Showing posts with label donald donald go away racist sexist anti gay. Show all posts

Friday, April 24, 2026

Trump administration to prioritise seeking death penalty, use firing squads

trump-administration-to-prioritize-seeking-death-penalty-use-firing-squads

Trump administration to prioritise seeking death penalty, use firing squads

Capital punishment remains controversial in the US, with critics warning of innocent people being put on death row.

US President Donald Trump has long been a proponent of expanding capital punishment [File: Kevin Lamarque/Reuters]

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has announced plans to expand the use of the federal death penalty, including through the deployment of firing squads.

The announcement on Friday was part of a policy document issued by the Department of Justice, setting out the legal argument for various methods of execution.

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/23/indiana-redistricting-revenge-trump-00890079

His campaign to oust state Republicans who blocked his redistricting push is running into messaging challenges.

Micah Beckwith speaks from a dais, with a map of Indiana broken up into congressional districts in the foreground.

Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith announces the results of a vote to redistrict the state's congressional map at the Statehouse in Indianapolis, on Dec. 11, 2025. | Michael Conroy/AP

FRANKLIN, Ind. — President Donald Trump’s retribution campaign here is not going as well as he’d like.

The push to oust eight Indiana Republican state senators after they refused to bow to him on redistricting was supposed to be a major show of force. But after millions of dollars spent and weeks of intense campaigning, his allies are still struggling to deliver a clear, consistent message to voters for why they should unseat the lawmakers.

Just a few dozen people showed up to a rally hosted by Turning Point USA with conservative activist Scott Pressler this past weekend, featuring a cardboard cutout of Trump holding his hand triumphantly in the air. And when POLITICO asked one of the president’s handpicked candidates what the defining issue of her campaign was, state Rep. Michelle Davis paused.

Scott Pressler speaks during a rally while standing above a Turning Point Action banner and a cutout of Donald Trump. — Conservative activist Scott Pressler, left, speaks during a rally hosted by Turning Point USA at the Johnson County Fairgrounds in Franklin, Indiana, on April 18, 2026. | Adam Wren/POLITICO

“Good question, um. Gosh, okay, defining issue. What’s it about?” she said, searching for an answer. “Well, what I say, what it’s about is, that we need real, true conservatives out there. We need someone who’s going to stand with the GOP party and the conservative people, the primary voters on stuff like common sense, stuff like making sure that boys aren’t in girls locker rooms, boys don’t play in girls sports, making sure that we stand up for parental rights, yeah, those are the kind of the defining things I think are out there.”

What’s telling is Davis did not mention state Sen. Greg Walker, the incumbent she’s challenging, was a vocal opponent of Trump’s prescribed map. “When I’m knocking on doors, not one person was talking to me about redistricting,” she confessed.

That’s no surprise.

Indiana’s May 5 primary is being fueled almost solely by Trump’s need for revenge, a fury that has unleashed nearly $8 million and counting in ads alone — not to mention copious amounts of mail — in combined spending on what are normally sleepy and often uncontested races, according to AdImpact. But the contests represent the challenge of turning out MAGA’s low-propensity voting coalition in the midterm elections when Trump is not on the ballot — let alone attempting to galvanize his voters around an arcane issue like redrawing political maps.

“My guess is it’s gonna be a mixed bag,” said a national GOP operative who has been working on the races. “Everybody is going to have their spin.”

Trump’s MAGA base is proven to turn out in droves to back him because they think he’ll help them — but they might not be as keen to turn out just to punish his foes.

Scott Pressler speaks during a rally inside a fairgrounds. — Pressler speaks during the Turning Point USA rally in Franklin on April 18, 2026. Only a few dozen people showed up to attend. | Adam Wren/POLITICO

“I’ve been reminded of a lesson I learned in business a long time ago: Revenge is not a strategy,” said former Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a major GOP figure who opposed the gerrymandering and has worked to reelect the senators Trump is targeting.

MAGA forces are struggling to find a coherent theory of the case, and their messaging has largely avoided talking about redistricting. In one Senate district, Hoosier Leadership for America, Sen. Jim Banks’ political nonprofit run by longtime Team Trump operative Andrew Surabian, is hitting one target for being too old — even though he’s less than a year older than Trump.

“State Sen. Jim Buck. 80 years old. Decades in politics has changed him,” the narrator begins in the ad, which also hits him for allegedly voting “to let China own our farmland” and voting to “raise our gas tax.”

At least two of the White House-backed candidates are contending with reports about their complicated personal backgrounds, muddying their messages. “There are probably a couple candidates they wish they could have back,” said one Indiana Republican strategist, granted anonymity to assess White House strategy. “The question for the White House is, what do you consider a win? They’re sticking to what the data tells them in each of these races. We’ll see.”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

Some of the incumbents have fretted to allies in recent days that their internal polls have them losing, according to people familiar with their thinking.

