​DOJ moves to erase Jan. 6 cases
Convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders could be tossed.
By MICHAEL KUNZELMAN and ALANNA DURKIN RICHER The Associated Press

​​WASHINGTON - The Justice Department is asking a federal appeals court to throw out the seditious conspiracy convictions of Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders who were sentenced to prison terms for leading members of the far-right extremist groups in attacking the U.S. Capitol to keep President Donald Trump in office over five years ago.

Trump commuted the prison sentences of several Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders last January in a sweeping act of clemency for all 1,500-plus defendants charged in the Jan. 6, 2021, attack.

Tuesday's request by the Justice Department would go a step further and erase all the convictions for extremist group leaders, including Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes, who didn't receive pardons last January.

The move to abandon the convictions represented a stunning reversal from the Biden administration, which hailed the guilty verdicts as a crucial victory in its bid to hold accountable those responsible for what prosecutors described as an attack on the heart of American democracy. It's part of the Trump administration's continued efforts to rewrite the history of the Jan. 6 attack and downplay the violence carried out by the mob of Trump supporters that left more than 100 police officers injured.

In court filings, prosecutors asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to vacate the convictions so that the government can permanently dismiss the indictments.

Juries in Washington, D.C., convicted the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers leaders of orchestrating violent plots to stop the peaceful transfer of power after Trump's 2020 election loss to Democratic President Joe Biden.

The department's dismissal request also includes the convictions of Oath Keepers members Kelly Meggs, Kenneth Harrelson, and Jessica Watkins, and Proud Boys members Ethan Nordean, Joseph Biggs, Zachary Rehl, and Dominic Pezzola.

Other extremist group members, including former Proud Boys national chairman Enrique Tarrio, received pardons from Trump on the first day of his second term in the White House.

Rhodes was sentenced to 18 years in prison after he and several lieutenants were convicted in one of the most consequential cases arising from the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol by a mob of Trump supporters.

Prosecutors said Rhodes and his followers stockpiled guns at a Virginia hotel, but they never deployed the weapons.

Nordean's attorney, Nicholas Smith, said they are grateful to the Justice Department for its "wise decision" in seeking dismissal of the convictions.

"We don't want a precedent that says that any physical confrontation between protesters and law enforcement means a crime akin to treason, such as seditious conspiracy," Smith said.

Former Metropolitan Police Officer Michael Fanone, who was dragged into the mob and suffered a heart attack after a rioter shocked him with a stun gun, was disappointed but not surprised.

"I would remind Americans that these were traitors to this country," Fanone said. "They planned, incited, and carried out an insurrection."

December 2025, Blue Cross announced limitations on its "Silver Sneakers" health club fitness center options.

Surging medical costs drove significant financial losses last year at Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Minnesota and prompted the Eagan-based health insurer to set aside $150 million to address ongoing cost challenges, particularly in the Medicare program.

The results, which were released on Wednesday, April 1, suggest another turbulent open enrollment season could be coming this fall for seniors.

Health insurers across the country were already raising alarms over the prospect of diminished coverage next year, including benefit reductions and higher premiums. That's because federal officials in January proposed not raising 2027 payment rates to private Medicare Advantage health plans.

At Blue Cross, the red ink won't drive any midyear changes in rates or benefits. But the ongoing losses could foreshadow reductions in Medicare benefits for 2027, similar to when the insurer decided late last year to limit fitness center options in its popular SilverSneakers program.

That cost-cutting move, which angered seniors, came as Blue Cross braced to enroll many of the more than 150,000 seniors who were losing coverage due to the financial failure at Minneapolis-based health insurer UCare.

"This shows that the difficulties in the Medicare market were not unique to UCare," said Joshua Haberman, owner of the Alexander & Haberman insurance agency in Bloomington. "It's a sign of continued instability."

Medicare Advantage is the privatized version of the federal government's Medicare health insurance program for seniors and people with disabilities.
​
About half of all beneficiaries choose Advantage plans, which typically offer extra benefits at relatively low premiums. However, patients can face limits in hospital and clinic choices.

Medical costs up 21%
In 2025, UCare was the second-largest Medicare Advantage health insurer in Minnesota, reporting a staggering $504 million in operating losses the previous year.

The insurer, which is shutting down completely, announced last September that it would exit Medicare Advantage for 2026. Other carriers left certain counties in Minnesota, as the benefits with many health plans became less generous.

Amid the disruption, the parent company of Blue Cross of Minnesota picked up more than 75,000 enrollees from December to February, according to Medicare Market Insights, a data website run by Telos Actuarial in Omaha. The increase bolstered the insurer's position as the state's largest Advantage plan provider.

That enrollment win, however, might have a "winner's curse" in financial terms. Last week, Minnesota Blue Cross disclosed that in late 2025, it established a $150 million fund to cover expected losses, particularly on Medicare premiums for 2026.

"Based on anticipated enrollment shifts, expected medical costs and pricing for certain Medicare products, management determined that future premiums were insufficient to cover projected claims and related expenses," the insurer said in a regulatory filing on Wednesday.

Similarly, going into 2025, UCare saw significant membership increases, which one market watcher later described as "catastrophic growth."

