion and Public Life Program, FXB Center for Health & Human Rights, Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Carr Center for Human Rights at the Harvard Kennedy School, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Cultures, and the Harvard Law School International Human Rights Clinic.

o The report of the external party shall include information as to individual faculty members who discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students or incited students to violate Harvard’s rules following October 7, and the University and federal government will cooperate to determine appropriate sanctions for those faculty members within the bounds of academic freedom and the First Amendment.

o The report of the external party shall be submitted to University leadership and the federal government no later than the end of 2025 and reforms undertaken to repair the problems. This audit shall be performed and the same steps taken to make repairs every year during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028.

● Discontinuation of DEI. The University must immediately shutter all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives, under whatever name, and stop all DEI-based policies, including DEI-based disciplinary or speech control policies, under whatever name; demonstrate that it has done so to the satisfaction of the federal government; and demonstrate to the satisfaction of the federal government that these reforms are durable and effective through structural and personnel changes. By August

2025, the University must submit to the government a report—certified for accuracy—that confirms these reforms.

● Student Discipline Reform and Accountability. Harvard must immediately reform its student discipline policies and procedures so as to swiftly and transparently enforce its existing disciplinary policies with consistency and impartiality, and without double standards based on identity or ideology. Where those policies are insufficient to prevent the disruption of scholarship, classroom learning and teaching, or other aspects of normal campus life, Harvard must develop and implement disciplinary policies sufficient to prevent those disruptions. This includes but is not limited to the following:

o Discipline at Harvard must include immediate intervention and stoppage of disruptions or deplatforming, including by the Harvard police when necessary to stop a disruption or deplatforming; robust enforcement and reinstatement of existing time, place, and manner rules on campus, including ordering the Harvard police to stop incidents that violate time, place, and manner rules when necessary; a disciplinary process housed in one body that is accountable to Harvard’s president or other capstone official; and removing or reforming institutional bodies and practices that delay and obstruct enforcement, including the relevant Administrative Boards and FAS Faculty Council.

o Harvard must adopt a new policy on student groups or clubs that forbids the recognition and funding of, or provision of accommodations to, any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment; invites non-students onto campus who regularly violate campus rules; or acts as a front for a student club that has been banned from campus. The leaders or organizers of recognized and unrecognized student groups that violate these policies must be held accountable as a matter of student discipline and made ineligible to serve as officers in other recognized student organizations. In the future, funding decisions for student groups or clubs must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty accountable to senior University leadership. In particular, Harvard must end support and recognition of those student groups or clubs that engaged in anti-Semitic activity since October 7th, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Harvard Graduates Students 4 Palestine, Law Students 4 Palestine, Students for Justice in Palestine, and the National Lawyers Guild, and discipline and render ineligible the officers and active members of those student organizations.

o Harvard must implement a comprehensive mask ban with serious and immediate penalties for violation, not less than suspension.

o Harvard must investigate and carry out meaningful discipline for all violations that occurred during the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 academic years, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-in of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024. This must include permanently expelling the students involved in the October 18 assault of an Israeli

Harvard Business School student, and suspending students involved in occupying university buildings, as warranted by the facts of individual cases.

o The Harvard president and police chief must publicly clarify that the Harvard University Police Department will enforce University rules and the law. Harvard must also commit to cooperating in good faith with law enforcement.

  • ●  Whistleblower Reporting and Protections. The University must immediately establish procedures by which any Harvard affiliate can report noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this letter to both university leadership and the federal government. Any such reporter shall be fully protected from any adverse actions for so reporting.
  • ●  Transparency and Monitoring. The University shall make organizational changes to ensure full transparency and cooperation with all federal regulators. No later than June 30, 2025, and every quarter thereafter during the period in which reforms are being implemented, which shall be at least until the end of 2028, the University shall submit to the federal government a report—certified for accuracy—that documents its progress on the implementation of the reforms detailed in this letter. The University must also, to the satisfaction of the federal government, disclose the source and purpose of all foreign funds; cooperate with the federal government in a forensic audit of foreign funding sources and uses, including how that money was used by Harvard, its agents, and, to the extent available, third parties acting on Harvard’s campus; report all requested immigration and related information to the United States Department of Homeland Security; and comply with all requirements relating to the SEVIS system.We expect your immediate cooperation in implementing these critical reforms that will enable Harvard to return to its original mission of innovative research and academic excellence.

page5image1661371632

You can review the cumulative list of democratic backsliding and erosion by clicking on the menu button or Benchmarks button above. Til next week.

Legal Challenges to Alien Enemies Act of 1798 Not Subject to Judicial Review Supreme Court Rules

On April 7, the Supreme Court sided with Trump regarding the constitutionality of using the Alien Enemies Act to deport Venezuelans associated with a criminal gang designated a foreign terrorist organization by, guess who, Trump.  Incredibly, the Court basically held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Let me say that again, the Court held that government acts under the Alien Enemies Act are largely not subject to judicial review.  Below is a summary of the key points and below that the Court’s ruling:

  • The plaintiffs according to the Court used the wrong argument.  The plaintiffs challenged the government’s “interpretation” of the Alien Enemies Act.  Citing a 1948 case, the Court stated that Alien Enemies Act is largely not subject to judicial review, or as they wrote, “preclude[s] judicial review.  
  • Instead, the plaintiffs should have used the Writ of Habeas Corpus (see earlier blog post on Habeas Corpus), which they did initially, but changed their argument, according to the Court.
  • The Court also removed the US District Court, Washington DC, from jurisdiction to hear the case.  Stating that challenges must be heard in the district of confinement.  Note not arrest, but confinement. In this case Texas, the epitome of fairness and equity and liberal jurisprudence.
  • The Court did say that detainees detention must have some ‘judicial review’ and must be given notice of deportation and that they be afforded an “opportunity to be heard.” 

