update - 25 Dem states bring lawsuit to force Trump admin to continue to pay social assistance benefits during shutdown
- Thread starter mandrill
- Start date
Judge rules Trump's anti-discrimination agency engaged in discrimination
A judge has ruled this month that the anti-discrimination agency under President Donald Trump engaged in discrimination against a transgender employee, which the former worker called "devastating."
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, was formed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to enforce anti-discrimination laws in American workplaces, Mother Jones reports. But a judge's ruling this month determined that under the Trump administration, "the federal agency tasked with helping workers who experienced hostile work environments became a hostile work environment itself."
EEOC Director of Information Governance and Strategy Marc Seawright, who identifies as a queer trans man, was “forced to resign because EEOC leadership engaged in discrimination against transgender employees, including the claimant,” administrative judge Mary Shea of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board wrote in a ruling this month.
Shea found that Seawright had "good cause" to resign from his position in June. And due to the discrimination, he is eligible for unemployment benefits while the complaint is under review by the EEOC.
"Before his resignation, the information technology specialist had spent the last eight years working on projects that enabled the EEOC to carry out its core mission: preventing and fighting workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy status, disability, and genetic information," Mother Jones reports. "Among Seawright’s proudest contributions was an app he developed that enabled colleagues to display their pronouns across agency systems."
Seawright was also the board leader of the agency's employee-elected LGBTQ+ employee resource group, but that changed when the Trump administration's new EEOC chair, Andrea Lucas, disbanded the group in January.
He was then instructed to develop a technological process for the EEOC to scan or censor agency materials for "any mention of transgender, non-binary, or sexual orientation."
In Seawright's complaint, he wrote:
“What made it more disturbing was my forced involvement in making it happen.”
“Being forced to create the information technology that would systematically erase all EEOC references to transgender, non-binary, or other LGBTQ+ people, given that I am a queer transgender man, was personally devastating and contributed to a hostile work environment,” he said.
He described getting pushed out of meetings and the network system he needed to access.
“The conditions of my employment have continued to deteriorate and I expect they will become worse as Acting Chair Lucas takes further steps to discriminate against transgender employees,” his complaint said.
A judge has ruled this month that the anti-discrimination agency under President Donald Trump engaged in discrimination against a transgender employee, which the former worker called "devastating."
The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, or EEOC, was formed under the 1964 Civil Rights Act to enforce anti-discrimination laws in American workplaces, Mother Jones reports. But a judge's ruling this month determined that under the Trump administration, "the federal agency tasked with helping workers who experienced hostile work environments became a hostile work environment itself."
EEOC Director of Information Governance and Strategy Marc Seawright, who identifies as a queer trans man, was “forced to resign because EEOC leadership engaged in discrimination against transgender employees, including the claimant,” administrative judge Mary Shea of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board wrote in a ruling this month.
Shea found that Seawright had "good cause" to resign from his position in June. And due to the discrimination, he is eligible for unemployment benefits while the complaint is under review by the EEOC.
"Before his resignation, the information technology specialist had spent the last eight years working on projects that enabled the EEOC to carry out its core mission: preventing and fighting workplace discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, pregnancy status, disability, and genetic information," Mother Jones reports. "Among Seawright’s proudest contributions was an app he developed that enabled colleagues to display their pronouns across agency systems."
Seawright was also the board leader of the agency's employee-elected LGBTQ+ employee resource group, but that changed when the Trump administration's new EEOC chair, Andrea Lucas, disbanded the group in January.
He was then instructed to develop a technological process for the EEOC to scan or censor agency materials for "any mention of transgender, non-binary, or sexual orientation."
In Seawright's complaint, he wrote:
“What made it more disturbing was my forced involvement in making it happen.”
“Being forced to create the information technology that would systematically erase all EEOC references to transgender, non-binary, or other LGBTQ+ people, given that I am a queer transgender man, was personally devastating and contributed to a hostile work environment,” he said.
He described getting pushed out of meetings and the network system he needed to access.
“The conditions of my employment have continued to deteriorate and I expect they will become worse as Acting Chair Lucas takes further steps to discriminate against transgender employees,” his complaint said.
ICE officials living in a 'culture of fear' as arrests lag and jobs threatened: report
A shakeup is looming at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because Donald Trump’s White House has become increasingly frustrated with the pace of arrests of undocumented immigrants -- and now jobs are on the line.