Blue Cross, however, is a bigger and more diversified company. It sells employer-sponsored health plans in Minnesota, as well as Medicare coverage and Medicaid plans for lower-income residents.

UCare only sold health plans for people with government-funded benefits.

Last week, Blue Cross reported a $353 million operating loss on about $10.4 billion of revenue in 2025. The loss figure included the reserve fund for cost overruns.

Overall, the insurer paid $9.8 billion for members' medical and pharmacy services in 2025, an increase of $1.7 billion, or 21%, compared with claims spending in the prior year.

Blue Cross attributed the loss to "unfavorable performance" in federal and state government health programs.

Contributing factors included rising costs of hospital inpatient services and greater use of costly specialty medications, such as GLP-1s for diabetes and weight loss.

Strong investment earnings offset the operating loss, resulting in positive net income of $83 million.

"While financial resilience gives Blue Cross some flexibility to navigate volatility, long-term stability requires a path where payments coming in truly cover the actual cost of care," Blue Cross CEO Dana Erickson said in a statement.

Waste, abuse
In January, the federal government published preliminary information indicating that Medicare Advantage payment rates will be relatively flat in 2027 — an announcement that drove big stock price declines among the nation's large publicly traded insurers. Investors had hoped for something more like the government's 5% rate increase the previous year.

At Minnesota-based UnitedHealthcare, the nation's largest Medicare Advantage health insurer, executives warned of the potential for reduced choice, reduced access, and affordability challenges for seniors in 2027.

Final Medicare Advantage rates could be released as early as this week.

"If the 2027 payment rates fall short in addressing the harsh realities of skyrocketing medical prices in senior care, we will need to take a hard look at what changes to consider within our Medicare portfolio, "Blue Cross said in a statement to the Minnesota Star Tribune.

While tighter funding for Medicare Advantage insurers can reduce benefits for seniors, some have argued that the government has overpaid private Advantage plans for many years, particularly through "risk-adjustment" formulas that are meant to reward insurers for covering people with complex health care problems.

A series of Biden administration reforms, which were extended by the Trump administration, has begun to make a dent in the alleged overpayments, according to a March analysis by the Medicare Payment Advisory Commission.

The amount of money at stake is still large enough that Maya MacGuineas, president of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, referenced the Medicare Advantage controversy in congressional testimony last month.

"Health care represents the single largest source of waste, fraud, and abuse among government programs, and the greatest opportunity for win-wins that can lower costs for households and taxpayers alike,"

MacGuineas said.  Insurers deny that there are overpayments.
They stress that enrollment growth in Medicare Advantage plans over the years shows that seniors like the coverage, which often includes not only fitness center benefits but also vision and dental care.

The proposed payment rates for next year "could result in benefit cuts and higher costs for 35 million seniors and people with disabilities when they renew their Medicare Advantage coverage in October 2026,"  Chris Bond, a spokesman for AHIP, the trade group for health insurers, said in a statement.

csnowbeck@startribune.com
$353 million Blue Cross' operating loss reported in 2025
$1.7 billion Increase in Blue Cross members’ medical and pharmacy services paid in 2025

THE SAVE ACT - WHAT IS IT? and  Is it necessary? The SAVE Act (formally the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) is high-profile federal legislation currently being debated in the U.S. Senate as of March 2026. While its primary stated goal is to ensure only U.S. citizens vote in federal elections, it has become a central point of political friction due to the specific documentation it would require from all voters.

Core Provisions
The act proposes several significant changes to how Americans register and vote:

Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC): It would require all individuals to provide physical proof of citizenship (such as a U.S. passport, birth certificate, or naturalization papers) when registering to vote or updating their registration.

National Photo ID Requirement: It mandates a strict photo ID requirement for voting in federal elections. Notably, it specifies that the ID must denote U.S. citizenship, which most current state driver's licenses (including REAL IDs) do not explicitly state.

Voter Roll Purges: The act would require states to frequently cross-reference their voter rolls with federal databases (like DHS records) to identify and remove non-citizens.

Impact on Registration: If passed, it would effectively end online and mail-in voter registration in most states, as it requires DPOC to be presented in person.

The Debate: The bill is currently a "top priority" for Republican leadership, but faces stiff opposition from Democrats and voting rights groups. PerspectiveArgumentsProponents Argue it is a "common sense" measure to secure elections, prevent non-citizen voting, and restore public trust in the democratic process.

Opponents point out that non-citizen voting is already illegal and extremely rare. They argue the act would disenfranchise millions of eligible citizens—particularly married women who have changed their names, students, and low-income individuals—who may not have easy access to a birth certificate or passport.
​
Current Status: The House passed the "SAVE America Act" (an updated version) in February 2026. It is currently under intense debate in the Senate, where its passage remains uncertain due to concerns over implementation costs and potential voter hurdles.

Well, I, as well as all Americans, wish to have safe and fair elections.  But the SAVE Act will interfere with casting votes more than most of us can understand.  For example, if you are a married woman and your last name does not appear on your birth certificate, you are not verified to vote.  You need a passport.
HEY!  IS THIS CORRECT?  LET'S FACT CHECK!

