Retired Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), once the most prominent out member
of Congress and a champion for LGBTQ+ rights over his 32-year career in
the House, has died. He was 86.
Frank is survived by his husband, Jim Ready.
Frank had been in hospice care near his home in Ogunquit, Maine, for
the past few months, receiving treatment for congestive heart failure.
His family said he passed away Tuesday night.
“He was, above all else, a wonderful brother. I was lucky to be his sister,” his sister Doris Breay said, NBC 10 Boston reports.
Barney's life is the story of America and gay rights. Time and again, he was at the center of the struggle for equality and time and again the people -- Republicans in Congress -- attacking him were exposed as liars -- Larry Craig to name but one. A number of the Republicans attacking Barney over the years would turn out to be closet cases.
Republican U.S. House candidate Abraham Enriquez denied a
right-leaning website’s May 18 article claiming that he had a
“physical,” “romantic,” but un-committed year-long relationship with a
man he met via Grindr while Enriquez pushed for anti-LGBTQ+ policies as a
student leader at Abilene Christian University (ACU) in Texas.
The article, published on the website The Current Revolt,
contained screenshots of text messages allegedly shared between
Enriquez and the man he met on Grindr in 2017. While the publication
reportedly verified that the number in the text messages matches that of
Enriquez’s personal cellphone and the cellphone number listed on his
voter registration records, Enriquez denies the veracity of the text
messages.
The screenshots allegedly show the now-Republican candidate saying
that he cannot host because he lives with four other guys, expressing
uncertainty over whether he’ll ever come out, and responding that it’s
“pretty intense” yet “perfect” after the other man comments on how
sexually aroused Enriquez makes him.
In 2017, Enriquez was majoring in political science and serving as
ACU’s student body vice president, the publication stated. In a YouTube video
posted in January 2026 by Lubbock-based Trinity Church, Enriquez
mentions vetoing a bill that would have allowed a LGBTQ+ student group
to form at the university.
39 years after Barney came out, Republican politicians still hide in the closet.
Wednesday, May 20, 2026. Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche appears
before the Senate and can't answer honestly on Chump's slush fund or on
Epstein (or for that matter on Maxwell) nor does he understand the
prison system he's supposed to be overseeing.
Earlier this morning on MS NOW's MORNING JOE, Joe and Mika addressed Chump's $1.8 million slush fund.
Acting
Attorney General, right now families are paying four, five -- even six or
seven dollars for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years
because of the president’s policies, but instead of helping Americans
get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a
slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department
settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion,
and you and the president will pick the handful of people who decide how
that money gets doled out. So let's be clear: what we are talking about
is nothing short of the sitting President of the United States looting
from the Treasury for his own gain. Do you seriously think this
arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal government
to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he
chooses?
That's Senator
Patty Murray asking Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche that in
yesterday's Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice,
Science and Related Agencies hearing. Blanche disputed the
characterization. As Senator Murry noted, Senator Chris Van Hollen
raised the issue. So did Senator Chris Coons.
Senator
Chris Coons: Thank you. Let me return to the line of questioning from
the ranking member, Senator Van Hollen, that I strongly agree with. I’m
just looking at the settlement agreement in Trump v. IRS, and I just
want to make sure I heard you properly when you responded previously.
Your announcement said that the fund will send you quarterly reports.
Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans know
who’s getting taxpayer dollars out of the settlement fund? This says
they’ll be confidential. This is Section 4, Part E of the settlement
agreement.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: :
So – the reason why I want to be careful in my answer is because
there’s obviously laws that exist around privacy that may prevent some
of the information that the commission takes in from being fully public.
Beyond that, there will be full transparency, and I commit to you that
beyond the applicable laws that exist around privacy and privileges and
whatnot, but as far as being transparent and having those quarterly
reports released, yes.
Senator Chris Coons:
Thank you. You referenced a previous case, I think it was Keepseagle v.
Vilsack, under the previous administration. Did that case involve a
president suing his own government and then settling that case before it
could be reviewed or approved by a judge?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, no. Neither does the commission.
Senator
Chris Coons: No, it did not. And so when you suggested that they’re
nearly identical, they’re not identical. I think there’s a critical
difference here: President Trump is the first president to sue his own
government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach
this kind of settlement. Will you commit that none of President Trump’s
family will receive a direct payout from this fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes,
but what you just said is not true. I mean – if I can correct that –
the president did not direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we
said that the structure of the commission is similar to Keepseagle,
that’s true. It wasn’t – the underlying case is not the same, the
structure of the commission is the same as the Keepseagle commission.
Senator
CHris Coons: Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own
government for $10 billion and then directed the settlement of the case
and the establishment of a payout fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Not
that I’m aware, but there are a lot of things that President Trump’s
the first of. No president had been indicted one, two, three, four,
five, six, seven, eight times either.
Senator
Chris Coons: Correct. No president’s been indicted. And will you commit
that none of this money will go to President Trump’s campaign donors?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I
am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself.
When you say campaign donors, they are not excluded from seeking
compensation if they were weaponized.
Senator
Chris Coons: Last question, during Police Week, I heard from a number of
law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the
possibility that folks like the Oath Keepers and the Proud Boys, who had
assaulted Capitol Police officers, could receive multimillion-dollar
payouts from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been
convicted of assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this
fund?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So,
I share the concerns that apparently members of law enforcement gave to
you last week, although none of this was announced last week, so that’s
surprising.
Senator Chris Coons: They had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Okay,
but anybody can apply. The commissioners will set rules, I’m sure.
That’s not for me to set, that’s for the commissioners, and whether an
individual – an Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned – applies for
compensation, anybody in this country can apply.
Senator Patty Murray, noted in the video above, questioned Blanche about the slush fund.