Per Curiam

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

No. 24A931 _________________

DONALD J. TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, ET AL. v. J. G. G., ET AL.

ON APPLICATION TO VACATE THE ORDERS ISSUED BY THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

[April 7, 2025]

PER CURIAM. 

This matter concerns the detention and removal of Venezuelan nationals believed to be members of Tren de Aragua (TdA), an entity that the State Department has designated as a foreign terrorist organization. See 90 Fed. Reg. 10030 (2025). The President issued Proclamation No. 10903, invoking the Alien Enemies Act (AEA), Rev. Stat. §4067, 50 U. S. C. §21, to detain and remove Venezuelan nationals “who are members of TdA.” Invocation of the Alien Enemies Act Regarding the Invasion of the United States by Tren de Aragua, 90 Fed. Reg. 13034. Five detainees and a putative class sought injunctive and declaratory relief against the implementation of, and their removal under, the Proclamation. Initially, the detainees sought relief in habeas among other causes of action, but they dismissed their habeas claims. On March 15, 2025, the District Court for the District of Columbia issued two temporary restraining orders (TROs) preventing any removal of the named plaintiffs and preventing removal under the AEA of a pro- visionally certified class consisting of “[a]ll noncitizens in U.S. custody who are subject to” the Proclamation. Minute Order on Motion To Certify Class in No. 25−cv−00766. On March 28, the District Court extended the TROs for up to an additional 14 days. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 65(b)(2). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). The D. C. Circuit denied the Government’s emergency motion to stay the orders. The Government then applied to this Court, seeking vacatur of the orders. We construe these TROs as appealable injunctions. See Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U. S. 79, 84 (1981). 

We grant the application and vacate the TROs. The detainees seek equitable relief against the implementation of the Proclamation and against their removal under the AEA. They challenge the Government’s interpretation of the Act and assert that they do not fall within the category of re- movable alien enemies. But we do not reach those arguments. Challenges to removal under the AEA, a statute which largely “‘preclude[s] judicial review,’” Ludecke v. Watkins, 335 U. S. 160, 163−164, (1948), must be brought in habeas. Cf. Heikkila v. Barber, 345 U. S. 229, 234−235 (1953) (holding that habeas was the only cause of action available to challenge deportation under immigration statutes that “preclud[ed] judicial intervention” beyond what was necessary to vindicate due process rights). Regardless of whether the detainees formally request release from confinement, because their claims for relief “ ‘necessarily imply the invalidity’ ” of their confinement and removal under the AEA, their claims fall within the “core” of the writ of habeas corpus and thus must be brought in habeas. Cf. Nance v. Ward, 597 U. S. 159, 167 (2022) (quoting Heck v. Humph- rey, 512 U. S. 477, 487 (1994)). And “immediate physical release [is not] the only remedy under the federal writ of habeas corpus.” Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 67 (1968); see, e.g., Nance, 597 U. S., at 167 (explaining that a capital pris- oner may seek “to overturn his death sentence” in habeas by “analog[y]” to seeking release); In re Bonner, 151 U. S. 242, 254, 259 (1894). For “core habeas petitions,” “jurisdiction lies in only one district: the district of confinement.” Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U. S. 426, 443 (2004). The detain- ees are confined in Texas, so venue is improper in the District of Columbia. As a result, the Government is likely to succeed on the merits of this action.
The detainees also sought equitable relief against summary removal. Although judicial review under the AEA is limited, we have held that an individual subject to detention and removal under that statute is entitled to “‘judicial review’ ” as to “questions of interpretation and constitutionality” of the Act as well as whether he or she “is in fact an alien enemy fourteen years of age or older.” Ludecke, 335 U. S., at 163−164, 172, n. 17. (Under the Proclamation, the term “alien enemy” is defined to include “all Venezuelan citizens 14 years of age or older who are members of TdA, are within the United States, and are not actually naturalized or lawful permanent residents of the United States.” 90 Fed. Reg. 13034.) The detainees’ rights against summary removal, however, are not currently in dispute. The Government expressly agrees that “TdA members subject to removal under the Alien Enemies Act get judicial review.” Reply in Support of Application To Vacate 1. “It is well established that the Fifth Amendment entitles aliens to due process of law” in the context of removal proceedings. Reno v. Flores, 507 U. S. 292, 306 (1993). So, the detainees are entitled to notice and opportunity to be heard “appropriate to the nature of the case.” Mullane v. Central Hanover Bank & Trust Co., 339 U. S. 306, 313 (1950). More specifically, in this context, AEA detainees must receive notice af- ter the date of this order that they are subject to removal under the Act. The notice must be afforded within a rea- sonable time and in such a manner as will allow them to actually seek habeas relief in the proper venue before such removal occurs. 

For all the rhetoric of the dissents, today’s order and per curiam confirm that the detainees subject to removal orders under the AEA are entitled to notice and an opportunity to challenge their removal. The only question is which court will resolve that challenge. For the reasons set forth, we hold that venue lies in the district of confinement. The dissents would have the Court delay resolving that issue, requiring—given our decision today—that the process begin anew down the road. We see no benefit in such wasteful delay. 

The application to vacate the orders of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia presented to THE CHIEF JUSTICE and by him referred to the Court is granted. The March 15, 2025 minute orders granting a temporary restraining order and March 28, 2025 extension of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, case No. 1:25-cv-766, are vacated. 

It is so ordered.