Jack Schlossberg, who is best known for his provocative social media presence and for being the grandson of John F. Kennedy, announced a run for U.S. Congress. Here’s everything you need to know about the Democrat.
Core Belief: Americans are sicker of gerontocracy than nepotism
Reason For Running: Bored
Dream Job: MrBeast
Role In Fraternity: Social chair
Notable Family Members: Cousin-in-law of Cheryl from Curb Your Enthusiasm
Signature Issue: Jack Schlossberg for Congress
Biggest Advantage: Born into one of the nation’s most powerful jawlines
Home District: TikTok Explore Page
Active Curses: Kennedy family, Ra, Bambino, Hope diamond
The story of the radical conservative intellectual movement shaping Donald Trump’s agenda—and how it threatens American freedoms, values, and democracy
Donald Trump is not a big thinker, but his 2016 presidential victory presented a grand opportunity for people who are, and it set off a radicalization and reconfiguration of the American conservative intellectual world. In Furious Minds, Laura Field, who spent close to a decade in conservative academic circles, chronicles the rise of the New Right—the network of academics, public intellectuals, and influencers who provide ideological fuel to Trumpism. This movement includes figures such as Patrick Deneen, Christopher Rufo, Peter Thiel, and JD Vance. Their agenda is built to last, and it has dire long-term implications for liberal democracy.
The New Right has precedents in American history, but it is distinct for its youthfulness, misogyny, and extraordinary successes—most notably the elevation of Vance to the vice presidency. The movement—which draws together associates of the right-wing Claremont Institute, National Conservatives, Postliberals, and the Hard Right—advocates nationalist economics, tight borders, isolationism, and reactionary social values. It helped to strategize January 6th and created Project 2025. But above all, the New Right is engaged in a vast culture war against modern liberal pluralism. It is determined to harness state power and use it in new, illiberal ways, from college campuses to the international scene—all driven by the fantasy of restoring a pure America.
Incisive and urgent, Furious Minds tells the story of the thinkers of the New Right—and their powerful assault on American freedoms, values, and ideals.
Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel arrive for a news conference at the Department of Justice on December 4, 2025, in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images)
A former official from Trump’s first term said the FBI will be able to throw the full might of the surveillance state at “Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
The Trump administration is about to embark on a massive crackdown on what it describes as a scourge of rampant left-wing “terrorism.”
But the US Department of Justice (DOJ) memo ordering the crackdown has critics fearing it will go far beyond punishing those who plan criminal acts and will instead be used to criminalize anyone who expresses opposition to President Donald Trump and his agenda.
Earlier this month, independent journalist Ken Klippenstein reported that Attorney General Pam Bondi had sent out a memo ordering the FBI to “compile a list of groups or entities engaging in acts that may constitute domestic terrorism.”
As part of this effort, Bondi set Thursday as a deadline for all law enforcement agencies to “coordinate delivery” of intelligence files related to “antifa” or “antifa-related activities” to the FBI.
The memo identifies those who express “opposition to law and immigration enforcement; extreme views in favor of mass migration and open borders; adherence to radical gender ideology,” as well as “anti-Americanism,” “anti-capitalism,” and “anti-Christianity,” as potential targets for investigation.
This language references National Security Presidential Memorandum-7, or NSPM-7, a memo issued by Trump in September, which identified this slate of left-wing beliefs as potential “indicators” of terrorism following the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk in September.
In comments made before the alleged shooter’s identity was revealed, Trump attributed the murder to “those on the radical left [who] have compared wonderful Americans like Charlie to Nazis,” adding that “this kind of rhetoric is directly responsible for the terrorism that we’re seeing in our country and must stop right now.”
Weeks after Kirk’s shooting, Trump designated “antifa” as a “domestic terrorism organization,” a move that alarmed critics because “antifa,” short for “anti-fascist,” is a loosely defined ideology rather than an organized political group.
Senior Trump adviser Stephen Miller, meanwhile, promised that the Trump administration would use law enforcement to “dismantle” left-wing groups he said were “fomenting violence.” He suggested that merely using heated rhetoric—including calling Trump and his supporters “fascist” or “authoritarian”—“incites violence and terrorism.”
Klippenstein said that “where NSPM-7 was a declaration of war on just about anyone who isn’t MAGA,” the memo that went into effect Thursday “is the war plan for how the government will wage it on a tactical level.”
In comments to the Washington Post, former FBI agent Michael Feinberg, who is now a senior editor at Lawfare, said it was “a pretty damn dangerous document,” in part because “it is directed at a specific ideology, namely the left, without offering much evidence as to why that is necessary.”