An Indiana Trump ally estimated that five of the challengers were in races that were lean, likely or safe Trump wins. Three of the races were tossups or safe.

Still, some of Trump’s closest allies in the state argue that the races aren’t really about the president.

“I think some people think it’s just about loyalty to Trump,” Indiana Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith told POLITICO. “I don’t think that’s it at all. I really think what it’s more about is, hey, the future direction in the Republican Party,” referring to whether the party ultimately becomes more Trumpian even as Trump is not on the ballot.

Republicans’ narrow loss in Virginia on Tuesday, when voters approved Democrats’ plans to gerrymander that state, sparked a fresh round of venting at Hoosier holdouts. Trump’s GOP critics, however, point out that the party was vastly outspent in Virginia’s close contest — and that they could have used some of the millions of dollars MAGA is instead spending on retribution in Indiana.

“MAGA groups are spending millions to primary Indiana state senators over a single seat but hardly spent a $ in VA with 4 house seats on the line,” Marc Short, former Vice President Mike Pence’s former chief of staff, posted to X. “Makes sense right?” (Pence himself has waded in, endorsing Buck.)

A voter casts a ballot. — A voter casts their ballot during early voting at a polling place in Burke, Virginia, on April 17, 2026. | Alex Wong/Getty Images

Even if Trump runs the table here, it could be a pyrrhic victory — every dollar MAGA spends here is one it doesn’t spend in a more competitive midterm state.

When asked whether the White House was too focused on seeking retribution in a safe red seat at the expense of playing defense in battlegrounds, a Republican close to the White House and granted anonymity by POLITICO to speak candidly replied: “We can do both.”

The eight state Senate primaries in which Trump has endorsed provide an easy scorecard with which to measure his influence in a crucial midterm year. But as the retribution campaign appears to sputter, Beckwith downplayed MAGA’s need to sweep the races.

“We win three, it’ll be good,” Beckwith said. “If we win five, that’s a great night. And anything after five is just crazy.”

David McIntosh, president of the conservative Club for Growth, which has dumped $2 million across eight primaries, said his ambitions are grander: “At this stage, we want all of them.”

About 90 miles north from Franklin, MAGA forces are targeting first-term state Sen. Spencer Deery, one of their earliest and most vocal redistricting opponents. A Turning Point Action flier accuses Deery of a hodgepodge of unwelcome positions: It says he “BETRAYED” Trump on redistricting, but also accuses him of voting against “SAFETY ON OUR ROADS,” claimed he “SUPPORTS CORPORATE WELFARE,” and “WANTS TO SELL OFF HOOSIER FARMLAND.”

The mailer befuddled Deery.

“I looked at these votes, and I can’t tell you what any of those are, honestly,” Deery told POLITICO amid an afternoon door-knocking session on Monday. “I think it says that they’re clearly not thinking particularly or putting a lot of scrutiny into their analysis of the issues or the race.”

Spencer Deery walks on a sidewalk. — Indiana GOP state Sen. Spencer Deery walks toward his car during a door-knocking session on April 20, 2026 to get a $250 electric scooter, allowing him to hit more houses. | Adam Wren/POLITICO

Last month, Deery realized he could potentially knock on a third more doors if he could zip around on an electric scooter instead of walking, so he purchased a $250 knock-off on Amazon. More than $2 million has already been spent on the race, most of it against him, for a contest he estimates will take 5,500 votes to win — more than $300 in spending per vote.

“That’s an insane amount of money for a state Senate race,” he said.

But there are some signs MAGA’s muddled messaging may be backfiring

On Monday afternoon, Deery approached the home of Rosa Uhrin, 74, a longtime Republican who held an American flag she planned to hang on her porch.

“Hey, I recognize you,” she said, citing commercials against Deery.

He braced.

But instead of upbraiding him for his vote against redistricting, Uhrin told Deery she planned to vote for him.

Spencer Deery holds mailers. — Hundreds of thousands of dollars are being spent against Deery for his “no” vote on redistricting. | Adam Wren/POLITICO

“I’m a Republican, but I am just beside myself with him,” Uhrin said of Trump. “You can’t back him anymore. You … can’t back him anymore. He’s an idiot.”

Deery shrugged. “Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes I don’t. But what I tell people all the time: I don’t work for him.”

Uhrin gave Deery some encouragement. “I hope they see around those ads for you,” she said. “I hope they see that it’s not all true.”

