NAACP-US.org/noICE

AED | United Arab Emirates DirhamAFN | Afghan AfghaniALL | Albanian LekAMD | Armenian DramANG | Netherlands Antillean GuilderAOA | Angolan KwanzaARS | Argentine PesoAUD | Australian DollarAWG | Aruban FlorinAZN | Azerbaijani ManatBAM | Bosnia-Herzegovina Convertible MarkBBD | Barbados DollarBDT | Bangladeshi TakaBGN | Bulgarian LevBHD | Bahraini DinarBIF | Burundian FrancBMD | Bermudian DollarBND | Brunei DollarBOB | Bolivian BolivianoBRL | Brazilian RealBSD | Bahamian DollarBTN | Bhutanese NgultrumBWP | Botswanan PulaBZD | Belize DollarCAD | Canadian DollarCDF | Congolese FrancCHF | Swiss FrancCLF | Unidad de FomentoCLP | Chilean PesoCNH | Chinese YuanCNY | Chinese YuanCOP | Colombian PesoCRC | Costa Rican ColónCUC | Cuban Convertible PesoCUP | Cuban PesoCVE | Cape Verdean EscudoCZK | Czech Republic KorunaDJF | Djiboutian FrancDKK | Danish KroneDOP | Dominican PesoDZD | Algerian DinarEGP | Egyptian PoundERN | Eritrean NakfaETB | Ethiopian BirrEUR | EuroFJD | Fiji DollarFKP | Falkland Islands PoundGBP | British Pound SterlingGEL | Georgian LariGGP | Guernsey PoundGHS | Ghanaian CediGIP | Gibraltar PoundGMD | Gambian DalasiGNF | Guinean FrancGTQ | Guatemalan QuetzalGYD | Guyanese DollarHKD | Hong Kong DollarHNL | Honduran LempiraHTG | Haitian GourdeHUF | Hungarian ForintIDR | Indonesian RupiahILS | Israeli New SheqelIMP | Isle of Man PoundINR | Indian RupeeIQD | Iraqi DinarIRR | Iranian RialISK | Icelandic KrónaJEP | Jersey PoundJMD | Jamaican DollarJOD | Jordanian DinarJPY | Japanese YenKES | Kenyan ShillingKGS | Kyrgyzstani SomKHR | Cambodian RielKMF | Comorian FrancKPW | North Korean WonKRW | South Korean WonKWD | Kuwaiti DinarKYD | Caymanian DollarKZT | Kazakhstani TengeLAK | Lao KipLBP | Lebanese PoundLKR | Sri Lankan RupeeLRD | Liberian DollarLSL | Basotho LotiLYD | Libyan DinarMAD | Moroccan DirhamMDL | Moldovan LeuMGA | Malagasy AriaryMKD | Macedonian DenarMMK | Myanma KyatMNT | Mongolian TögrögMOP | Macanese PatacaMUR | Mauritian RupeeMVR | Maldivian RufiyaaMWK | Malawian KwachaMXN | Mexican PesoMYR | Malaysian RinggitMZN | Mozambican MeticalNAD | Namibian DollarNGN | Nigerian NairaNIO | Nicaraguan CórdobaNOK | Norwegian KroneNPR | Nepalese RupeeNZD | New Zealand DollarOMR | Omani RialPAB | Panamanian BalboaPEN | Peruvian Nuevo SolPGK | Papua New Guinean KinaPHP | Philippine PesoPKR | Pakistani RupeePLN | Polish ZlotyPYG | Paraguayan GuaraniQAR | Qatari RialRON | Romanian LeuRSD | Serbian DinarRUB | Russian RubleRWF | Rwandan FrancSAR | Saudi RiyalSBD | Solomon Islands DollarSCR | Seychelles RupeeSDG | Sudanese PoundSEK | Swedish KronaSGD | Singapore DollarSHP | Saint Helena PoundSLL | Sierra Leonean LeoneSOS | Somali ShillingSRD | Surinamese DollarSSP | South Sudanese PoundSTD | São Tomé and Príncipe DobraSVC | Salvadoran ColónSYP | Syrian PoundSZL | Swazi LilangeniTHB | Thai BahtTJS | Tajikistani SomoniTMT | Turkmenistan ManatTND | Tunisian DinarTOP | Tongan PaʻangaTRY | Turkish LiraTTD | Trinidad and Tobago DollarTWD | New Taiwan DollarTZS | Tanzanian ShillingUAH | Ukrainian HryvniaUGX | Ugandan ShillingUSD | US DollarUYU | Uruguayan PesoUZS | Uzbekistan SomVND | Vietnamese DongVUV | Vanuatu VatuWST | Samoan TalaXAF | CFA Franc BEACXCD | East Caribbean DollarXDR | Special Drawing RightsXOF | CFA Franc BCEAOXPF | CFP FrancYER | Yemeni RialZAR | South African RandZWL | Zimbabwean Dollar

Give any amount to help cover shipping, and we’ll send you the NAACP No ICE magnet today!

NAACP is the counter-offensive to defend American democracy on every front, and we will always stand with those targeted and terrorized.

We are fighting against an all-out assault on our safety and freedoms. Now we have a target on our back. To remain effective advocates for Americans across the country, we need your support today!

❤️ Make an Impact Today!

Give once Monthly Choose an amount to donate One-time $25 $50 Suggested $100 $200 $300 $500

$USD Choose an amount

{{ Non-profit name }} is a 501(c)3 tax-exempt organization, and your donation is tax deductible within the guidelines of U.S. law.

Activity

Add a comment…

Melissa Hutchinson 4m4 minutes ago

Donated $100.00 to No ICE Magnet by Mail.0

L Hinkel 8m8 minutes ago

Donated $100.00 to No ICE Magnet by Mail and generously covered the fees.0

Ricardo Graham 16m16 minutes ago

Donated $100.00 to No ICE Magnet by Mail and generously covered the fees.0

James Wittenberg 29m29 minutes ago

Donated $25.00 to No ICE Magnet by Mail and generously covered the fees.0CommentShow more

Why Your Support Matters

The NAACP is fighting against an all-out assault on our safety and freedoms. Now we have a target on our back. If we are to remain effective advocates for Americans across the country, we need your support today!

FUEL THE FIGHT TO PROTECT BLACK COMMUNITIES!Share

Frequently asked questions

Is my donation secure?

Do I get a receipt?

How is my personal data handled?

Is my donation tax-deductable?

NAACP Empowerment Programs, Inc.
4805 Mt. Hope Drive
Baltimore, MD 21215 USPrivacy Policy

Donor Supportdevelopment@naacpnet.org

Copyright © 2026 • All rights reserved • Privacy Notice • Terms of Service

Go to: https://naacp-us.org.noICE

‘We reject this’: Hundreds in S.F. march against U.S.-Israeli attacks on Iran

By Lucy Hodgman, Staff Writer Feb 28, 2026 (SFChronicle.com)

Gift Article

Jim Martinez, left, and hundreds of other protesters outside the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building in San Francisco rally Saturday against the attacks on Iran by the United States and Israel.Manuel Orbegozo/For the S.F. Chronicle

Less than 24 hours after the United States and Israel launched a wave of missile strikes against Iran, hundreds of protesters blocked off a downtown San Francisco street Saturday to demonstrate against escalation abroad. 

Tensions between the U.S. and Iran have risen sharply in recent weeks, culminating in President Donald Trump’s Saturday announcement that the latest attacks had killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Democratic Party leaders, while also sharply critical of Khamenei’s regime, were quick to condemn the intervention as an illegal overstep.