Studies have repeatedly shown that while all political factions contain violent actors, those who commit acts of political violence are vastly more likely to identify with right-wing causes.
Miles Taylor, who served as chief of staff for the Department of Homeland Security under the first Trump administration, pointed out in a blog post the extraordinary surveillance capability that the FBI will have at its disposal to use against those it targets.
He said it “includes the FBI’s ability to marshal facial recognition, phone-tracking databases, license-plate readers, financial records review, undercover operations, and intelligence-sharing tools against Americans whose primary ‘offense’ may be ideological dissent.”
“Unfortunately, once you are fed into that system, there is no real ‘due process’ until charges are brought,” Taylor said. “It’s not like you get a text-message notification when the FBI begins investigating you for terrorism offenses, and there’s certainly no ‘opt-out’ feature. For this to happen, you don’t need to commit violence. You don’t even need to plan it. Under the administration’s new guidelines, you merely need to be flagged for association with the anti-fascist movement to become a potential target.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Wash.), a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, told the Post, “It is a throwback to McCarthyism and the worst abuses of [Former FBI Director J. Edgar] Hoover’s FBI to use federal law enforcement against Americans purely because of their political beliefs or because they disagree with the current president’s politics.”
Taylor argued: “He’s right, but it’s actually more dangerous than that. Joseph McCarthy had subpoenas and hearings and created his blacklists of ‘communist’ Americans from Capitol Hill. And while controversial FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover may have had old-school wiretaps and informants, Donald Trump’s team has algorithmic surveillance, bulk data collection, and a post-9/11 security state designed for permanent emergency. It’s like comparing a snowflake with a refrigerator.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
The Democratic National Committee on Thursday drew strong criticism when it was revealed that the party’s autopsy of its failures in the 2024 presidential election would not be publicly released.
According to the New York Times, DNC Chairman Ken Martin has decided against releasing the report because he “believes that looking back so publicly and painfully at the past would prove counterproductive for the party as it tries next year to take back power in Congress.”
The decision to keep a lid on the report, however, is already sparking a backlash.
The New Republic’s Greg Sargent argued in a Thursday piece that the decision by the DNC to bury the report “should unleash harsh criticism and recriminations” because it “could end up protecting key actors inside the party from accountability over the blown but winnable contest.”
Sargent then pointed the finger at Future Forward, a super PAC that he said has earned a reputation for blowing large sums of money on ineffective television ads.
“Well before Election Day, the PAC came under harsh criticism from some Democrats who argued that it hadn’t spent sufficient money earlier in the campaign on ads attacking Trump,” Sargent wrote. “Other Democrats charged that Future Forward’s ad-testing model and addiction to traditional TV ads led to anodyne communications and that its flawed theory of politics caused it to refrain from sufficiently targeting Trump, letting him avoid blame for his first-term disasters on Covid-19 and the economy.”
Jeff Hauser, founder and executive director of the Revolving Door Project, told Common Dreams that Martin’s decision to bury the report was part of a broader pattern of a lack of accountability for US elites, an issue that he said is becoming more important“ as America gets less and less equal.”
“Ken Martin seems determined to become the Merrick Garland of DNC Chairs,” added Hauser, “a feckless amiable sort unwilling to take on the powerful people who scream out for stringent accountability. Democrats ought to re-center their entire party around holding elites, be they from Big Tech, the Democratic Party establishment, Big Oil, or Trump’s kleptocratic regime, accountable.”
Rotimi Adeoye, a columnist for MS Now and former communications strategist for the American Civil Liberties Union, also accused party insiders of trying to protect elites at the expense of rebuilding public trust with voters.
“This is also happening as Congressional Dems sit at a -55 net approval,” he argued on X. “If your numbers are that bad and your response is to bury the autopsy, you’re basically telling voters the insiders get protection while the base gets lectures.”
Adeoye added that “you can’t run as the party of democracy and transparency and then stick your own election autopsy in a drawer,” and said that “if the DNC thinks the report would ‘hurt the party,’ that means the problems are real and political, not analytical—and that’s exactly why people want to read it.”
Journalist Yashar Ali, meanwhile, sent out a message on Bluesky encouraging DNC staffers who have access to the report to let him publish it.
“If you have access to this DNC report, please send it to me,” he wrote. “I will protect your anonymity.”
While the DNC isn’t releasing its own report documenting party failures in 2024, the progressive advocacy group RootsAction last week published an autopsy written by journalist Christopher D. Cook, who argued that former Vice President Kamala Harris’ campaign made a major mistake by trying to court so-called moderate Republican voters and corporate donors instead of focusing on the struggles of working-class Americans.