According to a report from the New York Times, regional ICE officials are being asked to explain why arrest numbers are down which led former senior ICE official Claire Trickler-McNulty to explain, “They are under constant threat; people are ground down; it’s a culture of fear.”
Noting that the agency has been in constant turmoil, Trickler-McNulty added, “There has been so much shuffling of deck chairs — I can’t imagine anyone even having the ability to take on real challenges.”
According to the Times’ Hamed Aleaziz and Tyler Pager, “The proposed shake-up illustrates how the administration is still scrambling to satisfy Mr. Trump’s demand to crack down on immigration, an issue at the heart of his political agenda, even as the president and his top aides have promoted their efforts to secure the border and deport hundreds of thousands of people.”
With the administration setting a goal of 600,000 deportations by the end of Trump’s first year of his second term, the report states the numbers are falling from the proposed 3,000 immigrants per day, ordered by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, down to slightly more than 1,000 a day.
Despite a massive influx of funding, the lack of results is becoming a bone of contention within the agency.
The Times report notes, “As ICE arrest numbers have lagged, Border Patrol officials have taken on a larger role in immigration enforcement, in sweeps at big-box stores and in a sprawling operation at an apartment complex in Chicago. ICE efforts, by contrast, typically focus on a single subject at a time.”
You can read more here.
A shakeup is looming at Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) because Donald Trump’s White House has become increasingly frustrated with the pace of arrests of undocumented immigrants -- and now jobs are on the line.
According to a report from the New York Times, regional ICE officials are being asked to explain why arrest numbers are down which led former senior ICE official Claire Trickler-McNulty to explain, “They are under constant threat; people are ground down; it’s a culture of fear.”
Noting that the agency has been in constant turmoil, Trickler-McNulty added, “There has been so much shuffling of deck chairs — I can’t imagine anyone even having the ability to take on real challenges.”
According to the Times’ Hamed Aleaziz and Tyler Pager, “The proposed shake-up illustrates how the administration is still scrambling to satisfy Mr. Trump’s demand to crack down on immigration, an issue at the heart of his political agenda, even as the president and his top aides have promoted their efforts to secure the border and deport hundreds of thousands of people.”
With the administration setting a goal of 600,000 deportations by the end of Trump’s first year of his second term, the report states the numbers are falling from the proposed 3,000 immigrants per day, ordered by Trump advisor Stephen Miller, down to slightly more than 1,000 a day.
Despite a massive influx of funding, the lack of results is becoming a bone of contention within the agency.
The Times report notes, “As ICE arrest numbers have lagged, Border Patrol officials have taken on a larger role in immigration enforcement, in sweeps at big-box stores and in a sprawling operation at an apartment complex in Chicago. ICE efforts, by contrast, typically focus on a single subject at a time.”
You can read more here.
‘They cheated!’ Trump calls for new wave of prosecutions in late night tirade
President Donald Trump called for the prosecution of several former Justice Department officials late Friday night over allegations that Republican lawmakers’ communications were monitored as part of the DOJ’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Earlier this month, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, shared a report that revealed that eight Senate Republicans had their communications monitored by the DOJ under the Biden administration.
Among the top-ranking DOJ officials at the time were Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, FBI Director Christopher Wray and DOJ attorney Jack Smith, all of whom Trump directly named Friday in a late-night social media post.
“Just in: Documents show conclusively that Christopher Wray, Deranged Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, and other crooked lowlifes from the failed Biden Administration, signed off on Operation Arctic Frost,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.
“They spied on Senators and Congressmen/women, and even taped their calls. They cheated and rigged the 2020 Presidential Election. These Radical Left Lunatics should be prosecuted for their illegal and highly unethical behavior!”
Republicans have called the DOJ’s investigation into Republicans over their alleged involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election “worse than Watergate,” and Trump has latched on to the report’s findings to single out former DOJ officials for prosecution.
Trump’s calls for individuals to be prosecuted has already been followed up on by his DOJ, with former FBI Director James Comey having been indicted this month, as was New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis – the prosecutor who brought election interference charges against Trump – reportedly under investigation.