Iranian American demonstrator Yasmine Mortazavi said she had been anxiously reading the news morning and night, waiting for “something like this to happen.” Mortazavi is a member of the Party for Socialism and Liberation, which joined the overnight, multigroup scramble to organize the protest after news of the airstrikes broke. 

“Today is the day the war started,” Mortazavi said. “I don’t think I was completely shocked, but I’ve felt a little bit numb.”

Protesters in San Francisco march against the United States and Israel attacks on Iran

Protesters march down Market Street in San Francisco on Saturday in response to the U.S. attacks on Iran.Manuel Orbegozo / For the S.F. Chronicle

She added that the size and diversity of Saturday’s protest was a testament to Americans’ general opposition to war abroad. The protesters outside the Speaker Nancy Pelosi Federal Building included young children in strollers, older couples and college students. They waved Palestinian flags and passed out literature for local political candidates, chanting “Bombing Iran is a crime” and “No boots on the ground, no bombs in the air.” 

Dina Saadeh, an organizer with the Palestinian Youth Movement, told the Chronicle that organizers selected the federal building as the site of the demonstration so their voices would be better heard by lawmakers, both in Washington, D.C., and at home in the Bay Area. 

“We’re sending a clear message to our elected officials, even the political elite here in S.F.,” Saadeh said. “We reject the rampant imperialism that they serve to gain from. … People here are engineering a better world simply by showing up and saying, ‘We reject this.’”

A broadly anti-Trump sentiment loomed over the event: Many protesters carried “ICE out” signs, and one man wore an oversize Trump mask and carried a sign reading “War is peace.” But demonstrators were also wary of Democratic leaders, who they said had failed to condemn the Israeli government more strongly amid its ongoing conflict in Gaza. 

As they marched from the federal building down Market Street, protesters stopped to boo and chant “shame” outside the Golden Gate Theater, where California Gov. Gavin Newsom appeared that night for a discussion of his new memoir. Newsom, who has long been floated as a likely 2028 presidential candidate, condemned the airstrikes and said in a statement that Trump is “putting Americans at risk abroad because he is unpopular at home.”

Edward Hasbrouck, 66, attended Saturday’s demonstration with the same “Don’t invade Iran” poster he took to protests in the wake of the 1979 Iranian Revolution, in which the U.S.-back shah was overthrown and replaced with an Islamic ayatollah. The marker-drawn poster has been in Hasbrouck’s basement for decades, he said — and the fact that he’s had to break it out regularly over the years proves to him that the issue goes beyond either major political party.

“Getting rid of Trump isn’t going to be enough,” Hasbrouck said. “We’re still going to need a peace movement, and we still need to be here to get the Democrats to recognize that war is not popular. Part of their opposition should be taking a stand for peace.”

Feb 28, 2026

Lucy Hodgman

Staff writer

Lucy Hodgman is a Hearst Fellow on the Climate Team at the San Francisco Chronicle, covering seismic building issues, homeowners insurance and breaking energy and environment news. She previously covered politics for the Times Union, in Albany, New York, and breaking news for Politico and the Sacramento Bee. 

Originally from Brooklyn, Lucy graduated from Yale University with a degree in English. Reach her at lucy.hodgman@hearst.com.

Block’s massive cuts stoke fears about AI’s effects on employment

A year of scandals forced a shift in values for the tech industry (copy)
In a post on social-media site X, Block CEO Jack Dorsey — seen in 2021 — attributed layoffs announced this week to the company’s adoption and use of artificial-intelligence tools.Alfonso Duran © 2021 The New York Times Company

In announcing mass layoffs this week, Block seemingly validated a fear many people have been facing lately — that artificial intelligence is going to replace human workers. 

The Oakland-based financial-services company said Thursday it plans to cut more than 40% of its 10,000-plus workers. In a letter to shareholders, CEO Jack Dorsey pointed directly at AI as the reason for the cuts. 

AI-powered tools are increasingly useful, Dorsey said. Using those tools, he said, smaller teams of employees than in the past can do better and more productive work — and over the coming year, a “majority of companies” are likely to make the same discovery and follow Blox’s lead. 

“I don’t think we’re early to this realization,” Dorsey said. “I think most companies are late.”

At least since OpenAI released ChatGPT in late 2022 and demonstrated the power of generative AI systems, tech CEOs, social commentators, politicians and others have been predicting that mass adoption of the technology will lead to massive job losses.

To date, though, the evidence has been mixed at best. Unemployment is up among recent college graduates — particularly those who studied computer science, a trend some analysts have attributed to AI displacing entry-level workers.

While companies have been linking job cuts they were making to to AI, the standard line for many — including companies such as Pinterest and Amazon — was that they were cutting staff to invest in AI, not using the technology to replace workers.

One of the few companies that explicitly said it was replacing workers with AI — online banking company Klarna, which took aim at its customer-service staff — quickly walked that back after seeing the quality of its customer interactions decline.

Meanwhile, a study by a University of Chicago researcher found AI had no effect on pay or hours worked among people in Denmark working in what were considered to be vulnerable professions. 

But the layoffs at Block could indicate things are about to change — and that AI might soon have a much more pronounced effect on employment.

Formerly named Square — the brand name it still uses for its popular point-of-sale system — San Francisco-based Block is well known for its payment card readers used by small merchants. The company went fully remote during the COVID-19 pandemic and designated an office in Oakland as its headquarters purely for regulatory purposes.

As of the end of last year, it had 10,205 employees, according to its latest annual report. While 2,472 of its workers were based outside the U.S., it’s unclear how many are still in San Francisco or the Bay Area.

Block announced Thursday it plans to cut more than 4,000 of its global employees. The company didn’t say how many of those affected by the cuts are based locally. As of Friday morning, the state Employment Development Department had not received any layoff notifications from Block regarding cuts in San Francisco or elsewhere in California.

In a post on the social-media platform X, Dorsey wrote that he was making the cuts was because “something has changed.” The AI tools the company is using and developing have “fundamentally” altered “what it means to build and run a company. and that’s accelerating rapidly,” he wrote. 

Block representatives did not respond to an email seeking comment about the cuts.

But there’s reason to be skeptical about Dorsey’s claims.

The cuts came as Block reported that its sales were flat last year and its profit fell by more than half to $1.3 billion. They also came as its stock price had declined 16% over the preceding year. 

Dorsey, though, insisted the cuts were not in response to financial pressures. 

“We’re not making this decision because we’re in trouble,” he wrote in his post on X. “Our business is strong … we continue to serve more and more customers.”

Dorsey and Block also did not disclose what positions the company is cutting or whether the layoffs are focused on particular departments. That makes it impossible to know from the outside whether the company sees the technology gaining traction with specific kinds of tasks or workloads.

The capabilities of AI software-coding tools appear to have jumped significantly in recent months, said James Landay, a professor in Stanford’s computer-science department and the co-director of the Stanford Institute for Human-Centered AI. Some startups and founders have shown they can use new AI tools to quickly create prototypes and become more productive, he said. 

But many companies have found they can’t just easily plug in AI and improve productivity or replace workers, Landay said. Instead, he said, many are discovering that they have to spend a lot of time and effort to redesign their roles and processes to accommodate the technology — and even then, success isn’t certain.

“We don’t really know which of these things are going to work and which ones are going to be digitization-AI failures as they find it harder to replace people than they thought,” he said. 