The SAVE Act: Impact on Married Women & Voting. The Documentation Challenge

The proposed SAVE Act (Safeguard American Voter Eligibility Act) requires all voters to provide Documentary Proof of Citizenship (DPOC) to register to vote in federal elections.

While this sounds straightforward, it creates a significant "verification gap" for millions of American women.

Why the Birth Certificate Isn't Enough. If you are a married woman whose current legal last name differs from the name on your birth certificate, a birth certificate alone will not verify your identity to vote.

Under the SAVE Act, your documents must provide a direct link between your identity and your citizenship.

This means:  
If you have a passport, you are verified, as it reflects both your current legal name and your citizenship status.

If you do NOT have a Passport: You must provide a "Document Trail." This typically requires your original (or certified copy) Birth Certificate PLUS every Marriage License or Divorce Decree necessary to track your name changes from birth to today.

The "Verification Interference" by the Numbers
90% of Married Women: Approximately 90% of women in the U.S. change their names upon marriage.

The Passport Gap: Over 50% of Americans do not currently hold a valid U.S. passport, leaving the "document trail" as the only option for millions of women.

The Burden of Proof: Locating, requesting, and paying for certified copies of decades-old marriage licenses can be a time-consuming and costly hurdle that many voters may not be able to clear before an election deadline.
​
Summary Table: Documentation Requirements Document in
HandVerified to Vote? 

Valid U.S. Passport                                        YES
Birth Certificate (Name Match)              YES
Birth Certificate (Name Mismatch)       NO
            (Requires Marriage License)
Standard Driver’s License                          NO
           (Does not prove citizenship)

Minnesota joins suit vs. EPA over repeal of climate finding​ Federal move eliminated basis for emissions standards. By MATTHEW DALY The Associated Press​ The Endangerment finding of 2005 determined that greenhouse gases that are heating up the planet threaten public health. EPA leader Lee Zelden, above, says wiping out that finding will save money.

WASHINGTON - Two dozen states, including Minnesota, along with more than a dozen cities and counties, sued the Environmental Protection Agency on Thursday, challenging the Trump administration's repeal of a scientific finding that had been the central basis for U.S. action to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and fight climate change.

A rule finalized by the EPA last month revoked the 2009 endangerment finding that determined carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases threaten public health and welfare. The Obama-era finding had been the legal underpinning of nearly all climate regulations under the Clean Air Act for motor vehicles, power plants and other pollution sources that are heating the planet.

The repeal eliminates all greenhouse gas emissions standards for cars and trucks and could unleash a broader undoing of climate regulations on stationary sources such as power plants and oil and gas facilities.

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, is the second major challenge to the endangerment repeal, following a suit filed last month by public health and environmental groups.

The new lawsuit asserts that EPA's rescission of the endangerment finding abandons a core responsibility to the American people.

"Instead of helping Americans face our new reality, the Trump administration has chosen denial, repealing critical protections that are foundational to the federal government's response to climate change," said New York Attorney General Letitia James, who led the suit along with attorneys general of Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut.
In all, 24 states, 10 cities, and five counties joined the lawsuit.
All are led by Democrats.

"Climate change is real, and it's already affecting our residents and our economy," said Massachusetts Attorney General Joy Campbell. "When the federal government abandons the law and the science, everyday people suffer the consequences."

Massachusetts "has long led the way in protecting our communities from the dangers of greenhouse gas emissions, and we are proud to stand up once again to lead this fight for our future," she said.

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a landmark 2007 case, ruled that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases are "air pollutants" under the Clean Air Act. Since the high court's decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, courts have uniformly rejected legal challenges to the endangerment finding, including a 2023 decision by the D.C. Circuit.

EPA spokeswoman Brigit Hirsch said the latest lawsuit was "not about the law or the merits of any argument."

Instead, the plaintiffs "are clearly motivated by politics," she said.
The EPA "carefully considered and re-evaluated the legal foundation" of the 2009 finding in light of recent court decisions, including a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that limited how the clean air law can be used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions from power plants, Hirsch said.

In addition to Minnesota, New York, Massachusetts, California and Connecticut, the case was joined by attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New Mexico, Nevada, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the District of Columbia and U.S. Virgin Islands.

The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection also joined the case, along with the cities of Albuquerque, Boston, Chicago, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Los Angeles, New York and San Francisco, and five counties in California, Colorado, Texas and Washington state.
​
The dispute is likely to end up back before the Supreme Court, which is now far more conservative than it was in 2007.

​Trump, advisers miscalculate  IRAN:  The risks to energy markets are a short-term concern. By MARK MAZZETTI, TYLER PAGER and EDWARD WONG The New York Times

WASHINGTON — On Feb. 18, as President Donald Trump weighed whether to launch military attacks on Iran, Chris Wright, the energy secretary, told an interviewer he was not concerned that the looming war might disrupt oil supplies in the Middle East and wreak havoc in energy markets.

Even during the Israeli and U.S. strikes against Iran last June, Wright said, there had been little disruption in the markets.  "Oil prices blipped up and then went back down," he said.

Some of Trump's other advisers shared similar views in private, dismissing warnings that — the second time around — Iran might wage economic warfare by closing shipping lanes carrying roughly 20% of the world's oil supply.