President Donald Trump called for the prosecution of several former Justice Department officials late Friday night over allegations that Republican lawmakers’ communications were monitored as part of the DOJ’s investigation into efforts to overturn the 2020 election.
Earlier this month, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee, shared a report that revealed that eight Senate Republicans had their communications monitored by the DOJ under the Biden administration.
Among the top-ranking DOJ officials at the time were Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco, FBI Director Christopher Wray and DOJ attorney Jack Smith, all of whom Trump directly named Friday in a late-night social media post.
“Just in: Documents show conclusively that Christopher Wray, Deranged Jack Smith, Merrick Garland, Lisa Monaco, and other crooked lowlifes from the failed Biden Administration, signed off on Operation Arctic Frost,” Trump wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.
“They spied on Senators and Congressmen/women, and even taped their calls. They cheated and rigged the 2020 Presidential Election. These Radical Left Lunatics should be prosecuted for their illegal and highly unethical behavior!”
Republicans have called the DOJ’s investigation into Republicans over their alleged involvement in efforts to overturn the 2020 election “worse than Watergate,” and Trump has latched on to the report’s findings to single out former DOJ officials for prosecution.
Trump’s calls for individuals to be prosecuted has already been followed up on by his DOJ, with former FBI Director James Comey having been indicted this month, as was New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Georgia District Attorney Fani Willis – the prosecutor who brought election interference charges against Trump – reportedly under investigation.
Liberia agrees to accept man at centre of US deportation row
Liberia is willing to accept Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he is deported from the United States, according to new documents filed in US federal court. Uganda, Ghana and Eswatini all previously refused to take him in.
The Salvadoran national's case has become a magnet for opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration policies since he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, in violation of a settlement agreement. He was returned to the US in June after the US Supreme Court said the administration had to work to bring him back. Since he cannot be re-deported to El Salvador, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Maryland has previously barred his immediate deportation. Abrego Garcia's lawsuit there claims the Trump administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish him for the embarrassment of his earlier mistaken deportation.
A Friday court filing from the Department of Homeland Security notes that "Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the United States's closest partners on the African continent." Its national language is English; its constitution "provides robust protections for human rights;" and Liberia is "committed to the humane treatment of refugees," the filing reads. It concludes that Abrego Garcia could be deported as soon as October 31.
'Cruel and unconstitutional'
"After failed attempts with Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to Liberia, a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland," a statement from attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg reads. "Costa Rica stands ready to accept him as a refugee, a viable and lawful option. Yet the government has chosen a course calculated to inflict maximum hardship. These actions are punitive, cruel, and unconstitutional."
Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the US illegally as a teenager. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a "well-founded fear" of violence from a gang that targeted his family, according to court filings. In a separate action in immigration court, Abrego Garcia has applied for asylum in the United States.
Abrego Garcia is also facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive.
Liberia is willing to accept Kilmar Abrego Garcia if he is deported from the United States, according to new documents filed in US federal court. Uganda, Ghana and Eswatini all previously refused to take him in.
The Salvadoran national's case has become a magnet for opposition to President Donald Trump's immigration policies since he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, in violation of a settlement agreement. He was returned to the US in June after the US Supreme Court said the administration had to work to bring him back. Since he cannot be re-deported to El Salvador, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been seeking to deport him to a series of African countries.
Meanwhile, a federal judge in Maryland has previously barred his immediate deportation. Abrego Garcia's lawsuit there claims the Trump administration is illegally using the deportation process to punish him for the embarrassment of his earlier mistaken deportation.
A Friday court filing from the Department of Homeland Security notes that "Liberia is a thriving democracy and one of the United States's closest partners on the African continent." Its national language is English; its constitution "provides robust protections for human rights;" and Liberia is "committed to the humane treatment of refugees," the filing reads. It concludes that Abrego Garcia could be deported as soon as October 31.
'Cruel and unconstitutional'
"After failed attempts with Uganda, Eswatini, and Ghana, ICE now seeks to deport our client, Kilmar Abrego Garcia, to Liberia, a country with which he has no connection, thousands of miles from his family and home in Maryland," a statement from attorney Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg reads. "Costa Rica stands ready to accept him as a refugee, a viable and lawful option. Yet the government has chosen a course calculated to inflict maximum hardship. These actions are punitive, cruel, and unconstitutional."