In his X post, Dorsey himself seemed to suggest that Block wasn’t entirely certain how its move to replace AI with workers will turn out, Landay said. In the post, Dorsey acknowledged that the move came with “risk” and that Block might have “gotten some of [the cuts] wrong. 

He also announced fairly generous severance packages that include a base of 20 weeks’ pay plus an additional week for each year of service at the company.

“It almost feels like they’re cutting way deeper than they need to, and then they’re going to see, ‘Where did we mess up?’ and then bring people back,” Landay said. 

If you have a tip about tech, startups or the venture industry, contact Troy Wolverton at twolverton@sfexaminer.com or via text or Signal at (415) 515-5594.

A leaked roster of 2,200 Bohemian Grove members

The full 2023 retreat member list was published by an independent journalist. Many, many Bay Area pooh-bahs are on it.

A narrow asphalt road surrounded by dense trees on both sides has two yellow signs stating "Not a Through Road."
The road that leads to the secretive campground of the Bohemian Grove in Sonoma. | Source:Kimberly White/Bloomberg via Getty Images

By Emily DreyfussRya Jetha, and Max Harrison-Caldwell Published Feb. 25, 2026 • sfstandard.com

What do Paul PelosiJimmy BuffettConan O’BrienMichael Bloomberg, and Eric Schmidt have in common? They were all members of the ultra-secretive, men-only Bohemian Grove society as recently as 2023.

We know this because independent journalist Daniel Boguslaw obtained the Bohemian Grove camp membership list for that year and published it Wednesday on Substack(opens in new tab). In doing so, Boguslaw joins the rarified ranks of reporters who have succeeded in shedding light on the world’s most secretive redwood grove. Reached for comment, one club member confirmed it is a real membership list from 2023.

Since the 1980s, journalists have been trying to get inside the Bohemian Grove campground in Monte Rio in Sonoma County by posing as waiters, lost hikers, and guests. San Francisco-based magazine Mother Jones was the first to succeed, publishing an inside scoop(opens in new tab) in 1981 that described the club as the place where “men who make decisions that affect us all gather quietly.” Alex Jones famously managed to film a ceremony at the grove that fueled conspiracy theories for decades. Vanity Fair reporter Alex Shoumatoff was arrested(opens in new tab) after posing as a member in 2008. And in 2018, Outside magazine reporter Chris Colin was threatened by Bohemian Grove security(opens in new tab) simply for kayaking up to the high water line of the compound’s beach along the Russian River.

Boguslaw didn’t pull any of those tricks. He obtained the list in 2024 by pestering a San Francisco club member.

“I went to this person’s office for a week straight,” Boguslaw said. He had driven to the Bay Area from Massachusetts after getting his hands on a 2017 attendance list, he said, and stayed in a Tenderloin single-room-occupancy hotel while he hounded the local member.

Weeks passed, and he found longer-term lodging in West Oakland. One night, while he was drinking at Eli’s Mile High Club, a courier appeared with two manila envelopes.

Inside was the 2023 camp membership list. This does not necessarily represent the full membership to the club, which meets at a building in San Francisco. Bohemian Club spokesperson Sam Singer said the club is private and does not disclose its list of members or guests.

Boguslaw’s story was supposed to run in The Intercept, but the outlet got cold feet, he said. The Intercept did not respond to a request for comment. 

“They spiked it in this really stupid way,” he said. “They were so freaked out.” 

This, too, has a long tradition. In 1991, People magazine reportedly killed(opens in new tab) a story about Bohemian Grove by San Francisco bureau chief Dirk Mathison, who had hiked into the secretive compound. He was recognized by an executive from Time Warner, the magazine’s parent company, who promptly axed his story.

Boguslaw isn’t worried about blowback. “I’m confident in my reporting, and I’d like to see them try to fuck with me,” he said.

The 2023 camp membership list (published below) contains around 2,200 people, many of whom are not well known. As far as celebrities go, you’ve got Florida man Jimmy Buffett, documentarian Ken Burns, and the actor Jim Belushi. Henry Kissinger, to absolutely no one’s surprise, was a member. Then there are the famously rich people: Mike Bloomberg and Charles Koch, in particular.

But most members are rich people you’ve never heard of, politicians you’ve maybe seen on CSPAN, and a smattering of scientists and cultural figures thrown in to make good on the “Bohemian” part of the group’s name. Perhaps unsurprising for a boys club filled with powerful American elites, the most common first names to appear are John (128 times), Robert (115), William (85), James (84), and David (75). 

Here, we highlight the Bohemian Grove members with the strongest San Francisco ties, broken down by industry. There are notably fewer tech industry people than one might have expected. This is a list of old money and power. The names are divided into “camps,” which a source tells us are like fraternities; people in the same camp party together during visits to the compound. 

We reached out to some of these people for comment; none responded. It’s against the rules of the club to discuss members, their guests or any club-related activities with the press. But if you’re on this list and want to share your thoughts on this leak, please get in touch.

Politics

Carlos Bea (Tarry Town), judge at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, based in San Francisco.

Paul Pelosi (Stowaway), venture capitalist and husband of Rep. Nancy Pelosi; longtime San Francisco resident and businessman.

More aboutMoguls

Bobby Inman (Hillside), retired four-star admiral and former NSA director; significant ties to the Bay Area defense and intelligence community.

Edwin Meese III (Cave Man), U.S. attorney general under Reagan; fellow at Stanford’s Hoover Institution.

Sam Singer (Interlude), president of PR and crisis communications firm Singer Associates; has represented clients including Garry Tan, Chevron, BART, and, we learned today, the Bohemian Club. 

Tech

Eric Schmidt (Aviary), former Google CEO and executive chairman of Alphabet; CEO of aerospace manufacturing company Relativity Space. Among the richest people in the world. 

Brook H. Byers (Hill Billies), senior partner at Kleiner Perkins; early Silicon Valley investor in biotech companies and longtime Stanford University benefactor.

Business and Finance

Riley and Gary Bechtel (Mandalay and Care Less), billionaire heirs to the Bechtel fortune who party in different camps while at the Grove, apparently. 

Tim and William Draper (Hill Billies and Hualapai), father-and-son investors, who also party in different camps in El Rio.

A message from The Standard:

Subscribe to The Daily

Because “I saw a TikTok” doesn’t always cut it. Dozens of stories, delivered every day.Sign up now

Robert, John, and William Fisher (Hill Billies, Midway, Owl’s Nest),brothers whose parents, Doris and Donald, founded Gap Inc. in San Francisco in 1969. They also party separately at camp.

Richard Kovacevich (Mandalay), former CEO and chairman of Wells Fargo & Company, headquartered in San Francisco.

Charles Johnson (Mandalay) cofounder and former chairman of Franklin Templeton Investments, headquartered in San Mateo.

Rupert Johnson Jr. (Owl’s Nest), vice chairman of Franklin Templeton Investments, based in San Mateo.

Haig Mardikian (Cave Man),real-estate-investingson of chef-turned-developer George Mardikian.

Mario Rosati (Tie Binders), senior partner at Silicon Valley law firm Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati.

Media and the arts

Charles Desmarais (Dragon), former SF Chronicle art critic and former San Francisco Art Institute president. 

John Berggruen (Uplifters), owner of Berggruen Gallery in San Francisco.

Nion McEvoy (Poison Oak), CEO of Chronicle Books in San Francisco.

Peter Steinhart (Shoestring), San Francisco-based naturalist and writer for Audubon Magazine.

Food and wine

Robert Michael Mondavi Jr. and Michael Mondavi (Santa Barbara and Midway), sons of Robert Mondavi, whose namesake Napa winery helped transform California wine into a global powerhouse. 