The extent of that miscalculation was laid bare in recent days, as Iran threatened to fire at commercial oil tankers transiting the Strait of Hormuz, the strategic choke point through which all ships must pass on their way out of the Persian Gulf.

In response to the Iranian threats, commercial shipping has come to a standstill in the Gulf, oil prices have spiked, and the Trump administration has scrambled to find ways to tamp down an economic crisis that has triggered higher gasoline prices for Americans.

The episode is emblematic of how much Trump and his advisers misjudged how Iran would respond to a conflict that the government in Tehran, Iran's capital, sees as an existential threat.

Iran has responded far more aggressively than it did during last June's 12-day war, firing barrages of missiles and drones at U.S. military bases, cities in Arab nations across the Middle East, and on Israeli population centers.

U.S. officials have had to adjust plans on the fly, from hastily ordering the evacuation of embassies to developing policy proposals to reduce gas prices.

After Trump administration officials gave a closed-door briefing to lawmakers on Tuesday, Sen. Christopher S. Murphy, D-Conn., said on social media that the administration had "NO PLAN" for the Strait of Hormuz and did "not know how to get it safely back open."

Inside the administration, some officials are growing pessimistic about the lack of a clear strategy to finish the war.

But they have been careful not to express that directly to the president, who has repeatedly declared that the military operation is a complete success.

Trump has laid out maximalist goals such as insisting that Iran name a leader who will submit to him, while Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth have described narrower and more tactical objectives that could provide an off-ramp in the near term.

Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, said the administration "had a strong game plan" before the war broke out, and vowed that oil prices would drop after it ended.

"The purposeful disruption in the oil market by the Iranian regime is short-term and necessary for the long-term gain of wiping out these terrorists and the threat they pose to America and the world," she said in a statement.

This article is based on interviews with a dozen U.S. officials, who asked to remain anonymous to discuss private conversations.

Hegseth acknowledged Tuesday that Iran's ferocious response against its neighbors caught the Pentagon somewhat off guard. But he insisted that Iran's actions were backfiring.

"I can't say that we anticipated necessarily that's exactly how they would react, but we knew it was a possibility," Hegseth said at a Pentagon news conference.

"I think it was a demonstration of the desperation of the regime."

Trump has displayed growing frustration over how the war is disrupting the oil supply, telling Fox News that oil tanker crews should "show some guts" and sail through the Strait of Hormuz.

Some military advisers did warn before the war that Iran could launch an aggressive campaign in response and would view the U.S.-Israeli attack as a threat to its existence.

But other advisers remained confident that killing Iran's senior leadership would lead to more pragmatic leaders taking over who might bring an end to the war.

When Trump was briefed about risks that oil prices could rise in the event of war, he acknowledged the possibility but downplayed it as a short-term concern that should not overshadow the mission to decapitate the Iranian regime.

He directed Wright and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to develop options for a potential price spike.

But the president did not speak publicly about these options — including political risk insurance backed by the U.S. government, and the potential of U.S. Navy escorts — until more than 48 hours after the conflict started. The escorts have not yet taken place.

Wright, the energy secretary, caused a market commotion Tuesday when he posted on social media that the Navy had successfully escorted an oil tanker through the Strait of Hormuz.

His post drove up stocks and reassured oil markets. Then, when he deleted the post after administration officials said no escorts had taken place, markets were once again thrust into turmoil.

Efforts to resume shipments have been complicated by intelligence that Iran was preparing to lay mines in the strait, one U.S. official said.
The Iranian operation was only in its earliest stages, but the preparatory efforts spooked the Trump administration. The U.S. military said Tuesday evening that its forces had attacked 16 Iranian mine-laying vessels near the strait.

As the conflict has roiled global markets, Republicans in Washington have grown concerned that rising oil prices could undermine their efforts to sell an economic agenda to voters ahead of the midterm elections.

Trump, both publicly and privately, has been arguing that Venezuelan oil could help solve any shocks coming from the Iran war.

The administration announced Tuesday a new refinery in Texas that officials said could help increase oil supply, ensuring that Iran does not cause any long-term damage to oil markets.

The confidence that White House officials had that the shipping lanes could stay open is surprising, given that Trump authorized a military campaign last year against the Houthis, a Yemeni group backed by Iran, that had used missile and drone attacks to bring maritime commerce in the Red Sea to a halt.

Tariff refund process in works ​Importers in April can make claims on $166B paid in illegal levies. By MAE ANDERSON The Associated Press

NEW YORK - Government officials are getting closer to ironing out a refund process for the hundreds of thousands of companies that paid tariffs now deemed illegal.

In a filing with the Court of International Trade on Friday, Brandon Lord, executive director of U.S. Customs and Border Protection's trade policy and programs directorate, said the CBP is working on a new system that will simplify the process. He said it should be ready in 45 days and require "minimal submission from importers."

The filing comes after a judge on Wednesday ordered the government to start paying back all importers the illegal tariffs they paid — with interest.

Judge Richard Eaton of the U.S. Court of International Trade wrote that "all importers of record" were "entitled to benefit" from the Supreme Court ruling that struck down sweeping double-digit import taxes President Donald Trump imposed last year under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).