Senator
Patty Murray: Acting Attorney General, right now families
are paying four, five -- even six or seven dollars for gas. Inflation is
at
its highest level in years because of the president's policies, but
instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using
their tax dollars to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. On
Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting
up a fund with $1.8 billion, and you and the president will pick the
handful of people who decide how that money gets doled out. So let's be
clear: what we are talking about is nothing short of the sitting
President of the United States looting from the Treasury for his own
gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The
president
telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay
billions to the people that he chooses?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: What you just described wouldn't be
appropriate, and that's absolutely not what happened, and that’s not
what's happening now. So, you just set up a series of facts most of
which that were not true to say as if --
Senator Patty Murray: No. They were true.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: No, it's not. I mean I --
Senator Patty Murray: The president has set up a slush
fund -- however you want to say it got set up --- and he will literally get to
choose through his handpicked appointees who gets paid that fund. That
is absurd.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, the president did not
set up this fund, it's not a slush fund. It's been done many times; we
have lots of funds --
Senator Patty Murray: I heard your response earlier to Senator Van
Hollen; this is not comparable to the case that you cited -- a judge was
not involved. This is the president versus himself, setting up a fund
and --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: A judge was not involved in the
distribution of the Keepseagle case at all. It just wasn't. There was a
single commissioner that was set up -- not five -- and so when I --
Senator Patty Murray: The judge signed off on that case.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Yes, it was a much later point in the litigation.
Senator Patty Murray: That’s my point -- that is all of our point.
And I just have to tell you: this is corruption that has never been more
blatant or more widespread. But what is happening is that you write the
check, Trump and his cronies cash it. American taxpayers -- who are
already being whacked with high prices -- are going to foot the bill. That
is what we are seeing today and that is what many of us are really,
really angry about.
Senator Jack Reed had many questions about the slush fund as well.
Senator Jack Reed: Mr. Blanche how many tax payers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Uh, how many tax payers? Excuse me?
Senator Jack Reed: How many tax payers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know the exact amount, but a lot.
Senator Jack Reed: 5,427. One of them was Donald Trump. Correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Uh, one of them was Donald Trump. Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: One of them was Donald Trump and his family were others, correct.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Right.
Senator Jack Reed: And Donald Trump was president at the time.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: It was a criminal who worked in the IRS, yes.
Senator Jack Reed: Well he was hired under Trump's admin. This is one of the Trump --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: There was a criminal breach that led to this, yes.
Senator Jack Reed: Very good. How many of these 400,000 have received monetary reimbursement for the breach?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't think any have including the president.
Senator
Jack Reed: No, they haven't. But you've authorized the president. Do
you agree the president should have reimbursment, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: No, we've settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement to President Trump.
Senator Jack Reed: Well that's interesting.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: But --
Senator Jack Reed: So you're going to assure us President Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: He will not. He will not get. His family will not get.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: And who will direct the disposition of these? Who gets the money? From the victims' fund?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well, there'll be a commission of five
individuals that will be set up and they will take in requests and
claims and decide whether to do anything for emotional problems.
Senator Jack Reed: Who will name the commissioners?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I will or the Attorney General -- whoever the Attorney General is.
Senator Jack Reed: Okay.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Sorry, just to correct, and one of them
will be done in consultation with leadership of this body.
Senator
Jack Reed: Consultation. Well that's good but, when he first announced
this suit on January 30th, he said, "I think what we'll do is something
for charity, where I'll the money to charity. I'm talking about the
American Cancer Society. I would say established and respected
charities." Will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to
respected charities?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm aware that he put that in there,
said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for.
Senator Jack Reed: Well the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the Dept of Justice, correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's vision of giving it to a respected charity?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I am confident his lawyers urged the president's desires.
Senator
Jack Reed: The order that you signed yesterday states that the
government pay the settlement if the Secretary of the Treasury has
certified the payment. Is that correct?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Correct.
Senator Jack Reed: Is it a coincidence that the general counsel of the Dept of Treasury resigned yesterday?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know if it's a coincidence
Senator Jack Reed: Have you looked or checked?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Have I checked?
Senator Jack Reed: Yeah
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I've not.
Senator
Jack Reed: as to why he's resigned? It just seems to be very
coincidental that a high-ranking member of The Dept of Treasury, Senate
confirmed, would resign the day that the Treasury Dept was required to
-- required essentially to certify these payments.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I believe the IRS signed the
settlement agreement as well. But I - I - I don't, I can't speak to why
he resigned, Senator.
Senator
Jack Reed: Well this all seems to be an obvious abuse of power by the
Dept of Justice, by the president. He negotiated essentially with
himself. Your his appointee. The IRS are his appointees. He's the
plaintiff. And the American people, I don't think are surprised that
suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that are in
his orbit.
And let's clear up
something here regarding the notion that this slush fund is a
replacement for Chump's $10 billion claim over the IRS exposure. As
Senator Jack Reed pointed out in the hearing, over 5,000 other people
also had their tax returns leaked. They had not sued and certainly not
sued for $10 billion dollars. More to the point, Chump can't sue this
year. He's not doing something -- giving up his ten billion claim -- to
be nice. He can't sue. It's too late for him to sue.
[Dan] Abrams
said that Trump had a legitimate gripe about the IRS leaking his tax
return information — but it’s a moot point now because the statute of
limitations has run out.
“That’s the thing so
few people are talking about — there’s a two-year statute of limitations
on this claim,” Abrams said. He added, “What’s most galling to me about
this is, this is creating what I’m gonna call a ‘constitutional crisis
in spirit.’
Abrams said he’s careful to not
declare a “constitutional crisis” over and over, because the term only
counts when the executive branch defies the courts.
But, he said, “This was clearly an effort to get it out of the courts.”
“The
judge was clearly going to dismiss this lawsuit. And so, rather than to
allow that to happen, they ‘settled it’ right?” Abrams said. “They are
gaslighting us and I’m lit! I admit it. It worked. I’m gaslit! I mean,
they know — there’s gotta be someone back there who’s laughing as
they’re creating this [weaponization] language. Like, ‘Oh, this is
really gonna piss them off!'”
Whether he was right or wrong, the statute of limitations had run out. He had two years to file a claim. It's over.
Chump's best friend of so many decades is dead now but Jeffrey Epstein, sex trafficker, continues to remain in the news. And he also popped up during the hearing.