“This was a preventable disaster,” Cook said, “but Harris and the Democratic Party leadership prioritized the agendas of corporate donors and gambled on a centrist path, while largely abandoning working-class, young, and progressive voters.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
US President Donald Trump late Tuesday declared a blockade on “all sanctioned oil tankers” approaching and leaving Venezuela, a major escalation in what’s widely seen as an accelerating march to war with the South American country.
The “total and complete blockade,” Trump wrote on his social media platform, will only be lifted when Venezuela returns to the US “all of the Oil, Land, and other Assets that they previously stole from us.”
“Venezuela is completely surrounded by the largest Armada ever assembled in the History of South America,” Trump wrote, referring to the massive US military buildup in the Caribbean. “It will only get bigger, and the shock to them will be like nothing they have ever seen before.”
The government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, which has mobilized its military in response to the US president’s warmongering, denounced Trump’s comments as a “grotesque threat” aimed at “stealing the riches that belong to our homeland.”
The US-based anti-war group CodePink said in a statement that “Trump’s assertion that Venezuela must ‘return’ oil, land, and other assets to the United States exposes the true objective” of his military campaign.
“Venezuela did not steal anything from the United States. What Trump describes as ‘theft’ is Venezuela’s lawful assertion of sovereignty over its own natural resources and its refusal to allow US corporations to control its economy,” said CodePink. “A blockade, a terrorist designation, and a military buildup are steps toward war. Congress must act immediately to stop this escalation, and the international community must reject this lawless threat.”
US Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas), one of the leaders of a war powers resolution aimed at preventing the Trump administration from launching a war on Venezuela without congressional approval, said Tuesday that “a naval blockade is unquestionably an act of war.”
“A war that the Congress never authorized and the American people do not want,” Castro added, noting that a vote on his resolution is set for Thursday. “Every member of the House of Representatives will have the opportunity to decide if they support sending Americans into yet another regime change war.”
“This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela.”
Human rights organizations have accused the Republican-controlled Congress of abdicating its responsibilities as the Trump administration takes belligerent and illegal actions in international waters and against Venezuela directly, claiming without evidence to be combating drug trafficking.
Last month, Senate Republicans—some of whom are publicly clamoring for the US military to overthrow Maduro’s government—voted down a Venezuela war powers resolution. Two GOP senators, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, joined Democrats in supporting the resolution.
Dylan Williams, vice president for government affairs at the Center for International Policy, wrote Tuesday that “the White House minimized Republican ‘yes’ votes by promising that Trump would seek Congress’ authorization before initiating hostilities against Venezuela itself.”
“Trump today broke that promise to his own party’s lawmakers by ordering a partial blockade on Venezuelan ships,” wrote Williams. “A blockade, including a partial one, definitively constitutes an act of war. Trump is starting a war against Venezuela without congressional authorization.”
Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) warned in a television appearance late Monday that members of the Trump administration are “going to do everything they can to get us into this war.”
“This is the Iraq War 2.0 with a South American flavor to it,” he added. “This is absolutely an effort to get us involved in a war in Venezuela.”
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith returns from a break to testify during a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on December 17, 2025. Smith was appointed independent special counsel by Attorney General Merrick Garland in 2022 to oversee two criminal investigations into former President Donald Trump’s role in the January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol and mishandling of classified documents. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
Jack Smith, the former special counsel for the U.S. Department of Justice, forcefully defended his federal prosecution of President Donald Trump in a closed-door hearing Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.
During his remarks, Smith pushed back on GOP efforts to discredit the prosecution as unfairly political, arguing that his work was governed by facts and sound prosecutorial ethics.
“Our investigation developed proof beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump engaged in a criminal scheme to overturn the results of the 2020 presidential election and to prevent the lawful transfer of power,” Smith said in his opening remarks, according to excerpts obtained by Democracy Docket.
The panel subpoenaed Smith earlier this month amid escalating Republican attacks on Smith’s independent investigation into Trump’s election subversion efforts and mishandling of classified documents.
In October, with Attorney General Pam Bondi looking on, Trump called Smith a “criminal,” during an Oval Office press conference, urging the Department of Justice (DOJ) to “look into” him. Earlier this month, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who was Trump’s criminal defense lawyer in the case, alleged that Smith had improperly withheld evidence.
Smith requested to testify publicly, but House Judiciary Chairman Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) refused.
In his statement, Smith asserted that Trump was charged despite — not because of — the politics involved.
“I made my decisions in the investigation without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs, or candidacy in the 2024 presidential election,” he said. “We took actions based on what the facts and the law required — the very lesson I learned early in my career as a prosecutor.”