John Haig Mardikian (Cave Man),grandson ofson of chef-turned-developer George Mardikian.

Science

Karl Deisseroth (Silverado Squatters), Stanford neuroscientist best known for his work on optogenetics. 

Robert Tjian (Hill Billies), former president of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute; biochemist and professor at UC Berkeley.

Stanley Prusiner (Silverado Squatters), Nobel Prize-winning neurologist who discovered prions; director of the Institute for Neurodegenerative Diseases at UCSF. 

Alexei Filippenko (Sundodgers), astronomer and distinguished professor at UC Berkeley. 

David Patterson (Sons of Toil), pioneering computer scientist and professor emeritus at UC Berkeley; Turing Award winner and Google distinguished engineer. 

As The Standard continues to go through the leaked list, we will update our story with other notable Bay Area figures. Probably their names will be John, David, or Robert. 

Emily Dreyfuss can be reached at edreyfuss@sfstandard.com
Rya Jetha can be reached at rjetha@sfstandard.com
Max Harrison-Caldwell can be reached at maxhc@sfstandard.com

Democratic Leaders Face Backlash Over ‘Cowardly’ Responses to Trump War on Iran

Schumer and Jeffries News Conference

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY) held a joint news conference on January 8, 2026.

 (Photo by Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc. via Getty Images)

“As we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”

Jake Johnson

Mar 01, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

The top Democrats in the US Congress, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, faced backlash on Saturday over what critics described as tepid, equivocal responses to President Donald Trump’s illegal assault on Iran—and for slowwalking efforts to prevent the war before the bombing began.

While both Democratic leaders chided Trump for failing to seek congressional authorization and not adequately briefing lawmakers on the details of Saturday’s attacks, neither offered a full-throated condemnation of a military assault that has killed hundreds so far, including dozens of children, and hurled the Middle East into chaos.

RECOMMENDED…

US-POLITICS-CONGRESS-DEMOCRATS

As Trump Marches US Toward Iran War, Critics Ask: Where’s the ‘Pushback’ From Dems and Media?

Democratic Leaders Jeffries and Schumer

Top Dems Reportedly Working to Sabotage Bill to Stop Trump War With Iran

Schumer (D-NY)—who infamously worked to defeat the 2015 nuclear deal that Trump later abandoned during his first White House term, setting the stage for the current crisis—said he “implored” US Secretary of State Marco Rubio to “be straight with Congress and the American people about the objectives of these strikes and what comes next.”

“Iran must never be allowed to attain a nuclear weapon,” he added, “but the American people do not want another endless and costly war in the Middle East when there are so many problems at home.”

Jeffries (D-NY), a beneficiary of AIPAC campaign cash, said in his response to the massive US-Israeli assault that “Iran is a bad actor and must be aggressively confronted for its human rights violations, nuclear ambitions, support of terrorism, and the threat it poses to our allies like Israel and Jordan in the region.”

“The Trump administration must explain itself to the American people and Congress immediately, provide an ironclad justification for this act of war, clearly define the national security objective, and articulate a plan to avoid another costly, prolonged military quagmire in the Middle East,” said Jeffries.

The Democratic leaders’ responses bolstered the view that their objections to Trump’s attack on Iran are based on procedure, not opposition to war.

X post: https://x.com/krystalball/status/2027769484816081155?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E2027769484816081155%7Ctwgr%5Ea95aa3234b6479c34cc7ff1bcc0af6578fb71585%7Ctwcon%5Es1_c10&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.commondreams.org%2Fnews%2Fschumer-jeffries-iran-war

Claire Valdez, a New York state assemblymember who is running for Congress, said that “as we plunge headlong into another catastrophic war, Sen. Schumer and Rep. Jeffries’ throat-clearing and process critique only serves Trump and the war machine.”

“Democrats should speak clearly and with one voice: no war,” Valdez added.

Schumer and Jeffries both committed to swiftly forcing votes on War Powers resolutions in their respective chambers. But reporting last week by Aída Chávez of Capital & Empire indicated that top Democrats worked behind the scenes to slow momentum behind the resolutions, helping ensure they did not come to a vote before Trump launched the war.

“The preferred outcome of many AIPAC-aligned Senate Democrats, according to a senior foreign policy aide to Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, is that Trump acts unilaterally, weakening Iran while absorbing the domestic backlash ahead of the midterms,” Chávez wrote.

Neither Schumer nor Jeffries backed legislation last year aimed at forestalling US military intervention in Iran.

The top Democrats’ responses to Saturday’s US-Israeli attacks on Iran, which Trump said would continue “uninterrupted” even after the killing of the nation’s supreme leader, contrasted sharply with statements of rank-and-file congressional Democrats—and even some members of leadership—who condemned the president for shredding the Constitution and driving the US into another deadly war that the American public opposes.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), who has been floated as a possible 2028 challenger to Schumer, said Saturday that “the American people are once again dragged into a war they did not want by a president who does not care about the long-term consequences of his actions.”

“This war is unlawful. It is unnecessary. And it will be catastrophic,” said Ocasio-Cortez. “This is a deliberate choice of aggression when diplomacy and security were within reach. Stop lying to the American people. Violence begets violence. We learned this lesson in Iraq. We learned this lesson in Afghanistan. And we are about to learn it again in Iran. Bombs have yet to create enduring democracies in the region, and this will be no different.”

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), a vice chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, was more blunt.

“Congress must stop the bloodshed by immediately reconvening to exert its war powers and stop this deranged president,” she said. “But let’s be clear: Warmongering politicians from both parties support this illegal war, and it will take a mass anti-war movement to stop it.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Jake Johnson

Jake Johnson is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

Fool Me Twice: The Case for War With Iran Is Even Thinner Than It Was for Iraq

The case for invading Iraq was based on lies. The Trump administration’s case for war with Iran hardly exists at all.

Séamus Malekafzali

February 28 2026 (TheIntercept.com)

WASHINGTON, DC - FEBRUARY 24:  U.S. President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. Trump delivered his address days after the Supreme Court struck down the administration's tariff strategy, and amid a U.S. military buildup in the Persian Gulf threatening Iran. (Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)
Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address at the Capitol on Feb. 24, 2026, in Washington, D.C. Photo: Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images

Days before embarking America on another foreign war, Donald Trump spent more than 90 minutes speaking endlessly about America being back during his State of the Union, leveling racist accusations of Somali American fraud, and expounding on the beauty of America’s raid to arrest Nicolás Maduro in Caracas. It was a master class in testing the attention span of Americans hoping to hear anything at all about the danger that has loomed in the background now for months: the threat of armed conflict with Iran. Those who made it to the finale — and who have conscious memories of the George W. Bush years — would have noticed a similar tenor to the State of the Union in 2003, the one which paved the way for the justification of the invasion of Iraq less than two months later.

In that speech, Bush outlined the alleged threat of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, the myriad ways in which Iraq had supposedly deceived international investigators, and the staggering human rights abuses committed by Saddam Hussein against his own countrymen. Secretary of State Colin Powell, the president boasted, would soon outline to the United Nations the threat the United States, and indeed the world, was up against in Baghdad.

Related

Bush’s Iraq War Lies Created a Blueprint for Donald Trump

However, while many of the claims made by Bush were spurious at best and outright deceptions at worst, the claims Trump made in his speech were even less believable — and much more scattershot. Trump claimed that Iran would “soon” have intercontinental ballistic missiles that would “reach the United States of America,” that more than 32,000 Iranians had been killed in recent protests (NGOs estimated the number to be much lower, and an Iranian human rights group put the death toll at 6,488), and that the Iranian military had somehow killed “millions,” somewhere in history, with roadside bombs it pioneered. Perhaps most plainly false of all, Trump contended he just wanted the Iranians to say “those secret words, ‘We will never have a nuclear weapon,’” despite Iranian officials constantly making such insistences.