Senator Patty Murray: So let me
move to another topic. This Dept of Justice is sending the message that
if you're wealthy. if you're powerful, if you are well-connected, you
won't be held accountable even if you abuse children. You know, it's
after Congress passed The Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOJ finally
began to release the files, your department exposed survivors' names,
their sensitive personal information and even nude photos while
redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. The message
that sends is this Dept of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy
of potential child abusers than the survivors. Your predecessor refused
to apologize to those victims but I want to give you the same
opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release
of these documents. Will you apologize to the survivors?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When the president passed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was the only time --
Senator Patty Murray: Pardon me?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: When
the president signed The Epstein Transparency Act, that was when we
were legally allowed to release the files prior to the passage of the
act, which you all passed. I agree --
Senator Patty Murray: That is still not the question I'm asking.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: It was the question. You asked five or
six questions. I'm answering them in order. That was one of the
questions you asked.
Senator
Patty Murray: The question I want you to answer is: Will you apologize
to the victims whose names, sensitive personal information and even
nude photos were not redacted by your department? Will you apologize to
them?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course. That was -- We never want to release a single victim's name --
Senator Patty Murray: That is what we are hearing.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Can I answer the question, please? Is it --
Senator Patty Murray: I'm asking if you'll apologize?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, I -- and I just said yes, but I
wanted to -- I would like an explanation to be given to that. What-what
this act did is it required us to review over 6 million pieces of paper
in a very short period of time. And so 0.0001% we made mistakes and we
owned up to them. And the second that a victim or their lawyer told us
that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and we put lawyers
24-7 in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that
we fixed every single problem. And so, yes, --
Senator Patty Murray: I hear your anger.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm not angry. No, I'm not angry. I'm just making sure it's understood.
Senator
Patty Murray: I hear your anger and I will tell you who is really angry
is the people who had their nude photos released --
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I'm just making sure it's understood that we matter.
Senator Patty Murray: I just want to hear you say, ''I apologize to those victims.''
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as I just said, of course any time
that we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, we have
failed as a Dept of Justice and so we have to do everything we can to
not fail --
Senator Patty Murray: Well, I still haven't heard the words, "I apologize to those victims."
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Well I'm trying to give you an
explanation of what happened but I don't think you're really interested
in that because you keep on cutting me off.
Senator
Patty Murray: Well I am but I have a few more questions here and I
want to know -- and I know that Senator Van Hollen raised this -- but I
want to ask will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors? I
have heard from them personally that DoJ refused to meet them and I'm
asking about you, I'm asking about the Justice Dept reaching out to them
to be heard. Not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has
obviously repeatedly failed them so far.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Can I answer?
Senator Patty Murray: Yeah, will you reach out to them?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: So, as we have said repeatedly, of
course any lawyer -- Now if the victim has a lawyer, I am not allowed to
reach out to the victim directly. You know that. But any lawyer can
reach out to the Dept of Justice. They have and I've met with many
victims and their lawyers -- as has the FBI, as has the SDNY. We will
always meet with victim's counsel and if any victim or their lawyer can
come forward to the FBGI at any time --
Senator
Patty Murray: You will always meet with victim's counsel? Well these
women -- and I've met with them and I know Senator Van Hollen has and so
many others -- they are personally so feeling abused, again and again
and again, by what happened to them originally and now what's happening
to them. I am saying to you as a human being, don't make them navigate a
system that's impossible to navigate, that has already abused them.
Reach out and ask to meet with them. That's all I'm asking.
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Wait. You're asking me to call? You
want me to personally call the victims? Is that what you are asking me
to do?
Senator Patty Murray: I can help you reach them.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Oh, that would be great. Yes, because we have said from day one that --
Senator Patty Murray: And you would meet with them if I reached out to them?
Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche: Of course, there have been members who
have done that and we immediately reach out to the victims or their
lawyers when their lawyers say they ant to do it.
Last
week, the Democrats on the House Oversight Committee held a hearing in
Florida on Epstein and the witnesses were some of the survivors. We
noted Joe Sommerlad (INDEPENDENT) report which included:
She
also attacked the Department of Justice for leaving her name, and those
of other survivors, unredacted in the Epstein files released in
December and January, saying her’s appeared more than 500 times while
those of the pedophile’s alleged accomplices were blacked out, which she
claimed had been a “choice,” not a “mistake.”
Over 500 times one survivor's name was not redacted. Over 500 times. And Blanche doesn't want to say he's sorry.
Does
Blanche understand his job? In the exchange with Senator Jack Reed
below, it did not appear that Blanche understands what he's
supervising.
Senator Jack Reed: You had an opportunity to go down and
talk to Ghislaine Maxwell and then a few days later she was transferred
from a high security prison to a very comfortable -- a very comfortable
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: That's
just not true. She was not in a high security prison. She was
transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison I mean,
you're looking at me like that's -- that's verifiable.
Senator
Jack Reed: Well I don't think at the other prison she had her own
room, she had access to a private shower, she could have pet therapy and
--
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: I don't know if any of that is true. I'm not disagreeing with you --
Senator Jack Reed: It is true and you should know it, Mr. Blanche
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:I should know that?
Senator Jack Reed: You should know.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche:Whether an inmate has access to her own shower?
Senator
Jack Reed: This is a person of extra special interest to the President
of the United States. He's known her. Why did he send you down to talk
to her?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: He didn't send me. I went.
Senator Jack Reed: What do you mean?
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: You think President Trump called and asked me to interview a witness in federal prison?
Senator
Jack Reed: Yes, I do, frankly. Because you know why? Because the deal
was in. He needed somebody he could rely upon to talk to her and find
out what she say if she was asked about Jeffrey Epstein. And you were
the perfect choice. And you went down there. And suddenly, Shazam!,
she's out of what is a confining situation into a much more relaxed
federal prison.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Every
word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. If
there's criticisms of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make
them. But the president did not have anything to do with my choice to
go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't have went and a career would
have went, you would have said, 'Why didn't you go yourself?' Like you
expect me to know whether she has access to her own shower. So I did
go.
Senator
Jack Reed: Everyone in the United States who reads the newspapers know
that, I guess, you don't, you know, read things like that. You know,
this whole hearing, I think is exposing something, which I think is, to
me, very frightening. You're a very gifted lawyer. But from my
perspective, you have very little faith to the Constitution and the
people of America. And you're the President's consigliore.
Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche: Your perspective is completely wrong, Senator.
Senator Jack Reed: Well I think the facts will prove me right. Thank you.