While Smith said the decision to charge Trump was his alone, “the basis for those charges rests entirely with President Trump and his actions, as alleged in the indictments returned by grand juries in two different districts.”
“If asked whether to prosecute a former President based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether the President was a Republican or Democrat,” he added.
Republicans were incensed after news broke earlier this year that Smith’s investigation obtained phone records of nine GOP lawmakers who were closely involved in Trump’s attempt to block the electoral vote count on January 6, 2021.
“[Phone] records were lawfully subpoenaed and were relevant to complete a comprehensive investigation. January 6 was an attack on the structure of our democracy in which over 100 heroic law enforcement officers were assaulted,” Smith said Wednesday. “Over 160 individuals later pled guilty to assaulting police officers that day. Exploiting that violence, President Trump and his associates tried to call Members of Congress in furtherance of their criminal scheme, urging them to further delay certification of the 2020 election. I didn’t choose those Members; President Trump did.”
Smith also defended the raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago residence, which revealed the president had been improperly storing classified materials.
“Our investigation also developed powerful evidence that showed President Trump willfully retained highly classified documents after he left office in January 2021, storing them at his social club, including in a bathroom and a ballroom where events and gatherings took place,” Smith said. “He then repeatedly tried to obstruct justice to conceal his continued retention of those documents.”
Smith dropped the prosecution shortly after Trump won the presidential election in 2024.
An aerial view of the US Department of Defense headquarters, also known as the Pentagon, in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Getty Images)
Sen. Ron Wyden said the bill “increases military spending by tens of billions of dollars and fails to include guardrails against Donald Trump and Hegseth’s authoritarian abuses.”
A majority of Democratic senators joined Republicans on Wednesday to pass the largest military spending bill in US history, handing President Donald Trump the bulk of his demands, even as he enacts steep cuts across nearly every other sector of the federal budget.
The more than $900 billion National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) passed by a vote of 77-20, with 27 Democrats, as well as the independent Sen. Angus King (Maine), in support. Just three members of the Republican majority voted against the bill, along with 16 Democrats and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.).
Among many other items on Trump’s wish list, the bill provides funds for weapons meant to counter China, full funding for Trump’s National Guard deployments to support the US immigration agents, and more funds for what are described as “counternarcotics operations.”
It also removes a measure that would have restored collective bargaining rights that Trump stripped earlier this year from Pentagon employees, permanently ends Defense Department initiatives to curb climate change, and excludes a measure that would mandate healthcare coverage for in vitro fertilization.
Combined with $156 billion in the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act this July, the package passed by the Senate pushesmilitary spending for fiscal year 2026 into the trillions—a new record in absolute terms and a relative level unseen since World War II.
The bill will head to Trump’s desk just a day after he announced a “total and complete blockade” on Venezuelan oil tankers, a major escalation described by Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-Texas) as “unquestionably an act of war.”
The bill contains a measure demanding that the Pentagon release the unedited video of a September 2 “double-tap” strike on a boat in the Caribbean that members of both parties have suggested may violate international law.
On Tuesday, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubiodeclined another congressional request to release the video. The defense bill ramps up the pressure for transparency, mandating a 25% cut to Hegseth’s travel budget if the administration does not comply.
Senate Democrats have previously voted in support of war powers resolutions to require congressional approval for Trump’s boat strikes and for further military action against Venezuela. These measures have repeatedly fallen just short in the Republican-controlled Senate.
But Stephen Semmler, a co-founder of the Security Policy Reform Institute, argued that “if the Senate truly cared about Trump seeking congressional approval before starting a war with Venezuela, it wouldn’t have passed a bill authorizing $901 billion in military spending.”
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), who voted no on the defense spending bill, said, “I cannot support a bill that increases military spending by tens of billions of dollars and fails to include guardrails against Donald Trump and Hegseth’s authoritarian abuses.”
“Donald Trump has repeatedly used the military to occupy major US cities, including Portland—endangering our service members, disrupting our economy, and eroding trust in our communities,” Wyden continued. “He has also shown that he will use the Department of Defense to conduct deadly military operations without congressional authorization to intimidate political opponents and immigrants through the military, to purge senior military leaders without cause, to funnel billions of dollars in contracts to his personal supporters, and to waste billions of taxpayer dollars.”
The defense spending bill passed the US House last week, with support from 115 Democrats. This was despite opposition from the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose deputy chair, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), said it was “enabling unchecked executive war powers.”
The House is expected to vote Wednesday evening on a pair of war powers resolutions. One, introduced by Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), would block Trump’s extrajudicial airstrikes on boats in the Caribbean. Another bipartisan resolution would require Trump to receive congressional approval before taking direct military action, including land strikes, against Venezuela.