Eaton would have to approve the process before it proceeds.

In the filing, Lord said as of March 4, over 330,000 importers have made a total of over 53 million entries with CBP and paid about $166 billion in tariffs that now have to be refunded.

Lord estimated that under the current system, refunds would take more than 4.4 million man-hours to complete, and it isn't feasible to divert all employees to the refund process full time, because "CBP's other functions and responsibilities would be severely disrupted and the agency would not be able to continue to adequately perform its mission, including its revenue protection mandate and its vital national security functions."

But he said the agency is confident they can develop and implement a new process that will streamline and consolidate refunds and interest payments.
​
The system should be ready in 45 days, he said.

​… And For His Next Offense To maintain control of Congress Trump is trying to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans DAN RATHER AND TEAM STEADY FEB 16, 2026

Don't miss the video at the very end of this article / Harv

November 3 is 260 days away. Between now and then, no story is more consequential to the survival of our republic than Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the midterm elections. These biennial contests have long been viewed as an interesting political exercise about the popularity of the president and his administration’s policies.

November 3 is 260 days away. Between now and then, no story is more consequential to the survival of our republic than Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the midterm elections. These biennial contests have long been viewed as an interesting political exercise about the popularity of the president and his administration’s policies.

If only things were still so innocent and uncomplicated. The current president is applying maximum pressure trying to ensure the election keeps Republicans in power, whatever the cost to our democracy. The latest misadventure by Trump and his minions was on Friday when

Kristi Noem, the oft-criticized Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, made it clear she believes her agency should be involved in election integrity, claiming she has the authority to find “vulnerabilities” in the election system to make sure they are “run correctly.” The last thing this country needs is ICE agents or DHS involved in elections. Noem was in Arizona when she made these remarks, speaking to election deniers about the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE) Act. The SAVE Act, which passed the House on Thursday, includes a provision that requires a photo ID to vote and one that would mandate people to prove their citizenship by producing a birth certificate or passport when registering to vote.

According to the Brennan Center for Justice, 21 million Americans, or 9% of the voting public, lack easy access to these documents, and half of Americans don’t even possess a passport. Young voters and people of color, who tend to vote Democratic, would be disproportionately affected by this requirement. Women who change their last names when they marry would face new hurdles when registering since the name on their birth certificate would not match current identification. Eighty-five percent of married women take their husband’s name or hyphenate.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there is currently no pathway to passage of the SAVE Act in the Senate, deliberately avoiding calls for elimination of the filibuster. That didn’t sit well with Trump, who took to social media in a huff. “There will be Voter I.D. for the Midterm Elections, whether approved by Congress or not!” he wrote. Whether it is constitutional or not. Trump’s unyielding election denialism and his ever-increasing menu of illegal maneuvers to subvert the election come not from any evidence that U.S. elections are rife with fraud but from his inability to admit he lost in 2020. His tacit understanding is that Republicans will lose big in November— and that it will be his fault.

​New polling in the wake of Alex Pretti’s killing at the hands of federal agents and recent, disturbing revelations in the Epstein files shows Trump’s approval rating average has hit an all-time low. He is currently 15 points underwater and less popular than Joe Biden was at this point in his presidency. The fact that midterm elections tend to be referenda on a president’s policies does not bode well for Republicans’ chances in November. Trump’s approval on his top agenda items, immigration enforcement and the economy, are also underwater. Historically, when a sitting president’s approval is above 50% he should expect to lose a handful of House seats in the midterm elections. The loss of three seats in 2026 would result in the Democrats retaking the majority. When a president’s approval dips below 50%, the predictions are far worse. Trump, who hasn’t been at or above 50% approval for more than a year, may lose at least 32 congressional seats, according to an analysis by Gallup. According to Democracy Docket’s Marc Elias, Trump’s election subversion timeline is right on schedule. First, he lies about voting and fraud, which he has been doing since Day One of his second term. When that loses steam, he tries to gain traction by going to the courts. When those cases inevitably fail, as they have almost every time since he started this practice in 2016, he resorts to abusing executive power. This is roughly where we’ve been and where we are. Since he can’t win in a court of law, he makes his case in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately, he has achieved significantly more success there. It is worth mentioning that Trump had no problem with the 2016 or 2024 presidential election results, the ones he won. Only the results of 2020 remain in doubt in his mind. But he has done a masterful job conning millions of people into believing that one election was rigged — this despite mountains of evidence that it was free and fair, according to multiple independent organizations including the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank and the University of Maryland Center for Democracy. Even the far-right Heritage Foundation’s own data shows fewer than 100 noncitizens have voted since 1982! But lack of evidence has never stopped this president. A frustrating paradox of our current political state is that democratic mechanisms are being used to undermine democracy itself. Political scientists Steven Levitsky and Lucan Way call Trump’s form of governance “competitive authoritarianism,” a hybrid regime where democratic institutions — elections, the courts, the media — still exist but are forcibly skewed in favor of those in power, tipping the scales so they may remain in power. Election subversion is one tactic of “competitive authoritarianism.” It is used to legally hold onto power by corrupting elections to prevent the true winner from taking office. It allows for elections to take place, while supplying a patina of legitimacy. Think Hungary and Viktor Orbán, Recep Erdoğan in Turkey, or Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. For a man who claims to be worried about the safety of our elections Trump has a dangerous way of showing it. He dismantled the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which helped states keep our elections safe, especially from the increased threat of cyber attacks. He fired or sidelined election security personnel. He threatened to prosecute election officials in states where he didn’t like the outcome in 2020. He demanded voter files from all 50 states and the District of Columbia in order to purge legitimate voters from the rolls, which he has no authority to do. Twenty-four states, including some red states, have not complied. So he took them to court, unsuccessfully so far. He is now promising an executive order that would require photo identification to vote and ban mail-in ballots. He seems undeterred by the fact that he issued a similar order last March and was blocked by a federal court. Recent election wins by Democrats, low approval ratings, and defeats in court are fueling Trump’s increasingly desperate attempts to find ways to manipulate the system to guarantee Republicans wins in November. This election is shaping up to be one of the most consequential of my lifetime. The very foundation of our constitutional republic, based on the principles of freedom and democracy, is at stake.