Todd Blanche lies. He declared, "She was not in a high security prison. She was transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison "
No, Ghislaine was not in a high security prison. She was in a low
security prison. That part he got right. But the prison she was
transferred to in Bryan, Texas is not a low security prison, it is a
minimum security prison -- that's the lowest classification level and it
is less restrictive than a low security prison. If you're confused on
this, you can refer to this Federal Bureau of Prisons webpage. You'll find under Minimum:
Minimum
security institutions, also known as Federal Prison Camps (FPCs), have
dormitory housing, a relatively low staff-to-inmate ratio, and limited
or no perimeter fencing. These institutions are work- and
program-oriented.
A number of BOP institutions
have a small, minimum security camp adjacent to the main facility. These
camps, often referred to as Satellite Prison Camps (SCPs), provide
inmate labor to the main institution and to off-site work programs.
Bryan FPC, where Maxwell currently resides, is the second minimum security prison listed.
Under Low you'll find this:
Low
security Federal Correctional Institutions (FCIs) have double-fenced
perimeters, mostly dormitory or cubicle housing, and strong work and
program components. The staff-to-inmate ratio in these institutions is
higher than in minimum security facilities.
FCI
Elkton and FCI Jesup each have a small Federal Satellite Low Security
(FSL) facility adjacent to the main institution. FCI La Tuna has a low
security facility affiliated with, but not adjacent to, the main
institution.
Washington, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Elizabeth
Warren (D-Mass.) joined the Center for American Progress’ IDEAS
Conference to deliver a speech on the need for universal child care.
“As a nation, we support our economy by investing in roads and
bridges and public education — all so that our businesses and our
workers can prosper. It’s time to do the same for child care — make this
investment so that mamas and daddies can work,” said Senator Warren.
She highlighted how the cost of child care is crushing families,
pointing to data that shows child care costs have risen twice as fast as
inflation, and how in 47 out of 50 states, families are paying more for
child care for two kids than rent for their whole family.
She also criticized Democrats for not being serious enough about
getting universal child care done during a Democratic trifecta, saying Build Back Better was “an exercise in how weak and ineffective we could make the child care program and still call it child care.”
“We lost child care [in Build Back Better] because not
enough Democrats who were already in office were willing to fight for
it. I believe down to my bones that Democrats who think there is no
reward for fighting to deliver universal child care are dead wrong,” said Senator Warren.
Senator Warren called on every Democratic candidate in 2026 and 2028
to make universal child care a core part of their platform, saying “[i]t
would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking about
child care every chance we get, going into the midterms and beyond.”
The senator pressed Democrats to fight for universal child care and
have legislation ready to pass on Day One of the next Democratic
trifecta that “makes it possible for parents to access that care the
very same year.” Senator Warren has teamed up with Senator Patty Murray
(D-Wash.) and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) to draft
legislation that would deliver universal child care.
“We're in this fight to deliver for the American people — not to
talk, but to deliver. To lower the costs that are keeping people up at
night. And to give people some hope by showing what it looks like when
government is actually on their side,” said Senator Warren.
“Whether you have kids or not — whether you even like kids or not —
universal child care is the best investment we can make in bolstering
the middle class… As Democrats go around the country asking people to
vote for us, every single one of us should be talking about child care,”
Senator Warren concluded.
Transcript: CAP IDEAS Conference May 19, 2026
As Prepared for Delivery
Senator Elizabeth Warren: Thank you to Neera and
CAP’s outstanding team for pulling together today’s conference. And
thank you, Jared, for the very generous introduction.
A lot of folks here today are going to tell you that costs are way
up, and Donald Trump is to blame. That’s true — and it’s a big reason
why Trump’s approval rating just hit an all-time low. But Americans are
angry — and have been angry for a long time — because costs have been
going up for decades under both parties.
If we want to win the midterms and have a fighting chance in 2028, we
need to convince Americans that we’re serious about taking on big
fights and lowering costs. That means no more general hand-waving. It
means specific proposals that would make meaningful differences in
people’s lives — specific proposals that we’re willing to be held
accountable for delivering on.
Let’s start with child care.
Child care costs have risen twice as fast as inflation. In 47 out of
50 states, families are paying more for child care for two kids than
rent for their whole family. And under Donald Trump, the crisis has
gotten worse.
As a young working mom, I was about an inch away from quitting my job
before my Aunt Bee moved in to help with child care. That was forty
years ago — and it’s only gotten worse since.
Today, half of all families live in child care deserts, meaning there
are two or three children who need care for every one child care slot.
If you’re lucky, you might get a spot for your infant in six months. But
you might get stuck on a two-year waitlist for the privilege of paying
$20,000 plus a year.
How did we get here? It’s Econ 101 — supply and demand. Prices are
high because lots of families need care, and there are nowhere near
enough child care providers.
And why are there not enough child care workers? Again, it’s Econ
101: There aren’t enough workers because those workers are typically
paid at lower rates than Uber drivers.
So why not pay them more? Typically, when you need more workers, you
pay more. But families are already getting flattened by sky-high costs
for care and they simply can’t afford to pay more.
In other words, the private market has not — and will not — solve the
child care market problem. The only way to develop adequate child care
is for the government to fill the gap by investing in families and
workers.
It would be a smart investment with huge payoffs. Workers would be
paid commensurate with their training and responsibilities. Babies would
get a strong start in life. And families would get relief on a huge
cost.
As a nation, we support our economy by investing in roads and bridges
and public education — all so that our businesses and our workers can
prosper. It’s time to do the same for child care — make this investment
so that mamas and daddies can work — and then we’ll all see the payoff.
Child care should not be a privilege that is reserved just for the
rich. Child care is public infrastructure that makes our communities and
our businesses flourish.
When I ran for president in 2020, I talked about child care at every
stop — but while every Democratic candidate supported expanding child
care, it wasn’t the issue they talked about on the stump.
When Joe Biden was elected, we were in the throes of the COVID
pandemic, which ripped back the curtain on how fragile our
cobbled-together child care system really is. And for the first time in a
long time, we had a Democratic trifecta. To me, this was a golden
chance — our moment to finally deliver universal child care.
I wasn’t alone in fighting for child care. Patty Murray and I burned
up the phone lines strategizing with each other. The advocates
circulated data and stories and brought families to the Hill to testify
about the difference that a good child care program would make. And,
just like during the 2020 campaign, almost every Democrat would tell you
— if they were asked — that sure, they supported including child care.