Deery’s shoulders loosened. He turned back toward the street for hours of more knocking, stopping at his car to grab his scooter.

Thursday, April 23, 2026

RFK Jr.’s Anti-Trans Policy Has Been Toppled for All the Right Reasons

https://newrepublic.com/article/209387/rfk-jr-anti-trans-policy-toppled-right-reasons

Melissa Gira Grant

April 23, 2026

hell yeah

RFK Jr.’s Anti-Trans Policy Has Been Toppled for All the Right Reasons

It’s a relief to see the courts reject the Trump administration’s policies on the basis of the harm they do to people, not only the harm they do to the law.

Pete Kiehart/Bloomberg/Getty Images

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. speaks at a House Appropriations Subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C., on April 16.

On Saturday, a U.S. district judge, Mustafa T. Kasubhai, blocked a federal policy that forced health care providers to follow the government’s agenda and halt gender-affirming care for young people. The ruling began with a short, emphatic declaration: “Unserious leaders are unsafe.” My distinct impression was that if Kasubhai could have left it there, with just those few words, he would have. In a way, that sentence said it all, but still, he had to go on. The judge declared that the defendant—Robert F. Kennedy Jr., in his role as director of the Department of Health and Human Services—“lacked the authority” to “unilaterally” define the standards for gender-affirming care, as his policy sought to do, and that the agency lacked the authority to “exclude” providers from federal health care programs solely on the basis of their offering gender-affirming care to minors.

The order comes in a legal challenge brought by more than 20 states and the District of Columbia, to the so-called Kennedy Declaration, released on December 18, 2025. Kennedy had proclaimed that gender-affirming care for young people—which he mischaracterized as “sex-rejecting procedures”—was “neither safe nor effective,” and threatened to withhold federal health care program funding from any health care institution that offered it. Kasubhai’s ruling applies to those plaintiff states, vacating the policy and barring the federal government from attempting to issue or enforce such a policy again.

There was little legal basis for RFK Jr.’s declaration. In response to the legal challenge, lawyers representing HHS raised an increasingly desperate set of defenses, amounting to “It’s not policy, it’s just his opinion,” and arguing that to reject the purported non-policy would amount to suppressing Kennedy’s right to free speech. Kasubhai succinctly dismissed the latter argument: “Defendants cannot bully or gaslight this Court into ignoring the many procedural and legal flaws of the Kennedy Declaration by invoking one of the most sacred principles of our constitutional democracy—the freedom of speech—when that principle comes nowhere close to being implicated.” As for the former claim, lawyers for the defense argued that they didn’t need to show they had the authority to make the declaration because, in the judge’s characterization of their position, “they did not exercise any authority at all.” It’s a wild argument, “based on the bald-faced lie that the Kennedy Declaration amounts to nothing more than one man’s musings on gender-affirming care,” as Kasubhai put it.

Who among Trump’s targets hasn’t heaved a sigh of relief at similar opinions, those that read like a righteous rejection of all that Trump 2.0 set out to achieve? To take such comfort in the opinion of the courts can feel naïve, even dangerous, but they are what we have, and sometimes they even live up to their promise to act as a check on unfettered power. “This case demonstrates how disregard for the rule of law does not merely result in an abstract infraction,” the judge went on. “Rather, and tragically, this case is one of a long list of examples of how a leader’s wanton disregard for the rule of law causes very real harm to very real people.” Very real harm to very real people—it feels meaningful to see someone powerful acknowledging that the harm here is not to the rule of law alone and that the result of putting unserious leaders in the federal government is pain, chaos, and avoidable danger.

At the legal news outlet Lawdork, Chris Geidner called the opinion “a good reminder” that there are still “clear-eyed judges willing to call out Trump administration anti-trans attacks for what they are.” That may be all it is. There is a significant chance that the order will not change the conduct of the administration going forward; there is an alarming pattern, after all, in which it openly defies some federal court orders, particularly on immigration. But the ruling may embolden those providing care to understand that just because the administration lawlessly tells them what to do does not mean they have to obey.

Maybe there’s nothing surprising about a federal judge appointed by President Biden writing what he did. The same judge wrote a personal essay in 2021 about why he began asking people in his courtroom to state their pronouns when they introduce themselves, an essay I only found because it so scandalized an attorney at the foremost anti-trans law group in the United States, the Alliance Defending Freedom, or ADF. In his essay, Kasubhai describes his own desire to do better without becoming an annoying ally, the kind focused more on his own feelings of goodness than on helping people. The ADF lawyer who was so outraged by those adopting such practices, like stating one’s pronouns in courtroom introductions, characterized them as somehow deceptive—which makes sense, coming from a group whose worldview is that trans people do not exist. Railing against what the attorney called “transgender language,” the lawyer claimed that groups defending trans rights, such as the ACLU, “present new, value-laden terms as merely descriptive,” yet also, when it comes to those group’s own legal challenges, “insist that this language conveys substantive ideas, stating facts about the reality of sex and gender.”