Abrego Garcia has an American wife and child and lived in Maryland for years, but he immigrated to the US illegally as a teenager. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to El Salvador, where he faces a "well-founded fear" of violence from a gang that targeted his family, according to court filings. In a separate action in immigration court, Abrego Garcia has applied for asylum in the United States.
Abrego Garcia is also facing criminal charges in federal court in Tennessee, where he has pleaded not guilty to human smuggling. He has filed a motion to dismiss the charges, claiming the prosecution is vindictive.
U.S. President Donald Trump continues to order military strikes against Venezuelan boats that he claims are transporting illegal drugs bound for the United States. Trump is defending the strikes as necessary to protect Americans, but many of his critics are denouncing the attacks as "extrajudicial killings."
In an article published on October 25, Salon's Sabrina Haake warns that Trump appears to be moving in the direction of a much broader military action against Venezuela —including, possibly, a regime change operation designed to oust leftist President Nicolas Maduro.
Harvard University history professor Dennis M. Hogan, in an op-ed for the New York Times published the same day, argues that Trump is hoping for a "quick and easy victory" with Venezuela but will encounter a difficult uphill battle instead.
"As the Trump Administration doubles down on its campaign against Mr. Maduro, officials may very well have in mind Washington's last overthrow of a Latin American leader, also accused of ties to the narcotics trade, Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, in 1989," Hogan explains. "It was an operation many hailed — wrongly, in some respects — as a quick and easy victory that ousted a repressive strongman and led to his imprisonment for drug trafficking. The situation in Venezuela is far different, and seeking regime change there could be disastrous for the United States and the region."
The historian lays out a variety of reasons why overthrowing Maduro would be so difficult for the U.S. in Venezuela.
"To begin with," Hogan notes, "the contrasts between Panama and Venezuela: Panama is a small country with a population at the time of the invasion of fewer than three million people…. Venezuela is a sprawling, geographically diverse country with a population of nearly 30 million. The United States maintains no military installations there, and it is not home to a strategic asset like the Panama Canal, unless you include oil reserves. Venezuela's neighbors Colombia and Brazil have been at odds with the Trump Administration."
The Harvard professor continues, "As policy analysts across the political spectrum have argued, the likeliest outcome of a U.S. invasion that topples Mr. Maduro is a surge in regional instability, and, according to a recent report by the Stimson Center, a worsening of the conditions leading to drug trafficking, conflict and migration…. Even in Panama, where circumstances in 1989 were favorable to America's aims, the operation was neither bloodless nor painless, nor completely successful. How much more serious will the consequences of such adventurism be in Venezuela?"
Dennis M. Hogan's full op-ed for The New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).
Trump’s quest for 'quick and easy' victory will likely end in bitter disappointment: historian
In an article published on October 25, Salon's Sabrina Haake warns that Trump appears to be moving in the direction of a much broader military action against Venezuela —including, possibly, a regime change operation designed to oust leftist President Nicolas Maduro.
Harvard University history professor Dennis M. Hogan, in an op-ed for the New York Times published the same day, argues that Trump is hoping for a "quick and easy victory" with Venezuela but will encounter a difficult uphill battle instead.
"As the Trump Administration doubles down on its campaign against Mr. Maduro, officials may very well have in mind Washington's last overthrow of a Latin American leader, also accused of ties to the narcotics trade, Gen. Manuel Noriega of Panama, in 1989," Hogan explains. "It was an operation many hailed — wrongly, in some respects — as a quick and easy victory that ousted a repressive strongman and led to his imprisonment for drug trafficking. The situation in Venezuela is far different, and seeking regime change there could be disastrous for the United States and the region."
The historian lays out a variety of reasons why overthrowing Maduro would be so difficult for the U.S. in Venezuela.
"To begin with," Hogan notes, "the contrasts between Panama and Venezuela: Panama is a small country with a population at the time of the invasion of fewer than three million people…. Venezuela is a sprawling, geographically diverse country with a population of nearly 30 million. The United States maintains no military installations there, and it is not home to a strategic asset like the Panama Canal, unless you include oil reserves. Venezuela's neighbors Colombia and Brazil have been at odds with the Trump Administration."