But not enough were willing to fight for it — they were just checking
the box.
The law the Democrats were putting together, Build Back Better, was
never about how to build a robust, effective child care system. Instead,
it was an exercise in how weak and ineffective we could make the child
care program and still call it child care. How little we could invest to
keep the price tag under an artificial cap. How much we could
discourage states from implementing the program so the cost on paper
wouldn’t scare Joe Manchin and the tax policies on the other side of the
ledger wouldn’t make Kyrsten Sinema give a little curtsey and vote no.
That was the frustrating, aggravating process, right up until — poof —
child care got thrown out entirely.
We lost child care because not enough Democrats who were already in
office were willing to fight for it. I believe down to my bones that
Democrats who think there is no reward for fighting to deliver universal
child care are dead wrong.
Today, states and cities across the country are leading the charge.
Democrats like Governor Mikie Sherrill in New Jersey, Governor Abigail
Spanberger in Virginia, and Mayor Zohran Mamdani in New York campaigned
aggressively on increasing access to child care — and they won.
I give them huge respect, but to deliver big for every American family, states and cities can’t do it alone.
But here’s the good news: they don’t need to. Universal child care isn’t just good policy, it’s good politics.
Right now, Republicans are fumbling over the child care issue at the
most basic level. Vice President JD Vance’s solution? Just have
grandparents move in next door! Last month, Donald Trump said out loud —
on camera — that we can’t, “take care of” child care because we have to
dump a billion dollars a day into a war halfway around the world with
Iran. So much for “America first.”
It would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking
about child care every chance we get, going into the midterms and
beyond. When I look at the upcoming Democratic presidential primary,
every 2028 candidate who understands what’s happening in this country,
who wants to win, AND who will deliver for families, will make universal
child care a core piece of their agenda.
So, how do we get it done? First: Cover everyone. We can’t be afraid
of big, structural change. And that means affordable, high-quality child
care for every single American family.
Social Security is the most popular government program ever because
it benefits everyone. The same should be true of child care — every
parent, every employer, every worker needs to see exactly how our
program helps them. We must cover all families, and keep prices
manageable for all families. For the typical family, who might be paying
$25,00 a year for child care right now — this proposal would save them
$15,000 — every year! And a single mother making $60,000 a year? She’d
pay nothing at all. That’s a big deal.
Second: Speed. We need to deliver quickly to solve the affordability
crisis flattening families right now. I’m talking months, not years.
Remember what happened the last time Democrats were in power.
Talented, dedicated folks put together a whole lot of really good
policies — but speed just wasn’t baked in, so it took too long for those
investments to help families. Some benefits like Medicare Drug
negotiations were passed into law, but they were deliberately set up for
the price cuts not to kick in until years later.
When the election rolled around, people asked themselves: “what have
Democrats done for me?” Too many of them felt the answer was “not
enough” or, even worse, “nothing at all.”
Our new child care proposal needs to get resources to the states and
localities right away. That means setting up strike teams to help states
and cities create more child care slots now. That means helping the
neighbor who babysits get licensed. That means re-thinking regulations
that are keeping out new providers. Yes, we need to keep our kids safe.
And yes, we need all types of providers who can meet those standards so
we have abundant, affordable, high-quality child care for every family.
The time to get ready is now. When we get the next Democratic
trifecta, we need legislation that’s ready to pass on Day One. And our
legislation should make it possible for parents to access that care the
very same year. Some people might say that’s unrealistic. I say you
don’t get what you don’t fight for.
I’m putting my money where my mouth is. I’ve teamed up with the top
Democratic Appropriator Patty Murray, the top House Democrat for
education Bobby Scott, and the outstanding Congresswoman from New York
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. The four of us are doing the hard policy work
right now. We’re working to draft a bill that will be the Day One
solution once we take back power. And we need every Democrat, whether
they are in office now or running for office, on board. Can I get an
amen?
It's a tough time. Costs — including the cost of child care — are
crushing American families, and Donald Trump is too busy starting wars
and lining his own pockets to care.
We're in this fight to deliver for the American people — not to talk,
but to deliver. To lower the costs that are keeping people up at night.
And to give people some hope by showing what it looks like when
government is actually on their side.
The impact of universal, affordable child care for all families would be seismic.
It would mean that a single mother could go back to school to become a
nurse. It would mean a young family could actually save enough to buy a
house. It would mean a couple could start that small business they’d
been dreaming of.
It would be life-changing for millions of families across the country.
Whether you have kids or not — whether you even like kids or not —
universal child care is the best investment we can make in bolstering
the middle class. And that should matter to everyone.
As Democrats go around the country asking people to vote for us,
every single one of us should be talking about child care. We can take
back Congress, then we can take back the White House, and then, we can
deliver universal child care.
Marjorie
Taylor Greene slammed Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth in a new X rant
after he spoke at a campaign event on Monday, May 18.
Hegseth, 45, promoted Donald Trump's pick Ed Gallrein at the gathering ahead of Kentucky’s primary elections later this week.
"You
know what’s so disturbing about this?" the former Georgia
congresswoman, 51, wrote on social media. "It’s not about serving Trump.
It’s about defending and protecting the constitution and the American
people."
"MAGA has become a cult where Fox News
hosts demand absurd loyalty to the very neocon establishment policies
that Americans voted to end," she continued.
Greene,
once a huge supporter of Trump, recently turned on him, as she doesn't
believe he's kept his promise to put America first.
I
don't think Pete Hegseth has a clue as to what MTG and some MAGA
believe. He's all in on the war on Iran. He wants the Defense Dept
renamed to the War Dept. He's a crazed freak out of DR. STRANGELOVE.
MAGA
couldn't hold because it brought in so many with conflicting issues.
Now that Chump's gone to war on Iran, it's revealed to a large number of
people that MAGA, as they know it, is over.
Marjorie
Taylor Greene warned President Donald Trump that sending U.S. troops
into Iran would spark a “political revolution in America.” This marked
one of her strongest public disagreements with the president, whom she
formerly supported.