Watch this video.  It really explains a lot in about 15 minutes.  Do I think democracy is at stake?  YES!  The video will explain why!

​IN DHS SHUTDOWN, MANY WORK, FEW PAID Officials say they worry about morale during latest funding lapse. ​By KAROUN DEMIRJIAN and MADELEINE NGO • The New York Times WASHINGTON

​— Funding for the Department of Homeland Security lapsed early Saturday, with no breakthrough in negotiations and no clear sign of when it might be revived.

The shutdown of the sprawling department is the result of a bitter impasse over the Trump administration's immigration crackdown in cities including Minneapolis . Democrats do not want to fund the department unless Congress imposes rules requiring immigration officers to identify themselves during operations, remove their masks and obtain judicial warrants to make arrests on private property. Republicans have rejected those demands as overly burdensome.

But the lapse in funding is not expected to bring the department's immigration enforcement operations to a screeching halt. And the department is home to several agencies unrelated to immigration, including the Coast Guard and the Federal Emergency Management Agency, that will be affected.

During last fall's recordlong federal shutdown, more than 90% of the department's employees were required to work. The department has not updated its public guidance for funding lapses since then, but it is expected to handle a DHSfocused shutdown similarly.

"DHS essential missions and functions will continue as they do during every shutdown," the department said in a statement. "However, during a shutdown, many employees will be forced to work without pay, putting strain on the frontline defenders of our nation."

Here's how the shutdown could affect some of the department's most visible activities.

Immigration enforcement
The agencies at the heart of the dispute over DHS funding will almost certainly be among the least affected by a department shutdown. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which employs about 22,000 officers, and Customs and Border Protection, which employs more than 60,000 officials, perform work seen as essential to public safety, and employees can therefore be legally required to work, even without pay. (Under a 2019 law, they — like others employed directly by the federal government — are entitled to back pay once funding resumes.) ICE in particular has an extra cushion: Last summer, Congress drastically expanded its operating budget as part of a sweeping domestic policy bill with an extra $75 billion, resources it can use to ride out a lapse in funding.

Airport security
About 95% of the Transportation Security Administration's roughly 60,000 employees are required to report to work through a shutdown without being paid, according to the agency's acting administrator, Ha Nguyen McNeill.

Still, during the fall's shutdown, that open-ended requirement proved untenable to many workers, who found it difficult to ride out what became a 43-day shutdown without taking side jobs. TSA saw a spike in resignations after that shutdown, McNeill told lawmakers this week, while she noted that the agency was trying to increase hiring before the World Cup later this year.

Disaster response
Nearly 85% of Federal Emergency Management Agency employees are expected to work without pay through any shutdown, based on how the agency handled last fall's lapse in funding.

FEMA's disaster relief fund has enough money to carry out its current and anticipated emergency response activities, according to Gregg Phillips, the associate administrator for the agency's Office of Response and Recovery. But if a catastrophic disaster were to occur during a Homeland Security Department shutdown, the fund "would be seriously strained," he told lawmakers last week.

FEMA would find it difficult to reimburse states for disaster relief operations quickly, Phillips said. Those delays could in turn slow recovery efforts, he added.

Immigration benefits
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, the agency that processes green cards, naturalization and other benefit applications, is largely funded by fees it charges applicants, so most operations would typically continue during a shutdown. During the last shutdown, a vast majority of the agency's roughly 22,000 employees continued working.
Some programs do receive appropriated funds, including E-Verify, which allows employers to check their employees' eligibility to work in the country.

During the last shutdown, the program was temporarily suspended. In a statement Thursday, Matthew Tragesser, an agency spokesperson, said the administration would "take decisive action to keep E-Verify open during a shutdown."

Coast Guard
Although the Coast Guard is part of the Homeland Security department, it operates like any other branch of the military when it comes to government shutdowns: Uniformed personnel must keep coming to work, even though most of them will not be paid until after the shutdown is over.

Vice Admiral Thomas Allan, the acting vice commandant of the Coast Guard, has warned that a prolonged shutdown would erode mission readiness and hurt morale.

Cybersecurity operations
Most employees at the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, which helps protect the country's election system, power grids and water utilities, will be furloughed during the shutdown.