The Harvard professor continues, "As policy analysts across the political spectrum have argued, the likeliest outcome of a U.S. invasion that topples Mr. Maduro is a surge in regional instability, and, according to a recent report by the Stimson Center, a worsening of the conditions leading to drug trafficking, conflict and migration…. Even in Panama, where circumstances in 1989 were favorable to America's aims, the operation was neither bloodless nor painless, nor completely successful. How much more serious will the consequences of such adventurism be in Venezuela?"
Dennis M. Hogan's full op-ed for The New York Times is available at this link (subscription required).
Trump’s quest for 'quick and easy' victory will likely end in bitter disappointment: historian
Bezos’s Washington Post jumps to the defense of Trump’s new ballroom: ‘A shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere’
The Washington Post’s editorial board has jumped to the defense of President Donald Trump and his $300 million ballroom in its latest op-ed for the newspaper.
Jeff Bezos is the owner of the Post and the CEO of Amazon, one of the tech giants that has contributed funds toward Trump’s ballroom, along with Apple, Google, HP, Microsoft and Meta.
Trump’s new project has prompted widespread criticism this week after crews began demolishing the White House’s historic East Wing, contrary to assurances the president made earlier in the year that the building would not be impacted by the lavish plans.
Now it has been razed to the ground to make way for the ballroom, which will dwarf the 55,000 square-foot White House at 90,000 square feet.
While the newspaper’s board noted that Trump has pursued the project “in the most jarring manner possible,” it also stated the move was “a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere” in the op-ed published Saturday evening.
The acronym stands for “not in my back yard” and is often used to describe opposition from local residents over development and real estate projects.
The Post’s editorial board agrees with Trump’s team that it is “absurd” tents need to be erected on the South Lawn to accommodate larger state dinners where guests are “forced to use porta-potties.”
Under Trump’s grand plans, the ballroom will seat 999 guests. “The next Democratic president will be happy to have this,” the op-ed read.
The board also dismissed concerns that Trump has bypassed the usual process required for major federal renovations.
While the newspaper’s board noted that Trump has pursued the project ‘in the most jarring manner possible,’ it also stated the move was ‘a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere’ (AFP via Getty Images)
“The truth is that this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process,” the op-ed said, adding that it has become “far too difficult to build anything in America.”
Parroting the defense Trump officials have given this week, the Post’s board closed its case by arguing other presidents also left their mark on the White House.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt welcomed the op-ed. “First dose of common sense I’ve seen from the legacy media on this story!” Leavitt reacted in a post on X.
There were more than 1,500 comments underneath the op-ed within a few hours of publication, with many pointing out the apparent conflict of interest.
“Why didn’t you mention that Amazon is a funder of the ballroom?” the top comment on the op-ed said.
“Looks like Jeff Bezos is now writing OpEds for the Post!” another joked.
The East Wing, which stood for more than 100 years, has been razed to the ground to make way for the ballroom, which will dwarf the White House at 90,000 square feet (AFP/Getty)
“Did Jeff Bezos write this?” said another reader.
“I honestly don’t recognize this version of The Post,” someone else commented.
Journalists at the paper expressed concern earlier this year that Bezos is currying favor with Trump by softening the Post’s coverage of him. The backlash began when the Amazon founder blocked the editorial board’s endorsement of then-vice president Kamala Harris just days before the 2024 election.
A quarter-million readers canceled their subscriptions after Bezos pulled the Harris endorsement.
Then, staffers were enraged in February after Bezos announced a shocking new direction for the paper’s opinion content that resulted in a top editor resigning.
“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” he noted. “We’ll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”
It later emerged that Bezos dined with Trump just hours after he unveiled the new mandate, the president revealed in an interview.
The Washington Post’s editorial board has jumped to the defense of President Donald Trump and his $300 million ballroom in its latest op-ed for the newspaper.
Jeff Bezos is the owner of the Post and the CEO of Amazon, one of the tech giants that has contributed funds toward Trump’s ballroom, along with Apple, Google, HP, Microsoft and Meta.
Trump’s new project has prompted widespread criticism this week after crews began demolishing the White House’s historic East Wing, contrary to assurances the president made earlier in the year that the building would not be impacted by the lavish plans.
Now it has been razed to the ground to make way for the ballroom, which will dwarf the 55,000 square-foot White House at 90,000 square feet.