Greene, the former
Republican congresswoman from Georgia, posted her warning on X on Sunday
as Trump urged Iran to reach a peace agreement. He indicated that
patience in Washington was wearing thin. The warning came amid stalled
negotiations, rising tension in the Gulf, and a fragile cease-fire after
months of fighting.
“If you send U.S. military
troops into Iran, there will be a political revolution in America. We
are done. We said no more foreign wars, and we meant it,” Greene wrote,
according to The Independent. “The coalition will unite and be
unstoppable. I’ll make sure of it.”
Greene added, “End this war. It’s stupid.”
She's not playing. Chump's used to people being scared of him. MTG's not scared of him.
Tuesday, May 19, 2026. Chump's been enriching himself via the stock
market, Arab leaders ordered him to stand down on Iran, he's creating a
slush fund for his militia, Homeland Security caught in another lie, and
much more.
President
Donald Trump declared he was hitting pause on a planned military attack
against Iran on Monday, but his Truth Social post was also the first
time the operation was revealed.
Fresh off his visit to China last week, Trump, 79, is back to dealing with the ongoing war he started in Iran.
The
fragile ceasefire remains in place as the president struggles to reach a
deal, but the president is now claiming there was an operation ready to
go.
Trump wrote that he had been asked by the
leaders of Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates to “hold
off on our planned Military attack of the Islamic Republic of Iran,
which was scheduled for tomorrow.”
[. . .]
In
the hours leading up to Trump’s social media announcement Monday
afternoon, he fired off 36 posts not about the war, but Tuesday’s
primaries and his political endorsements.
However, before that, he did rattle off one post about the war in which he whined about the coverage he was getting.
President Trump said Monday that he had
authorized a new wave of attacks against Iran this week but that he was
holding off to make room for “serious negotiations,” after he said three
Gulf leaders requested more time to work out a nuclear deal.
Mr.
Trump has repeatedly threatened to launch new strikes, only to pull
back at the last minute from plunging the United States back into an
unpopular, expensive war. On Monday, he confirmed plans to strike and
canceled them at the same time.
“We
were getting ready to do a very major attack tomorrow, and I put it off
for a little while, hopefully maybe forever, but possibly for a little
while, because we’ve had very big discussions with Iran, and we’ll see
what they amount to,” Mr. Trump told reporters.
When
Mr. Trump launched the war alongside Israel on Feb. 28, he estimated
that it would end in four to five weeks. The conflict is now in its
third month, and Mr. Trump is caught between dueling impulses: to force
Iran into submission, and to declare victory and move on.
He's
also caught between Arab leaders. Arab leaders told Chump to back down
and that's why he did yesterday as Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) notes in the
video below.
Wondering why your monthly grocery bill
suddenly feels like a second rent? The sticker shock is real. According
to new data from the Labor Department, food prices skyrocketed in
April, bringing the annual inflation rate for the category up to 2.9%.
Translation: Your weekly grocery run is more expensive than it’s been in years…and it’s still climbing. AP News reports
that Americans have not even seen the full impact of rising energy
costs on their retail food pricing yet—which, yes, likely means the
worst is yet to come.
“Most of what we’re
seeing now in the food price chain probably predates the conflict,”
Purdue University economist Ken Foster told the outlet. “We’re
cautiously waiting to see what the June numbers and the May numbers
might show as they come out in terms of...the extent to which energy
shocks in the Strait of Hormuz and shipping blockades and so forth are
going to impact food prices.”
For
three consecutive years, American workers held a thin but meaningful
edge over rising prices: their earnings were growing faster than
inflation. That streak ended in April 2026, and the consequences are
about to ripple through household budgets in ways that are difficult to
ignore.
The latest Consumer Price Index report
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics showed prices accelerating at a pace
that Wall Street underestimated, and that the Federal Reserve cannot
easily fix.
Behind the numbers is a collision
of geopolitical conflict, a data correction from last year’s government
shutdown, and persistent cost pressures on the essentials you buy most
often.
Prices are rising fast. And top economists expect things to get worse before they get better.
Annual
inflation is expected to hit 6% this quarter, according to the Federal
Reserve Bank of Philadelphia's Survey of Professional Forecasters. Three
months ago, the same group predicted 2.7%. That's a massive jump in a
short time.
On
the morning of Monday, March 23, President Trump pulled his first
“TACO” of the Iran war. After four weeks of fighting, with oil prices
already up 55%, Trump had given Iran an ultimatum on Friday: make a deal
within 48 hours, or the U.S. would strike its power plants and energy
infrastructure.
But on Monday morning, Trump
reversed course. In an all-caps Truth Social post, he announced the U.S.
and Iran had been having “very good and productive conversations” and
that he would extend the deadline for a deal by five days.
Wall
Street, for the first time since the war began, exhaled. Stocks rose.
Brent crude plunged nearly 11%. Energy stocks — one of the few reliable
winners of the conflict — sold off with oil.
The brokerage account in Trump’s name spent the day buying them.
According
to the 113-page periodic transaction report released by the Office of
Government Ethics on May 14, Trump’s brokerage account spent that same
day buying a sweep of petroleum and gas stocks, including Phillips 66,
Exxon Mobil, and Chevron, along with defense and aerospace names like
Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics: the companies that stood to profit
if the war dragged on.
The day wasn’t an
outlier. The filing, which covers January through March, shows a
consistent posture through the Iran conflict: as Trump prosecuted the
war and told Americans it would end “soon,” the account in his name was
hedging it, buying gold, Treasuries, and cash.
A
spokesperson for the Trump Organization, the family’s privately held
conglomerate, told Fortune the brokerage accounts are operated by
third-party financial institutions that have “sole and exclusive
authority over all investment decisions.” Trades, the spokesperson wrote
in a statement, are executed through “automated investment processes
and systems administered by those institutions,” and neither Trump, his
family, nor the Trump Organization “plays any role in selecting,
directing, or approving specific investments.”
[. . .]
The
accumulation began the same day the war did. The disclosure reports
trades only in ranges, not exact dollar figures, with purchases falling
between $50,000 and $5 million depending on the position.
Markets
generally divided into two camps: the risk-on assets—U.S. stocks,
growth, tech—that investors buy when they’re confident the economy will
grow , and the safe havens—gold, Treasuries, cash—they retreat to when
they’re not. Through the Iran war, the account moved steadily from the
first camp to the second, even as Trump told Americans the conflict was
nearly over.