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
This one is really important, please if you only do one, please do this one:Click here to Submit Your Official Comment Today: We must fight back against xenophobic, anti-immigrant policies
Click here to Stop Trump’s Misuse of the National Guard
Click here to Tell Trump: Stop Criminalizing Homelessness
Click here to Tell Congress: Unmask ICE Officers Now
Click here to Tell Republicans: Hands Off Social Security
Click here to Tell Trump Admin: Stop Sabotaging Social Security
Click here to support our work by subscribing or upgrading your subscription.
Can you help amplify our message? Restack, share, comment, tap that heart, and spread this post far and wide. We don’t fundraise — we fuel this movement with people power. Every click, share, and voice helps us champion freedom over fascism, progress, and power to the people.
Departing U.S. President Ronald Reagan is seen shortly after he delivered his farewell address to the nation at the Oval Office in the White House, Washington, on January 12, 1989. Ron Edmonds, Associated Press
“Since this is the last speech that I will give as President, I think it’s fitting to leave one final thought, an observation about a country which I love. It was stated best in a letter I received not long ago. A man wrote me and said: “You can go to live in France, but you cannot become a Frenchman. You can go to live in Germany or Turkey or Japan, but you cannot become a German, a Turk, or a Japanese. But anyone, from any corner of the Earth, can come to live in America and become an American.”
Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was an American politician who served as the 40th president of the United States from 1981 to 1989. A member of the Republican Party, he became an important figure in the American conservative movement. The period encompassing his presidency is known as the Reagan era. Wikipedia
From the hosts of The War on Cars podcast, a searing indictment of how cars ruin everything—and what we can do to fight back
When the very first cars rolled off production lines, they were a technological marvel, predicted to make life easier and better for all Americans; yet a hundred years later, that dream is running on empty.
Instead of unbounded freedom, the never-ending proliferation of automobiles has delivered a host of costs, among them the demolition of our neighborhoods, towns, and cities to make way for car infrastructure; an epidemic of violent death; countless hours lost in traffic; isolation from our fellow human beings; and the ongoing destruction of the natural world. Globally, SUVs alone now emit more carbon than the nations of Germany, South Korea, or Japan.
That’s why we need Life After Cars. Through historical records, revealing interviews, and unflinching statistics, Sarah Goodyear and Doug Gordon, hosts of the podcast The War on Cars, and former host Aaron Naparstek unpack the scale of damage that cars cause, the forces that have created our current crisis and are invested in perpetuating it, and the way that the fight for better transportation is deeply linked to the fight for a more equitable and just society.
Cars as we know them today are unsustainable—but there is hope. Life After Cars will arm readers with the tools they need to implement real, transformative change, from simply raising awareness to taking a stand at public forums. It’s past time to radically rethink—and shrink—society’s collective relationship with the automobile. Together, let’s create a better Life After Cars.
(Godoreads.com)
Help Outreach Working Group lift the fog of corporate media. Donate to help us maintain this website and distribute literature on the street.
Milk Club Trans Caucus Meeting Date: Tuesday, April 28 Time: 5-7 PM Location and Zoom Link: Meeting info available to members of the Milk Club Trans Caucus. Please reach out to trans@milkclub.org if you would like to join the Milk Club Trans Caucus.
San Francisco Young Democrats meet with SFDems Chair Nancy Tung Wednesday, April 29th | 2pm Location: SC T-160 (third floor of Student Center) Register The San Francisco Young Democrats at SF State are teaming up with SFDems to make sure their voices are heard. Want to get more plugged into San Francisco... Continue reading →
One Million Rising: Strategic Non-Cooperation to Fight Authoritarianism Virtual Event · Hosted by No Kings Time Wednesdays 8 – 9:30pm EDT Location Virtual event Join from anywhere About this event Across the country, authoritarian forces are getting bolder and more dangerous. Trump and his allies are not hiding their agenda: mass deportations,... Continue reading →
THURSDAY, JUNE 29, 2023 AT 2 AM – 4 AM PDT How to create trust in a group? Details Event by Extinction Rebellion Empathy Circles online EMPATHY CAFE Duration: 2 hr Public · Anyone on or off Facebook How to create trust in a group? This is the question that arose in our... Continue reading →
This May 1st, history is calling us into the streets. Our Revolution members are mobilizing for May Day action, joining workers, organizers, union members, students, immigrants, and community allies in a powerful show of solidarity against authoritarianism, corporate greed, and attacks on working people. Across the country, people are rising together... Continue reading →