While the newspaper’s board noted that Trump has pursued the project “in the most jarring manner possible,” it also stated the move was “a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere” in the op-ed published Saturday evening.
The acronym stands for “not in my back yard” and is often used to describe opposition from local residents over development and real estate projects.
The Post’s editorial board agrees with Trump’s team that it is “absurd” tents need to be erected on the South Lawn to accommodate larger state dinners where guests are “forced to use porta-potties.”
Under Trump’s grand plans, the ballroom will seat 999 guests. “The next Democratic president will be happy to have this,” the op-ed read.
The board also dismissed concerns that Trump has bypassed the usual process required for major federal renovations.
While the newspaper’s board noted that Trump has pursued the project ‘in the most jarring manner possible,’ it also stated the move was ‘a shot across the bow at NIMBYs everywhere’ (AFP via Getty Images)
“The truth is that this project would not have gotten done, certainly not during his term, if the president had gone through the traditional review process,” the op-ed said, adding that it has become “far too difficult to build anything in America.”
Parroting the defense Trump officials have given this week, the Post’s board closed its case by arguing other presidents also left their mark on the White House.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt welcomed the op-ed. “First dose of common sense I’ve seen from the legacy media on this story!” Leavitt reacted in a post on X.
There were more than 1,500 comments underneath the op-ed within a few hours of publication, with many pointing out the apparent conflict of interest.
“Why didn’t you mention that Amazon is a funder of the ballroom?” the top comment on the op-ed said.
“Looks like Jeff Bezos is now writing OpEds for the Post!” another joked.
The East Wing, which stood for more than 100 years, has been razed to the ground to make way for the ballroom, which will dwarf the White House at 90,000 square feet (AFP/Getty)
“Did Jeff Bezos write this?” said another reader.
“I honestly don’t recognize this version of The Post,” someone else commented.
Journalists at the paper expressed concern earlier this year that Bezos is currying favor with Trump by softening the Post’s coverage of him. The backlash began when the Amazon founder blocked the editorial board’s endorsement of then-vice president Kamala Harris just days before the 2024 election.
A quarter-million readers canceled their subscriptions after Bezos pulled the Harris endorsement.
Then, staffers were enraged in February after Bezos announced a shocking new direction for the paper’s opinion content that resulted in a top editor resigning.
“We are going to be writing every day in support and defense of two pillars: personal liberties and free markets,” he noted. “We’ll cover other topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be left to be published by others.”
It later emerged that Bezos dined with Trump just hours after he unveiled the new mandate, the president revealed in an interview.
Former park leaders demand Trump close national parks amid chaos
As the government shutdown drags on, hundreds of former National Park Service employees are urging the administration under US President Donald Trump to protect parks by closing them.
They're worried about reports of misbehavior in the parks, specifically pointing to a wildfire sparked near an unstaffed campground in Joshua Tree National Park and illegal BASE jumpers and squatters flaunting rules in Yosemite National Park.
These incidents "clearly demonstrate the problems with keeping parks open with minimal or no staff," a letter sent Thursday from 450 former employees to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum states. "We write to you with great alarm after dangerous and life-threatening incidents at national parks and urge you once again to close all national parks until the government re-opens," the letter reads.
According to the letter, there are also "less high-profile reports of bathrooms overflowing, trash that is not being picked up, and trails that are not being safely maintained or monitored, which add urgency to our ask."
Employees argued that keeping parks open without enough staff to resolve these problems violates the agency's mission, which includes protecting and conserving resources for future generations. "We recognize that closing parks is not an easy decision, but it's the responsible one," they wrote. "Protecting our parks now ensures that future generations can enjoy them as we do today."
A spokesperson from the Department of the Interior who didn't provide their name wouldn't say if Burgum was considering closing parks. Instead, they blamed Democrats for the shutdown and talked about the shutdown's impact on economies that revolve around national parks.
"The Department recognizes the serious consequences that a lapse in federal appropriations, caused by Congressional Democrats, has on the National Park System," they wrote. "We are committed to protecting park resources, ensuring public safety, and maintaining visitor access to the greatest extent practicable."