Before the U.S. and Israeli military launched strikes Saturday, the specter of an Iranian war has become something of a national miasma, the build-up having gone on now so long that its cause is imperceptible, yet perhaps everything at once. The build-up to the Iraq War was similarly argued under many causes, with Saddam’s authoritarian governance very much part of the discussion, but the aftermath of 9/11 and the supposed threat Iraq posed to the homeland was chief among them — the fire that led Americans to line up front and center behind the cause. While Iran has been on the wish list for American neoconservatives and foreign policy wonks for decades, this escalation has happened over a much shorter time frame, much more suddenly, and much more obvious in how the government is desperately in search of a compelling cause.

Most Read

People watch from a rooftop as a plume of smoke rises after a strike in Tehran, Iran, Sunday, March 1, 2026.

Trump’s Iran Attack Was Illegal, Former U.S. Military Officials Allege

Austin Campbell

Smoke rises over the city center of Tehran, Iran after U.S.-Israeli airstrikes on February 28, 2026.

The U.S. and Israel Killed Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. What Comes Next?

Noah Hurowitz

Representative Henry Cuellar, a Democrat from Texas and ranking member of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Homeland Security, speaks during a hearing in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, Feb. 11, 2026. The oversight hearing is meant to examine the impacts of a potential Department of Homeland Security (DHS) shutdown. Photographer: Graeme Sloan/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Texas Progressives Say Democratic Establishment Is Blowing It In the Rio Grande Valley

Matt Sledge

Stretching back into December, the cards were being laid out. Benjamin Netanyahu had made plans to meet with Trump at the White House to discuss what he saw as the threat posed by Iran’s conventional ballistic missile program, seeking a green light to initiate another devastating war, with hoped-for American support. Israel’s reasoning was not based on Iranian human rights abuses or about threats to the American homeland, but threats to Israel and “U.S. interests,” according to NBC News. Netanyahu had wanted a post-war situation similar to Lebanon’s, where Israel has been able to continue striking that country daily with Hezbollah unable to respond. Iran still retained deterrent military capacity to prevent this from happening. A greater threat, however nonexistent, needed to be communicated.

The rollout of news stories to back up Netanyahu’s claim was well-telegraphed, with reports suddenly emerging in the Israeli press that Iran was planning to use an imminent military exercise as a diversion to strike Israel. At the same time that Netanyahu was meeting with Trump, reports again suddenly emerged that Iran was seeking to develop and purchase “biological and chemical warheads” for its missiles, eerily echoing the false claims Powell made before the U.N. about Iraq.

Related

Israel Is Cynically Capitalizing on the Iranian Protests for Its Own Ends

As attention shifted to the burgeoning protests in Iran, suddenly the United States and Israel had a much stronger casus belli: supporting anti-government demonstrators to overthrow the government. Only a few days after the protests began, Trump promised the “United States of America will come to their rescue” if the Iranian government killed protesters, “which is their custom.” As the death toll mounted, far exceeding the toll of previous protest movements, the threats of intervention continued but never actually materialized. Western officials brought in Starlink satellites to keep protesters connected (SpaceX’s CEO Elon Musk has joked that he supports Secretary of State Marco Rubio becoming the shah of Iran), and unnamed foreign intelligence agencies allegedly brought in firearms used to kill over 200 members of government security forces. Yet Trump continued to promise that he was planning something, saying “help is on the way,” and demanding protesters “take over institutions” even as protests dissipated.

The specter of an Iranian war has become something of a national miasma, the build-up having gone on now so long that its cause is imperceptible, yet everything at once.

Trump wanted war, as did Netanyahu, but there was no conception of when it should happen, for what cause it should exactly be waged, and what would even be done. There was want, but there was no will, and there was no way. Everything had to be cobbled together in the background, sometimes to seemingly even get Trump on board with the plan he himself put into motion.

Related

The Bloody U.S. Legacy in Iraq

Reports of considering strikes on “symbolic military targets” were followed by Trump commending Iran for supposedly halting hundreds of planned executions. Declarations of an “armada” being sent to Iran’s shores were accompanied by demands to stop killing protesters, even though the protests had ceased days earlier. More reports poured in of plans for special ops raids and strikes to assassinate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei (and perhaps also his son), with reports of imminent attacks being just as suddenly thrown out as more and more military assets moved in to allow for greater and greater operations, a build-up not seen since Bush’s full-scale invasion of Iraq 23 years ago.

With attacks underway, the plan now seems to revolve around a complete decapitation of the Islamic Republic’s leadership and the overthrow of the entire system via the air — followed by a populist uprising Trump hopes will topple the regime. “When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take,” Trump said in a video address. “This will be probably your only chance for generations.”

The campaign of airstrikes comes only hours after the United States insisted it wanted to have a civil diplomatic conversation.

Two Iranian women walk past an anti-U.S. mural on the wall of the former U.S. embassy in downtown Tehran, Iran, on February 26, 2026, the final day of Iran-U.S. talks that are currently held in the city of Geneva. (Photo by Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images)
Two Iranian women walk past an anti-U.S. mural on the wall of the former U.S. Embassy in downtown Tehran on Feb. 26, 2026, the final day of Iran–U.S. talks in Geneva. Photo: Morteza Nikoubazl/NurPhoto via Getty Images

As with the diplomatic talks that preceded Iran’s war with Israel in June, these negotiations are set up to fail, and the scope of demands is now far wider and even more contradictory. Reports emanating from the discussions seem to oscillate between a willingness to resurrect some version of the Obama-era nuclear deal and a demand for what amounts to complete capitulation — with Rubio demanding restrictions on ballistic missile range and ending of support to Hamas and Hezbollah; Israel demanding the full dismantling of said ballistic missile arsenal; and Trump plainly stating “no nuclear weapons, no missiles, no this, no that, all the different things you’d want.”

There is also no consensus about what the threat from Iran is even supposed to be in the American imagination. Trump’s accusation of near-imminent ICBM production is a recent invention, clearly meant to steer things in a familiar, concrete direction. But the Trump administration cannot seem to agree on whether or not Iran is even developing its nuclear program at all — with Rubio telling reporters there is no enrichment happening, even as special envoy Steve Witkoff told Fox News that Iran was merely “a week away from having industrial-grade bomb-making material.”

Bush administration officials infamously claimed they did not want “the smoking gun” to be “a mushroom cloud,” but officials had always kept that estimate in months — the way the threat of Iran making a nuclear bomb has often been phrased as “months away” for the better part of two decades. Now, the threat is somehow both days away and barely off the ground.

Related

Would-Be Iran Monarch Reza Pahlavi Declares a Civil War in Iran

While opposition figures like Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah, as well as Mojahedin-e-Khalq leader Maryam Rajavi, have jostled for the attention of Trump’s circle, there seems to be little attention paid to their efforts, with the president dismissing Pahlavi as “very nice, but I don’t know how he’d play within his own country.” Those who remember Ahmed Chalabi and the motley crew of Iraqi opposition cronies may rest easy, as there seems to be little care at all about what would even come next. Sen. Lindsey Graham, one of the brewing war’s strongest supporters, scorned the idea of even considering the day after in an interview with an Emirati newspaper, saying: “You gotta quit saying we. It’s not we, it’s them. It’s not my job to construct a new Iran. It’s my job to give them the opportunity to construct a new Iran.”