The agency is requiring 888 of its 2,341 employees to continue working, many of them without pay.

Secret Service
About 94% of the Secret Service's workforce of more than 8,000 is staying on the job, many without pay, during the shutdown. Matthew C. Quinn, the deputy director of the agency, said Wednesday that agents would continue to protect the president and vice president, along with their families. They would also continue to protect former presidents and their spouses, in addition to visiting heads of state and other top government officials. Still, Quinn warned about fading morale "as bills come due."

Trapped by ICE in a ‘prison of fear’ Across Minnesota, refugees and immigrants hide at home. Story by JAMES WALSH and JP LAWRENCE • Photo by ELIZABETH FLORES The Minnesota Star Tribune

MANKATO - The pickup truck with Texas plates rolled slowly past as the driver looked at the home, then his phone, before turning the corner.
Inside the mobile home, two families — three adults and six children — huddled behind drawn curtains and locked doors, waiting for the feared pounding on the door. Minutes passed before they could exhale, safe from federal agents — for now.

Across Minnesota, thousands of immigrants and refugees, many of them legal residents, have been hiding for weeks from U.S. Department of Homeland Security agents deployed to the state in the largest immigration enforcement operation in history.

Immigrants and refugees interviewed by the Minnesota Star Tribune say they fear being detained, fear being separated from loved ones, and fear being physically hurt by federal agents.

As a result, many restaurants are shortstaffed or closing altogether. Sales have plummeted at small businesses. And attendance at schools has dropped sharply as more kids opt to stay home.

Besides detaining undocumented immigrants as part of Operation Metro Surge, the Department of Homeland Security also launched Operation PARRIS in January to detain and "re-examine" refugees who were admitted to the U.S. legally but have not yet gotten green cards. It applies to an estimated 5,600 Minnesota refugees who have gone through a robust screening process and are on the pathway to citizenship.

In the Mankato home, one of the mothers (who asked that her name not be used) said through an interpreter that the family is here legally and is waiting to be granted asylum. They have lived and worked in Minnesota for three years.

They are hiding anyway. For the past month, they haven't left their two-bedroom mobile home. Weeks-old snow covers two of the three cars parked outside. There is no hot water; the water heater has been broken for weeks.

"These are things we are living. The kids don't sleep. We don't sleep. We are even afraid to take out the garbage," the mother said.

Willmar parents reassure their children
It's the middle of the afternoon, but 11-year-old Allison's room in Willmar is as dark as night.

The shades are firmly shut, the lights switched off. As the girl holds her baby brother in the darkness, her mother, Erika, who came to the U.S. four years ago from Honduras and has an open asylum case, watches and worries from the threshold of the bedroom door.

Like other immigrant children across the state, Allison has asked questions that her parents have difficulty answering: Can she go back to school soon? Why are federal agents detaining people? What if our family gets separated?

Erika worries Allison is getting depressed, staying inside her room with the shades drawn and the door closed. Her friends at school made clay sculptures recently. If life were normal, Allison said, she knows exactly what she would have sculpted: a butterfly.

Erika tries to reassure Allison, but it's becoming harder, she said, because she's scared, too.

Also in Willmar, Diana Alvarado Reyes, a U.S. citizen originally from Honduras, said she gets hard questions from her 7-year-old son.
He asked her whether they should leave the country, and why they have to be afraid "if we're not bad people, if we go to church."

Said Reyes: "It's hard for us to give them some explanation. We don't know how they're going to take it, but we're just trying to do our best."
Like Reyes, her children are U.S. citizens, but she said she doesn't trust that her family is safe or that federal agents are only going after criminals, which is what the Trump administration has claimed. She cited videos of ICE agents using heavyhanded tactics and detaining U.S. citizens. Local activists and officials have alleged agents are using racial profiling — which federal officials deny.

'Hiding in the shadows'
K, who didn't want to give his full name out of fear, is a legal resident seeking asylum from genocide and civil war in Ethiopia.

A doctor in his home country, K said he's now enrolled in an MBA program. He said he has no criminal history.

But he's been unable to go to class or work. Fear of being detained by ICE has kept him shut up in his apartment for the past three weeks. He can't even go grocery shopping, he said.

"I am a prisoner in my apartment," said the 30-yearold North St. Paul resident. "I am hiding in the shadows, not because I have committed a crime, but because the streets of Minnesota have begun to look terrifyingly similar to the war zone I escaped."

He said he came to America more than three years ago because he "believed in its fundamental promise: that liberty, safety and due process are inalienable rights."

Yet, despite following the law, paying taxes and his rent, and receiving no government aid, K said he's trapped "in a nightmare."

ICE's tactics, he said, are the ones used by government forces in Ethiopia: checkpoints, warrantless searches, profiling based on skin color or accent and arrests for nothing more than being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

K, who is receiving treatment for PTSD at the Center for Victims of Torture, said: "This is not the freedom I sought. This is a prison of fear."
The center's Scott Roehm said detaining legal asylum-seekers and transferring detainees out of state "is a singular, wholesale attack on human rights."

"There is an inherent cruelty to it," he said. "There's an inherent bigotry to it. I also think there's a thought this demonstrates power. But I think it demonstrates weakness."