Park sites have been mostly open (with some exceptions) during the shutdown but operating with skeleton crews, closed visitor centers, and the lack of much-needed entrance and campground fee revenue. According to the Department of the Interior, 80% of the service's 430 sites, which include national monuments, historic battlefields and more, are currently open in some capacity. These sites are using past fee revenue to support operations, an approach deemed illegal by the Government Accountability Office during the last shutdown.
Parks are already operating with 24% fewer permanent staff members than before the Trump administration began reducing the size of the federal government this winter. Of the approximately 15,000 remaining agency employees, almost two thirds, or 9,300 workers, are furloughed. The rest are working without pay, for now.
The Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, a group of current and former employees and volunteers, and the Association of National Park Rangers, a group of park professionals, coordinated the letter writing and signing campaign. "As iconic landscapes burn and campgrounds and trails are littered with trash or human waste, Secretary Burgum cannot sit idly by," Emily Thompson, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement.
High-level leaders threw their support behind the message, including two former directors, six former regional directors and more than 90 former superintendents. "Leaving the parks open to be trashed or damaged, and then requiring employees to 'fix' it all when they go back to work is unacceptable and unfair," Bill Wade, the association's executive director, said in a news release.
A group of more than 40 former national park superintendents also asked Burgum to close parks when the shutdown began on Oct. 1, citing vandalism that occurred during the 2018-2019 government shutdown. He ignored the request.
As the government shutdown drags on, hundreds of former National Park Service employees are urging the administration under US President Donald Trump to protect parks by closing them.
They're worried about reports of misbehavior in the parks, specifically pointing to a wildfire sparked near an unstaffed campground in Joshua Tree National Park and illegal BASE jumpers and squatters flaunting rules in Yosemite National Park.
These incidents "clearly demonstrate the problems with keeping parks open with minimal or no staff," a letter sent Thursday from 450 former employees to Secretary of the Interior Doug Burgum states. "We write to you with great alarm after dangerous and life-threatening incidents at national parks and urge you once again to close all national parks until the government re-opens," the letter reads.
According to the letter, there are also "less high-profile reports of bathrooms overflowing, trash that is not being picked up, and trails that are not being safely maintained or monitored, which add urgency to our ask."
Employees argued that keeping parks open without enough staff to resolve these problems violates the agency's mission, which includes protecting and conserving resources for future generations. "We recognize that closing parks is not an easy decision, but it's the responsible one," they wrote. "Protecting our parks now ensures that future generations can enjoy them as we do today."
A spokesperson from the Department of the Interior who didn't provide their name wouldn't say if Burgum was considering closing parks. Instead, they blamed Democrats for the shutdown and talked about the shutdown's impact on economies that revolve around national parks.
"The Department recognizes the serious consequences that a lapse in federal appropriations, caused by Congressional Democrats, has on the National Park System," they wrote. "We are committed to protecting park resources, ensuring public safety, and maintaining visitor access to the greatest extent practicable."
Park sites have been mostly open (with some exceptions) during the shutdown but operating with skeleton crews, closed visitor centers, and the lack of much-needed entrance and campground fee revenue. According to the Department of the Interior, 80% of the service's 430 sites, which include national monuments, historic battlefields and more, are currently open in some capacity. These sites are using past fee revenue to support operations, an approach deemed illegal by the Government Accountability Office during the last shutdown.
Parks are already operating with 24% fewer permanent staff members than before the Trump administration began reducing the size of the federal government this winter. Of the approximately 15,000 remaining agency employees, almost two thirds, or 9,300 workers, are furloughed. The rest are working without pay, for now.
The Coalition to Protect America's National Parks, a group of current and former employees and volunteers, and the Association of National Park Rangers, a group of park professionals, coordinated the letter writing and signing campaign. "As iconic landscapes burn and campgrounds and trails are littered with trash or human waste, Secretary Burgum cannot sit idly by," Emily Thompson, the coalition's executive director, said in a statement.
High-level leaders threw their support behind the message, including two former directors, six former regional directors and more than 90 former superintendents. "Leaving the parks open to be trashed or damaged, and then requiring employees to 'fix' it all when they go back to work is unacceptable and unfair," Bill Wade, the association's executive director, said in a news release.
A group of more than 40 former national park superintendents also asked Burgum to close parks when the shutdown began on Oct. 1, citing vandalism that occurred during the 2018-2019 government shutdown. He ignored the request.