We’re independent of corporate interests — and powered by members. Join us.

Become a member

The feeling at home, despite oversaturation in the media, could not be more different than it was before Iraq. Just before the bombs fell, 64 percent of the country supported the invasion; more than two decades later, only 21 percent of Americans currently favor an attack on Iran, with only 40 percent of Republicans supporting it. The Trump administration is apparently so concerned about the optics of the scenario they have walked themselves into that, according to reporting from Politico, officials were hoping Israel would attack Iran first, leading Iran to attack American troops, thereby rallying the country behind the war effort after the fact.

There is no consensus about what the threat from Iran is even supposed to be in the American imagination.

One would think that such a drive toward an unpopular war-in-the-making would galvanize Democrats, but so far, anti-war voices have been limited. Lawmakers like Rep. Ro Khanna have found themselves drowned out by demands from Democratic leaders that the Trump administration simply provide a clear explanation, apparently seeking to avoid the embarrassment of pundits and politicians after the disaster of Iraq, who blamed their initial support on buying the Bush administration’s flimsy case.

It is an unshakeable belief that consistency of logic is the primary issue with a war to cement Israel’s military hegemony, one that may cost thousands of lives. While some prominent progressives like Sen. Bernie Sanders attempted to hamper Trump’s funding to execute the war without congressional approval in June, Sanders has not made any public comments on the march to war in over a month, and other progressives like Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who have also supported anti-war initiatives, were seen applauding as Trump railed against Iran this week at the State of the Union.

The world is now watching a devastating war rage with no real reasoning, already no end in sight, and its chief belligerent making promises it cannot keep to a population it will surely massacre in the process. Unpopularity has not stopped the Trump administration before, whether it be in Venezuela or in Minneapolis, but the United States finds itself in a uniquely baffling position, where its opposition party, much like how it goes in Israel, instead begs for a better execution of the government’s evil plan.Share

Donate

Contact the author:

Séamus Malekafzali@Seamus_Malekon X

‘Peace President’ Trump Floats ‘Friendly Takeover’ of Cuba While Preparing to Attack Iran

US President Donald Trump departs White House en route Corpus Christi, Texas

US President Donald Trump speaks to the press before he departs the White House in Washington, DC en route to Corpus Christi, Texas on February 27, 2026. 

(Photo by Celal Gunes/Anadolu via Getty Images)

“Trump ran on an explicitly anti-interventionist platform when he ran for president,” noted one critic. “He lied to the American people.”

Brett Wilkins

Feb 27, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

As the world braces for a possible US war on Iran and people in VenezuelaNigeria, and Yemen still reel from recent US attacks, President Donald Trump—the self-proclaimed “peace president” who has bombed more countries than any other American administration—said Friday that the United States may launch a “friendly takeover” of Cuba.

“The Cuban government is talking with us, they’re in a big deal of trouble, as you know,” Trump told reporters outside the White House before departing for Texas. “They have no money. They have no anything right now. But they’re talking to us, and maybe we’ll have a friendly takeover of Cuba.”

RECOMMENDED…

Cuban street

Trump Now ‘Boasting of a War Crime’ as Cuba Suffers Under Oil Blockade

image shoes US military planes headed to the midde east

‘The Tankers Just Keep Coming’: US Military Movements Spike Fears of Imminent Attack on Iran

“We could very well end up having a friendly takeover of Cuba,” he added.

Cuban Deputy Foreign Minister Carlos Fernández de Cossío posted on social media Friday that “the US maintains its fuel embargo against Cuba in full force, and its impact as a form of collective punishment is unwavering.”

“Nothing announced in recent days changes this reality,” he added. “The possibility of conditional sales to the private sector already existed and does not alleviate the impact on the Cuban population.”

Trump’s comments sparked criticism on social media, with one X user writing: “A ‘friendly takeover’ is an interesting phrase in international diplomacy. If the US is discussing Cuba’s future, I’m sure [Russian President] Vladimir Putin is suddenly very interested in the definition of friendly’ too.”

University of North Texas, Dallas political science professor Orlando Pérez said on X that “more often than not, [Trump’s] mouth is his worst enemy.”

“This BS plays into the hands of hard-liners on both sides of the Florida Straits and reduces chances of a negotiated deal,” he added. “Why would anyone in Cuba agree to a deal that leads to a US ‘takeover’?”

Meanwhile, dozens of civil society groups on Friday sent a letter to Congress urging lawmakers “to press the Trump administration to reverse its aggressive policy towards Cuba.”

“Instead, Congress should call on the administration to expand humanitarian relief, support political and economic engagement, and foster a more vibrant private sector that can deliver a better quality of life for the Cuban people,” added the groups, which include Alianza Americas, American Friends Service Committee, CodePink, Demand Progress, Peace Action, Presbyterian Church USA, RootsAction, United Church of Christ, and Win Without War.

Trump’s remarks Friday came in response to a question from NBC News senior White House correspondent Gabe Gutierrez regarding Wednesday’s incident in which Cuban maritime defense forces killed four men and captured six others during a shootout with a Florida-registered speedboat allegedly carrying weapons intended for what Havana called “an infiltration for terrorist purposes.” South Florida has long been a base for right-wing Cuban exiles who have launched numerous terror attacks against the Cuban people and international tourists on the island, including by speedboat strafings.

Trump did not clarify his comments, seemingly suggesting that moves to topple Cuba’s socialist government—which has outlasted a dozen US presidents—could be freshly afoot. Since Cubans overthrew a brutal US-backed dictatorship in 1959, the United States or allied exile forces tried to assassinate former Cuban President Fidel Castro hundreds of times, backed an ill-fated invasion at Bay of Pigs, served as a base for perpetrators of some of the hemisphere’s worst terror attacks, and even hatched a plan to detonate a nuclear bomb high above the island to convince its people that the return of Jesus Christ was nigh and the only thing standing in the way of the so-called “Second Coming” was Castro.

A 64-year US economic embargo on Cuba, which Trump recently worsened by cutting off fuel, has been a leading force crippling Cuba’s economy and is now being blamed for a soaring infant mortality on the island.

Friday’s remarks by Trump came as Iranians and people across the Middle East and beyond are bracing for a possible US attack on Iran—the second in as many years—and less than than two months after the president ordered the bombing and invasion of Venezuela during an operation that ended with Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro abducted and jailed in United States, where he is expected to face trial for dubious narco-trafficking charges.

If the US strikes Cuba, it will be the 11th country attacked during Trump’s two terms in office. The president—who says he deserves a Nobel Peace Prize—has ordered attacks on Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, PakistanSomaliaSyria, Venezuela, and Yemen, and has bombed dozens of boats allegedly transporting drugs in international waters in the Caribbean Sea and Pacific Ocean.

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Brett Wilkins

Brett Wilkins is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >

How Trump Will Fill His Gulags

DHS is rewriting its detention rules to ignore the law—and entrap millions.

Advertise with Mother Jones

A photograph of a silhouetted, bowed head of a dejected man seen out of focus. Behind him, in focus, is the stern-looking presidential portrait of Donald Trump, as it hangs on a wall with a marble pattern. Beside the portrait is the enlarged text of the Preamble of the Constitution, which begins "We the People ..."

A man detained by ICE after attending an immigration hearing in New York City.Carol Guzy/ZUMA

Get your news from a source that’s not owned and controlled by oligarchs. Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily.