Federal officials did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Roehm said he's not surprised that thousands of residents are hiding.
"Nobody is safe from what's happening right now. Nobody," he said. "It's a climate of terror, and you're seeing more people recognize that."
So far, Roehm said, the only defense is filing lawsuits as soon as possible, and continuing to alert the news media and elected officials about encounters with ICE.

Several legal groups and five refugees did just that, filing a class-action lawsuit in January over Operation PARRIS, alleging it violated the Constitution and is detaining refugees who are lawfully in Minnesota. In late January, a judge granted a temporary restraining order, and ordered the immediate release of refugees currently detained under the policy.

In announcing Operation PARRIS, federal officials said it would help root out fraud in Minnesota and is "part of a broader strategy to implement enhanced screening standards."

K said he still hopes to be granted asylum, but there's a backlog of cases.

Helping those who are in hiding
Across the state, Minnesotans are rallying to organize food drives and fundraisers to support families who are in hiding or unable to go the grocery store themselves. Schools, offices and places of worship have transformed into makeshift food shelves to collect and distribute groceries, diapers and other essentials to immigrant families.

Before the recent ICE surge in Minnesota, E, who also didn't want to be named for fear of being detained, worked in human resources for a Mankato area meatpacking company as a liaison to immigrants from Mexico.

He's worked in the Mankato area for four years. But after his work permit expired in September, E has been a volunteer community organizer, part of a team of hundreds helping residents get the things they need while in hiding, such as food, medicine and school materials, and tracking ICE's movements.

E, who said he has no criminal record, has applied for another work permit. In the meantime, the 34-year-old is also in danger of being detained and running out of money.

The need for help is only growing, he said. In September, about 1,000 area residents lost their work permits. This coming July, another 3,000 will be without work and subject to being detained, he said.

When their money runs out, he said, people will no longer be able to hide from ICE. "I'm just hoping we can make it," he said.

ElizabethFlores and Susan Du of the Minnesota Star Tribune contributed to this story.
​
jim.walsh@startribune.com jp.lawrence@startribune.com

"I am a prisoner in my apartment. I am hiding in the shadows, not because I have committed a crime, but because the streets of Minnesota have begun to look terrifyingly similar to the war zone I escaped."

K, a 30-year-old North St. Paul resident

U.N. says it’s facing financial collapse because of unpaid dues
By FARNAZ FASSIHI The New York Times

​ NEW YORK - The United Nations said that it was facing imminent financial collapse and would run out of money by July if countries, namely the United States, did not pay their annual dues that amount to billions of dollars.

Senior U.N. offi cials said that if the cash ran out, the agency would be forced to shut down its landmark headquarters in New York by August. The U.N. Security Council, a 15-member body responsible for maintaining international peace and stability, convenes its meetings at U.N. headquarters.

It would also have to cancel the annual General Assembly gathering of world leaders held in September and shut the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, which responds to global emergencies like conflicts and natural disasters, it said Friday.

The U.N. secretary-general, António Guterres, sent a letter to the ambassadors of all 196 member states Thursday warning them of "imminent financial collapse," saying the organization's financial straits this time were different from those in any previous periods, according to a copy of the letter seen by the New York Times.

"The crisis is deepening, threatening program delivery and risking financial collapse," Guterres wrote. "And the situation will further deteriorate in the near future. I cannot overstate the urgency of the situation we now face."

On Dec. 30, the General Assembly authorized $3.45 billion for the United Nations' 2026 budget, covering the organization's three core pillars of work: peace and security, sustainable development and human rights.

The United States is responsible for about 95% of the money owed to the United Nations, about $2.2 billion, according to a senior U.N. official who briefed reporters on the agency's budget crisis.

That amount is a combination of the U.S. annual dues for 2025, which has not been paid, and for 2026, the U.N. official said.

As for comment, the U.S. mission to the United Nations referred questions to the State Department, which did not immediately respond.

Annual U.N. dues are mandatory and set according to a country's gross domestic product.

President Donald Trump, citing mismanagement, waste and redundancy, withdrew the United States in early January from dozens of international organizations, including several U.N. agencies like the Population Fund. Trump had already pulled the country out of UNESCO, the U.N. cultural agency; the World Health Organization; and the U.N. Human Rights Council. And he said the United States would reduce funding for peacekeeping operations.

In addition to its annual dues, the United States also owes the United Nations about $1.9 billion for active peacekeeping missions, $528 million for closed missions and $43.6 million for tribunals such as the International Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court, said the senior U.N. offi cial in the briefing.

The United States has indicated to the United Nations that it would make a payment of about $160 million for active peacekeeping but would not pay for the tribunals, the senior U.N. offi cial said. Peacekeeping missions have been instructed to reduce their budgets by 15%, the U.N. official said.
​
Farhan Haq, a spokesperson for the United Nations, said that if the United Nations shut down in July, humanitarian work around the world would also be affected and the work of civilian staff hampered. Agencies such as UNICEF, which handles children's issues; the U.N. Refugee Agency; and the World Food Program have budgets separate from donations and would continue to operate. But the U.N. agency that coordinates relief work across agencies would close.