Kasubhai’s essay, however, makes it clear that he takes seriously the way language shapes reality, and he is particularly aware of the concrete impact it has in his own courtroom. This is why it was important to him to be more intentional about his own words, he wrote, so that the people arriving there didn’t feel unwelcome or unworthy of justice. “As long as this kind of exclusion persists,” he wrote, “our courthouse doors are only slightly ajar.” In the ruling, he appears to have thought very deeply about exactly this issue: What are the consequences of a new standard? What is the cost of exclusion?

Unseriousness and carelessness, by contrast—a failure to consider these questions—define the Trump administration in its disregard for people and for the law. “A lot of the anti-trans policy that we’re seeing being made kind of on the fly, particularly from the executive branch, is completely unprecedented,” historian Jules Gill-Peterson told Mother Jones in 2025. But even before the Trump administration, the status quo was very far from the transition-on-demand fever dream of anti-trans lawmakers. “The history of medical transition is mostly a history of lack of access,” Gill-Peterson said, “regardless of what the law says.”

The Kennedy Declaration was not about whether federal heath care funding covered gender-affirming care for young people; it was an attempt to use the loss of all such funding as a threat to coerce providers into participating in the administration’s work. In a comment on the new rules, submitted to the administration by the Williams Institute, the group states that 360,800 transgender youth (or about half of all trans youth) live in states that have not passed bans on gender-affirming care; of those, 285,300 live in states with “shield” laws, designed to protect access to transition care. Nevertheless, “if finalized, hospitals across the nation—even in states without bans—would risk losing federal funding if they continue providing this care,” the group concluded.

The demise of the Kennedy Declaration cannot bring people back to states they fled to seek care elsewhere. It cannot undo the painful onslaught of messaging doubting that trans kids exist. It cannot hit reset on programs already shuttered or return experts already driven out. Frankly, the broader conditions are still so uncertain, as states race to pass ever more punitive laws—why would anyone risk coming back? But perhaps Kasubhai’s order could be a signal to health care providers—a signal that, by complying with the administration’s lawless directives, they have done harm on behalf of “unserious” people, and now they have no excuse but to stop.

Melissa Gira Grant

Melissa Gira Grant is a staff writer at The New Republic and the author of Playing the Whore: The Work of Sex Work.

Have a tip?
Get in touch with Melissa (melissagira.01) via Signal.

Editor’s Picks

A Lonely Fight

Melissa Gira Grant

Idaho Is Ground Zero of Republicans’ Escalating War on Trans People

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson speaks at a dais

JUST SPEECH?

Harry Litman

Hooray for Brown Jackson’s Brave Dissent in the Colorado Trans Case

Breaking News

Malcolm Ferguson

Trump, 79, Falls Asleep After Bragging That He’s Solved Health Care

A protester holds a sign that says, "Nothing to see here" with a photo of Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein underneath

Finn Hartnett

Trump DOJ Under Investigation for How It Handled Epstein Files

Hafiz Rashid

Tough on Crime? Trump Justice Department Purges Law Enforcement Jobs

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick testifies in Congress.

Malcolm Ferguson

Trump Commerce Secretary Flails Trying to Explain His Huge Epstein Lie

some songs

Friday, April 24, 2026

Trump administration to prioritise seeking death penalty, use firing squads

Trump administration to prioritise seeking death penalty, use firing squads

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/24/trump-administration-to-prioritize-seeking-death-penalty-use-firing-squads

Trump administration to prioritise seeking death penalty, use firing squads

Recommended Stories

listen to these podcasts

Trump’s redistricting revenge tour in Indiana isn’t going so well

Trump’s redistricting revenge tour in Indiana isn’t going so well

https://www.politico.com/news/2026/04/23/indiana-redistricting-revenge-trump-00890079

Trump’s redistricting revenge tour in Indiana isn’t going so well

Thursday, April 23, 2026

RFK Jr.’s Anti-Trans Policy Has Been Toppled for All the Right Reasons

RFK Jr.’s Anti-Trans Policy Has Been Toppled for All the Right Reasons

https://newrepublic.com/article/209387/rfk-jr-anti-trans-policy-toppled-right-reasons

RFK Jr.’s Anti-Trans Policy Has Been Toppled for All the Right Reasons

It’s a relief to see the courts reject the Trump administration’s policies on the basis of the harm they do to people, not only the harm they do to the law.