The United States has welcomed refugees fleeing persecution under the same law for 45 years, following a tradition dating back to World War II. Through an orderly process, applicants for refugee status undergo extensive federal vetting before arriving. A year after entering the US, they can apply for a green card, and barring any issues, receive one. But late last year, the administration quietly changed the rules.

People protected by the laws are suddenly subject to arrest and detainment.

On January 9, the Department of Homeland Security and U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services began putting its changes to work, seeking out and detaining lawful refugees who have broken no laws and followed DHS’ processes to the letter. One moment they were law-abiding refugees, the next many were arrested, shackled, and interrogated. DHS calls it Operation Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening (PARRIS), and its first targets are some 5,600 lawful refugees in Minnesota. Nationwide, the new rule means some 100,000 refugees could be locked up—and alongside another, even broader, change initiated by the Trump administration, it suggests that the government’s plan to fill the warehouses it is buying and converting to detention centers rest on ignoring the laws that control its operations.

On January 28, John Tunheim, a federal district judge in Minneapolis, ordered DHS to stop detaining refugees under the new policy in Minnesota as the case proceeds, finding it is likely illegal. It is also a particular brand of authoritarian. The idea of the dual state, developed by Jewish-German labor lawyer Ernst Fraenkel in the 1930s to explain the legal system of the Third Reich, describes an authoritarian state divided into two realms: the normative state and the prerogative state. In the former, the rules are followed and the laws upheld. In the latter, the state simply imposes its will, and no law or right or freedom can protect its victims. Frankel described how most Germans in the 1930s lived in the normative state where life and commerce continued to feel normal, while Jews, political dissidents, and other disfavored groups were in the prerogative state, subject to the violent recriminations of the regime. The regime is able to accomplish the goals of the prerogative state because most people lived in the normal of the normative state.

The Trump administration’s treatment of refugees and other immigrants echoes the dual-state model. People who were protected by the laws are suddenly subject to arrest and detainment, possibly for a long time. The scaffolding of their rights is collapsing, and they are now subject to the dark underbelly of Trump’s lawless detention regime.

“ICE is the face of a prerogative state, emerging or actual,” Evan Bernick, a constitutional law professor at Northern Illinois University College of Law, explained to me last year. “It swoops in, it ignores safeguards, you can’t escape it.” 

Courts in a burgeoning dual state are left to either push back or validate an unlawful policy. To justify the PARRIS detentions, DHS lawyers point to a section of the 1980 Refugee Act which allows them to take refugees into custody in order to assess their eligibility for a green card. In a new memo released this month to bolster its case, DHS claims that that is an open-ended authority to detain refugees for days, months, or even years as they are vetted again. In his initial order, Tunheim disagreed: “On the plain reading of these statutes, the Court concludes that none of these provisions authorize the prolonged detention” of the plaintiffs. The authority the government cites, Tunheim found, simply isn’t there.

Tunheim also found the government’s argument would lead to absurd results. Because the law “makes refugees ineligible for adjustment [to lawful permanent resident status] until one year after entry, Defendants’ interpretation would subject every refugee to detention, unless USCIS conducted the inspection and examination precisely at the one-year mark,” he wrote. “That outcome is nonsensical and would cause many unadjusted refugees to celebrate their one-year anniversary in this country in a jail cell.” This is obviously not what the law requires. But the administration is asking the courts to apply the judicial stamp of approval to its cruel and absurd policy anyway.

This is not the first instance in which the administration has announced new interpretations of decades-old statutes in order to fill its new detention facilities. In a tortured reinterpretation of a 1996 immigration law, the Trump administration announced in July that anyone who entered the country without permission, no matter how long ago, must be detained without bond for as long as it takes for the government to get their removal order—a process that can take years. As with the new refugee policy, the detention policy makes a hash of the statute. It dares the courts—which have almost uniformly ruled that a bond hearing is required—to interpret a law in a nonsensical and gratuitously cruel fashion. As of early January, some 300 federal judges had found the policy illegal; only around 30 have agreed with the government. 

Advertise with Mother Jones

This month, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the administration’s July policy. Suddenly, people who at any point entered the country without permission are subject to months or years of detention if they are in the three states within the circuit: Texas, Louisiana, and Mississippi. In these states, the grounds for release in federal court have now shrunk considerably. Moreover, engaging a lawyer to file a case is a tall order for the millions of people who could be locked up under the policy. 

The Fifth Circuit decision came from a three-judge panel in the nation’s most reactionary appeals court, which Trump appointees have turned into a proving ground for far-right and MAGA-aligned priorities. “Congress did not secretly require two million noncitizens to be detained without bond,” Judge Dana Douglas, a Biden appointee on the circuit, wrote in dissent, “when nothing like this had ever been done before, and the whole history of American immigration law suggested it would not be.” Indeed, her colleagues’ ruling didn’t just change the law but, for millions of people now at risk of detainment without bond, effectively nullified it. 

To attain detention numbers, the administration must suddenly claim that their own rules no longer apply.

Douglas also hinted at the slippery authoritarian slope of the government’s policy, the way in which it will pull more and more people, and eventually citizens, into its lawless vortex: “With only a little imagination, the government’s and the majority’s reading means that anyone present in this country at any time must carry the precise kinds of identification they would otherwise have only carried to the border for international travel, lest they be mistaken for an inadmissible noncitizen,” she wrote. “The majority seems to be unable to imagine what it might mean to be detained within the United States without the appropriate proof of admissibility, and, without a bond hearing, to require the services of a federal habeas corpus lawyer to show that one is entitled to release and deserves to see the outside of a detention center again.”

A key facet of a dual state is that the normative state is not truly safe. At any moment, one can fall from its protections into the prerogative zone. Racial minorities are certainly more likely to lose their rights in a system that will slowly suck more people into its lawless operations.

Advertise with Mother Jones

In the short term, the decision will incentivize the government to whisk people to the 5th Circuit as soon as they are apprehended, beyond the reach of all the district court judges around the country who have found the policy illegal. But at some point—and it may be soon—the Supreme Court will have to decide whether to help the administration push millions into its growing network of concentration camps, or whether it will call out a blatantly illegal policy. As Bernick warned, “A Supreme Court that gets out of the way” of ICE, “where the state is at its most brutal, and tries to manage everything else as normal, is a dual state Supreme Court.”

Trump campaigned for president on deporting violent wrong-doers. But as both of these new detention programs demonstrate, the administration’s ambition to fill warehouses with millions of humans can only be achieved by locking up people without criminal records. As of November, just five percent of ICE detainees had committed a violent crime. To attain their numbers, the administration must suddenly claim that their own rules no longer apply. 

The effect of the mandatory detention policy now sanctioned by the 5th Circuit is to detain people who could otherwise be allowed freedom while removal proceedings take place. According to a brief submitted in the case by the American Immigration Council, a legal and advocacy group, tens of thousands have likely already been the victims of this new policy in recent months. These include people without any criminal history and adults who have been in the US a long time and have deep ties to their community, including children whom they care for and support.

DHS is detaining people who are coming in for immigration appointments, meaning they are specifically targeting people who are already following government orders. This also includes Dreamers, people brought here as children who gave their information to the government in exchange for lawful presence in the country. The government is likewise locking up young people who had assurances against deportation because they crossed the border alone or were abused or abandoned by their parents. Suddenly, all these groups who entered into an agreement of protection from deportation with the government—what is called “deferred action”—are being locked up despite the government’s own rules to the contrary. 