On March 2, the first trading day
of the war, the account bought Newmont, the gold miner, for $50,000 to
$100,000. On March 4, the day Iran closed the Strait of Hormuz, it
bought the iShares US Treasury Bond ETF for $250,000 to $500,000. The
next day, it bought $500,000 to $1 million of the iShares Gold Trust.
The buying continued even as Trump publicly insisted the war was under control.
Last night on MS NOW, Rachel Maddow addressed Chump's stock buys and the ways he then manipulated the stock.
Immigration is Chump's signature
policy and how's that worked out for America? It's given us a very bad
name and image on the international stage. Tourism to the US is down
and it's Chump's immigration policies that have led to the decrease.
It's ripped families apart. It's destroyed neighborhoods. And Brendan Rascius (INDEPENDENT) reports it's cost a lot of money as well:
President Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown could cost the federal government nearly half a trillion dollars in lost tax revenue over the next decade, according to economists.
Undocumented immigrants
currently pay about $66 billion each year in payroll and federal income
taxes. But policy changes introduced by the Trump administration may
deter many from filing returns, potentially reducing federal revenue by
between $147 billion and $479 billion over 10 years, an analysis by the
Yale Budget Lab concluded.
Trump,
who pledged to carry out the largest deportation effort in U.S.
history, has taken a number of steps in furtherance of that goal,
including strengthening enforcement measures, promoting self-deportation
and significantly boosting funding for ICE.
One
key development came last April, when the Internal Revenue Service
agreed to share taxpayer data with Immigration and Customs Enforcement
for individuals with final removal orders. Under the arrangement, ICE
submitted names and addresses, which the IRS matched against its records
before returning confirmed identities. By August, the agency had handed
over tens of thousands of records.
Although a
federal court found the agreement unlawful in November, the policy shift
may have already had a chilling effect, discouraging some immigrants
from filing taxes.
The Trump administration has long claimed
that mass deportations would deliver more jobs and higher wages to
American-born workers. But a new study casts doubt on that assertion,
undermining a central tenet of the president’s immigration policy.
Recent
surges in deportations have led to job losses for both immigrant and
American-born workers, while wages have stayed flat, according to the study,
published by the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan
research organization. Construction, which depends heavily on immigrant
labor, was impacted more than any other industry studied, with
American-born workers losing more jobs as a result of the deportations
than the undocumented workers who remained.
The
study offers the first national analysis of the effects of the Trump
administration’s aggressive deportation operations on the labor market,
comparing communities that experienced surges in deportations between
January 2025 and October 2025 with those that did not.
Analyzing federal labor data, researchers focused on four industries
that rely heavily on undocumented immigrant workers: agriculture,
construction, manufacturing and wholesale. Deportations had a chilling
effect on each of those industries, disproportionately affecting men,
who accounted for more than 90 percent of the immigration arrests. Taken
together, the affected industries saw a 5 percent drop in employment
for male undocumented workers and a 1.3 percent drop for male
American-born workers without a college degree.
A new report
from the Brookings Institution found that more than 145,000 U.S.
citizen children have likely been separated from at least one parent due
to detention over their immigration status in the second Trump
administration.
The information released on
Monday by Brookings indicated that more than 22,000 children have
experienced having all of their co-resident parents detained. The
nonprofit public policy organization says only 5 percent — or around
1,100 — of these children have received services from the child welfare
system based on information collected from interviews with community
organizations and child welfare agencies.
Other
minors are living with family or friends for the time being, while some
have left the country alongside their deported parents.
“The
bottom line is that there is no systematic approach to protecting the
children of those detained by ICE [Immigration and Customs
Enforcement],” the Brookings report says.
“ICE
does not directly involve itself in safeguarding the well-being of a
detainee’s children and only refers to child protection if children are
present at an arrest and no alternative care is immediately available,”
it adds.
We
know surprisingly little about what happens to children of detainees.
Children who are themselves unauthorized may face detention or
deportation, but most children of detainees are U.S. citizens. In some
cases, the child may travel to the parent’s origin country with a
deported parent, but the government does not publish systematic data on
its transportation of U.S. citizen children to foreign countries and we
do not know how commonly this happens.
Parents
wishing their children to remain in the United States are encouraged by
community partners to have a family preparedness plan, specifying a
close friend or relative who will care for the child if the parent
cannot. In many of these cases, the government is unaware of children
left behind, and most parents prefer to avoid contact with the child
welfare system even if they have only substandard care options.
Caregivers
are sometimes able to access supports through the child welfare system.
Sometimes supports may be available without a formal child welfare case
being opened—e.g., when prevention resources are available. The child
welfare system typically becomes more deeply involved only when a care
arrangement becomes unsustainable or the abuse or neglect of a child
comes to the attention of authorities. Some children, a small minority
of those with detained parents, will end up in foster care. Even when a
child welfare case is opened, or a child enters foster care, the case
may not be identified or documented as immigration-related.
And the report concludes:
Most
children affected by parental detention and deportation are U.S.
citizens. As immigration enforcement expands, ensuring that affected
children have access to basic supports and protections should be
understood not as optional, but as a necessary governmental
responsibility tied to the foreseeable consequences of family separation
and displacement. When we detain or deport a child’s parents, the
nation has a clear obligation to recognize, account for, and safeguard
the child’s well-being.
A
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent has been charged with
assault for allegedly shooting a Venezuelan immigrant during Operation Metro Surge
in Minneapolis, the second time local prosecutors have leveled criminal
charges against federal officers for their conduct in the city this
winter.
Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty
said ICE agent Christian Castro in January fired several shots through
the front door, one of which struck Julio Sosa-Celis in the thigh before
tearing through a wall in a child’s bedroom. Moriarty said Castro had
lied about being attacked before the shooting.
“Mr.
Castro fired his service weapon at the front door of the home, knowing
there were people who had just run inside that presented absolutely no
threat to him or anyone else,” Moriarty said Monday at a press
conference.
Moriarty said a nationwide warrant
had been issued for Castro’s arrest. He is facing four counts of assault
in the second degree and one count of falsely reporting a crime.