Advertise with Mother Jones

Suddenly deprived of the protection of the law, the immigrants and refugees whose detention has been ushered in by these new DHS policies do not enter a civilized detention program, but one that operates with life-threatening cruelty. Accounts from inside detention centers detail conditions of torture. People are fed little, and what they do receive is often moldy, or seems, as a detainee in New Jersey described it in a lawsuit, “identical to cat food.” People with serious health conditions are denied medications. At a detention center in Dilley, Texas, children enter healthy, then soon fall ill, and then are denied care. In Illinois, a woman was detained two weeks after giving birth via cesarean section; while her newborn daughter was away in a hospital NICU, she slept on a bench without access to a breast pump or pain medication. A Cuban man detained at a tent camp in El Paso died in what ICE claimed was “medical distress” but the county medical examiner determined was homicide. 

These conditions are so dangerous that people give up and agree to leave the country rather than waste away, making the torture a form of coercion forcing people to give up their legal rights. “People are being deprived of due process already because detention is so coercive,” says Rebecca Cassler, an attorney at the American Immigration Council. “You don’t have access to a lawyer. In many cases, your family might not know where you are for a couple weeks. You’re not getting enough food, you’re not getting medical attention.”

Dual states are characterized by “systematically a domain of lawlessness and systematically a domain of lawfulness,” explains Aziz Huq, a University of Chicago constitutional law professor writing a book about the theory. “You only get that when you have a multiplicity of measures that move people across the line from the world of legality to the world of lawlessness.”

“People are being deprived of due process already.”

It seems clear that, whether or not Trump will fully achieve this, his administration is trying to create a domain of lawlessness around immigration enforcement. ICE ignores constitutional constraints as a matter of policy, operating as a thuggish paramilitary force. The Trump administration wants to trap more and more people in its immigration enforcement apparatus—and keep them there. A Supreme Court that has allowed this legal black hole to expand is aiding in such a state’s creation. And almost certainly, the nation’s highest court will be asked to decide the fate of Trump’s new mandatory detention policy, and likely its novel refugee policy as well.

Advertise with Mother Jones

The Supreme Court has already stepped in to essentially pause constitutional protections that have gotten in the way of the administration’s immigration crackdown. Last June, it allowed the government to proceed with deporting immigrants with final removal orders to so-called “third countries”—a country that is not their home country or another designated in the removal order—even though the law requires a different outcome and the Constitution requires due process, allowing the immigrants to object that they might be tortured in the new country. On Wednesday, a district court judge in Massachusetts issued a ruling against the policy, which means it will wind its way back to the Supreme Court in the coming months. But he stayed the ruling pending appeal, meaning people can still be sent to third countries without an opportunity to object, and where they are likely to be imprisonedtortured, killed, or returned to their home country for a similar fate.

And last September, the Supreme Court allowed ICE to continue a policy of racial profiling in its detention sweeps and stops, even though the court has repeatedly ruled against the use of race in government policy. Notably, the decision expanded ICE’s terror to US citizens and others people lawfully present, based solely on how they look or talk.

These policies, alongside the new mandatory detention policies, track Trump’s attempts to carve certain disfavored groups out of the protection of the law since his first day back in office. On January 20, 2025, he issued an executive order denying citizenship to certain people born on US soil, despite the clear language of the Constitution’s birthright citizenship clause. In the face of more than a century of near-unanimous consensus, the administration simply declared that the law wasn’t what it said. 

On April 1, the highest court will hear arguments over that executive order, which attempts to revoke birthright citizenship for thousands by fiat; to take a class of people clearly entitled to all the protections of citizenship and turn them into a stateless underclass. As Trump attempts to ethnically cleanse the nation through a lawless detention and deportation regime, the birthright citizenship case is one especially high profile test, among many more to come, of what the administration will be allowed to get away with. The contours of a dual state are coming into view, one in which anyone targeted by Trump’s deportation and detention program have no rights that can save them.

‘Batshit Authoritarianism’: Trump Allies Drafting Order to Give Him ‘Extraordinary Power Over Voting’

'Batshit Authoritarianism': Trump Allies Drafting Order to Give Him 'Extraordinary Power Over Voting'

President Donald Trump delivers the State of the Union address during a joint session of Congress in the House Chamber at the Capitol on February 24, 2026 in Washington, DC. 

(Photo by Kenny Holston-Pool/Getty Images)

“This is a plot to interfere with the will of voters and undermine both the rule of law and public confidence in our elections,” said Sen. Mark Warner.

Brad Reed

Feb 26, 2026 (CommonDreams.org)

A group of right-wing activists is crafting an executive order that would let President Donald Trump unilaterally ban mail-in ballots and voting machines ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

The Washington Post reported on Thursday that the order being drafted by Trump allies would give him “extraordinary power over voting,” even though the US Constitution explicitly gives individual states the powers to run their own elections.

RECOMMENDED…

Trump dances in front of a giant US flag screen

Trump Says He’s ‘Entitled’ to Illegal Third Term as Allies Draft Voter Suppression Decree

US-POLITICS-TRUMP

Five-Alarm Fire Warning After Trump Says ‘Republicans Ought to Nationalize the Voting’

An advocate for the order, Florida attorney Peter Ticktin, acknowledged in an interview with the Post that the Constitution does not give the president any role in shaping elections, but he said Trump needed to act to prevent China from supposedly interfering with American elections.

“Under the Constitution, it’s the legislatures and states that really control how a state conducts its elections, and the president doesn’t have any power to do that,” Ticktin said. “But here we have a situation where the president is aware that there are foreign interests that are interfering in our election processes. That causes a national emergency where the president has to be able to deal with it.”

The activists drafting the emergency order said that they are working in coordination with the White House, although the extent of any cooperation isn’t clear.

However, the Post pointed to some evidence that the White House really is on board with such a strategy, such as the Trump administration’s efforts to investigate his 2020 election loss to former President Joe Biden, which the president has long baselessly claimed was due to foreign interference from a number of nations, including China and Venezuela.

As the Post noted, “a 2021 intelligence review concluded that China considered efforts to influence the election but did not go through with them.”

Additionally, Trump has publicly stated numerous times that he wants to completely do away with mail-in ballots and voting machines, both of which he has baselessly claimed are riddled with fraud.

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.), the ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said that the draft order was simply an attempt by the president’s allies to block democratic accountability in future elections.

“We’ve been raising the alarm for weeks about President Trump’s attacks on our elections and now we’re seeing reports that outline how they may be planning to do it,” Warner told the Post. “This is a plot to interfere with the will of voters and undermine both the rule of law and public confidence in our elections.”

Government watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) said that the drafted order was plainly unconstitutional and would fail in court.

“The Constitution gives states power over election law with oversight from Congress,” CREW wrote in a social media post. “Notice who’s missing? The president. Trump may try to cook up a sham national emergency to try to seize control of elections but it won’t stand up to scrutiny.”

MS NOW national security contributor Marc Polymeropoulos called the draft order “batshit authoritarianism” and cautioned that “this crazy shit is possible as Trump knows Congress is all but lost at this point in a free election.”

“To save himself,” Polymeropoulos added, “anything is possible.”

Democratic Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker pointed to the Post report and warned, “Donald Trump’s plan to steal the 2026 midterm elections is already underway.”

Rep. Rosa De Lauro (D-Conn.) accused Trump of “setting the stage to steal the midterm elections and set fire to our democracy,” while vowing that Democrats would “fight for our democracy and safeguard the right to vote.”

Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.

Brad Reed

Brad Reed is a staff writer for Common Dreams.

Full Bio >