Neither ICE nor the Department of Homeland Security immediately
responded to a request for comment.
Gregory Donnell Morgan Jr.
was charged in April with two counts of second-degree assault after
prosecutors said he pointed a gun at two people during an apparent road
rage incident on Highway 62 in the Twin Cities.
During
the initial investigation, Morgan told authorities he was an ICE agent
assigned to the Minneapolis area and was returning to a federal facility
at the end of his shift on Feb. 5 when another driver allegedly tried
to block him while he was driving on the shoulder.
Morgan said
he displayed his weapon and yelled, “Police, stop,” because he feared
for his safety. Authorities said Morgan acknowledged he was not
responding to an emergency or conducting an active law enforcement
operation at the time.
And when not content just to separate a family, ICE prevents a parent from seeing their child born. Billal Rahman (NEWSWEEK) reports:
A
Guatemalan man missed the birth of his first child after Immigration
and Customs Enforcement (ICE) held him for several days despite a
federal court order requiring his “immediate release,” according to
legal filings and his family.
On May 1, U.S.
Magistrate Judge Karen E. Scott of the U.S. District Court for the
Central District of California ruled that ICE had violated procedural
due‑process protections when it re‑detained Freddy Cortez Lugos—who was
in the U.S. on humanitarian parole—during a routine check‑in and ordered
the agency to free him without delay. Instead, Cortez Lugos remained in
custody until the evening of May 4, his relatives said, adding that
amid the delay, his partner went into labor and gave birth to their son,
Izaan, on May 1.
The case highlights the ongoing
tension between federal courts and the Trump administration’s mass
deportation policy, as judges continue to scrutinize ICE’s authority to
re‑detain people who were previously released under parole or
supervision. At stake is not only whether ICE is complying promptly with
court orders but also whether constitutional due‑process protections
have real force during the government’s aggressive push to expand
immigration enforcement.
The
Justice Department confirmed on Monday that it is creating a $1.776
billion fund to send taxpayer money to "victims of lawfare and
weaponization."
According to a statement from the DOJ to MeidasTouch,
the fund would "consist of a Commission of five members appointed by
the Attorney General. One Member will be chosen in consultation with
congressional leadership" and "the President can remove any member."
Hours
before the announcement, President Donald Trump withdrew a $10 billion
lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, paving the way for the
creation of the fund in an attempt to skirt concerns about the
president's attempts to use taxpayer funds to compensate himself. Last
week, ABC News and CNN reported
on internal White House discussions regarding the president's desire to
drop the lawsuit in exchange for the massive fund to compensate allies
and other individuals he feels have been wronged by past administrations
- particularly former President Joe Biden. According to CNN, the
settlement would also kill any existing IRS audits on Trump, members of
his family, or associated businesses.
ABC News
reported that the fund could potentially respond to claims made by
individuals who believe they were the victim of overreach or
"weaponization" by the Biden administration. This could include the
roughly 1,600 Jan. 6 defendants, whom Trump pardoned soon after taking
office last year. While sources claim the agreement might include a
provision barring Trump from directly pocketing the money, his
businesses or other enterprises and associations may not be placed under
such a restriction.
Last night, Rachel Maddow addressed this topic with US House Rep Jamie Raskin.
Other coverage includes . . .
Let's wind down with this from Senato Elizabeth Warren's office:
“Free File cannot
efficiently, effectively, and securely serve the taxpayers who are
statutorily entitled to free tax filing services.”
Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Elizabeth Warren
(D-Mass.), a member of the Senate Finance Committee, Angus King
(I-Maine), and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Ranking Member of the Senate Finance
Committee, asked the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to launch a
new probe into the Free File program, a partnership with private tax
prep companies. The request comes after the Trump administration killed
the Direct File program, instead touting its failed Free File program,
which has a nearly two-decade-long record of underperformance.
“We have serious concerns that Free File cannot efficiently,
effectively, and securely serve the taxpayers who are statutorily
entitled to free tax filing services,” wrote the lawmakers.
In April 2022, GAO released a report entitled “IRS Should Develop
Additional Options for Taxpayers to File for Free,” highlighting the
need for the government to develop new ways for low- and middle-income
Americans to file their taxes for free. In response, the Biden
administration created the Direct File program, which allowed Americans
to file their tax returns online, for free, and directly with the IRS.
Last October, the Trump administration killed the Direct File
program, asserting that the Free File program, which is operated by
for-profit tax preparation firms and has a lengthy track record of
underperformance, could meet taxpayers’ needs.
In addition to GAO’s earlier report, numerous reports by
Congressional committees, nonpartisan watchdogs, and media outlets have
identified serious problems with Free File. Free File partners have
deliberately misled taxpayers into paying for assistance when they are
eligible to file for free. Additionally, an investigation by Senator
Warren found that Free File partners have leaked sensitive taxpayer data
to private tech companies, putting taxpayers’ most sensitive
information at risk.
To address concerns surrounding Free File’s underperformance and the
lack of options for Americans to truly file their taxes for free, the
senators requested that GAO initiate an investigation to evaluate the
program’s user experience, accessibility, accuracy, and costs.
Senator Warren is a leading voice in advocating for taxpayers and for improved IRS resources:
In April 2026, Senator Warren introduced
the Stop Corporations and High Earners from Avoiding Taxes and Enforce
the Rules Strictly (Stop CHEATERS) Act, a bill to restore and revitalize
the IRS with additional funding for tax enforcement, technology
operations support, systems modernization, and taxpayer services like
free taxpayer assistance.
In April 2026, Senator Warren took to the Senate floor
to seek unanimous consent to pass the Direct File Act. The bill would
reverse the Trump administration’s decision to end the highly successful
Direct File program—which allowed Americans to file their taxes online,
for free, and directly with the government—and make the program
permanent.
In February 2026, Senator Warren led over 150 lawmakers in introducing the Direct File Act,
new legislation that would reverse the Trump administration’s decision
to end the highly successful Direct File program — which allowed
taxpayers to file their taxes online, for free, and directly with the
government — and make the program permanent.
In February 2026, Senator Warren led her colleagues in pressing
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
Chief of Taxpayer Services Ken Corbin on the Treasury Department’s
decision to end Direct File and instead promote Free File.
