David Lammy is expected to announce reforms that would see jury trials ended for sentences of three years or less. Plus: Rachel Reeves is under pressure over budget “lies”, and we discuss Zack Polanski’s economic influences. With Aaron Bastani and Kieran Andrieu.
From Novara Media via This RSS Feed.
A group of House Democrats on Tuesday called on President Donald Trump's budget chief, Russell Vought, to publicly testify on the administration's unlawful withholding of funds approved by Congress and broader economic agenda, which the lawmakers said is "driving up costs, weakening the labor market, and inflicting real economic harm on the American people."
"We remain alarmed that you persist in implementing an extreme agenda that jeopardizes the economic security of the American people and shows open disregard for Congress' constitutional power of the purse," House Budget Committee Democrats, led by Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), wrote in a letter to Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a lead architect of the far-right Project 2025 agenda.
The lawmakers accused Vought of dodging the House Budget Committee, noting that the head of OMB typically appears before the panel shortly after the release of the president's annual budget request. Trump unveiled his budget blueprint all the way back in May.
"Not only has the committee yet to hear from OMB, you have also found time for multiple closed-door meetings with House Republicans," the Democrats wrote. "Under Democratic chairs, the public was never shut out from these important exchanges. What is the administration trying to hide?"
The letter points to Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports finding that the Trump administration has repeatedly violated federal law by withholding or delaying the disbursement of funds authorized by Congress, including National Institutes of Health research grants and money for Head Start.
The House Democrats also condemned Vought's attacks on government transparency, citing his agency's decision earlier this year to cut off public access to a database that tracks federal spending. OMB later partially restored the database after losing a court fight.
"If you fail to appear before this committee before the end of the year, this will be the only administration in the last 50 years to not send the OMB director—a basic standard you yourself met during President Trump’s first administration (appearing in both 2019 and 2020)," the lawmakers wrote on Tuesday. "If you disagree... it will make one point unmistakably clear: you know you cannot defend an extreme agenda."
We’re demanding that Russ Vought, Trump’s OMB Director and the architect of Project 2025, testify before the House Budget Committee.
He has unlawfully blocked funding and created a massive affordability crisis across the country. Congress and the American people deserve answers. pic.twitter.com/kxde5mCYs9
— Rep. Pramila Jayapal (@RepJayapal) December 2, 2025
After playing a key role in crafting the notorious Project 2025 agenda ahead of Trump's 2024 election win, Vought has emerged as one of the most powerful figures in the administration, wielding power at OMB so aggressively that ProPublica recently dubbed him "the shadow president."
"What Vought has done in the nine months since Trump took office goes much further than slashing foreign aid," the investigative outlet noted. "Relying on an expansive theory of presidential power and a willingness to test the rule of law, he has frozen vast sums of federal spending, terminated tens of thousands of federal workers and, in a few cases, brought entire agencies to a standstill."
One anonymous administration official told ProPublica that "it feels like we work for Russ Vought."
"He has centralized decision-making power to an extent that he is the commander-in-chief," the official said.
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
President Donald Trump on Tuesday blew off US voters' concerns about affordability, even as polls show most voters blame him for increasing prices on staple goods.
At the start of a Cabinet meeting, Trump falsely claimed that electricity prices are coming down, despite the fact that Americans across the country are struggling with utility bills being driven higher in large part by energy-devouring artificial intelligence data centers.
The president then claimed more broadly that voter concerns about increased costs were all figments of their imaginations.
"The word 'affordability' is a Democrat scam," Trump declared. "They say it and they go onto the next subject, and everyone thinks, 'Oh they had lower prices.' No, they had the worst inflation in the history of our country. Now, some people will correct me, because they always love to correct me, even though I'm right about everything. But some people like to correct me, and they say, '48 years.' I say it's not 48 years, it's much more, but they say it's the worst inflation we've had in 48 years, I'd say, ever."
Trump: But the word "Affordability" is a Democrat scam. pic.twitter.com/WmXeDLWQ0X
— Acyn (@Acyn) December 2, 2025
Later in the Cabinet meeting, a reporter asked Trump if he believed voters were growing "impatient" with his policies, which have not produced the kind of broad-based decline in prices he once promised.
Trump, however, doubled down.
"I think they're getting fake news from guys like you," he said. "Look, affordability is a hoax that was started by Democrats, who caused the problem of pricing."
Q: You talk about affordability. Are the American people getting impatient with the reforms you're making?
TRUMP: I think they're getting fake news from guys like you. Look, affordability is a hoax that was started by Democrats. pic.twitter.com/EhtSaKHEMk
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) December 2, 2025
The president's claims about affordability being a "scam" issue are at odds with what US voters are telling pollsters, however.
A Yahoo/YouGov poll released late last month, for instance, found 49% of Americans say that Trump's policies have done more to raise prices in the last year, compared with just 24% who say that he's lowered their costs. The survey also found voters are more likely to blame Trump for higher prices than they are to blame former President Joe Biden.
During the 2024 presidential campaign, Trump routinely campaigned on affordability and vowed to start lowering the cost of groceries starting on the very first day of his presidency. Since then, however, Trump has slapped heavy tariffs on a wide range of imported goods, which economists say have led to further price increases.
Many Democrats were quick to pounce on the president declaring affordability a "scam."
"There you have it folks," wrote Rep. Darren Soto (D-Fla.) on X. "From 'I will lower prices on Day 1' to this."
Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.) argued that Trump was trying to make Americans' economic anxieties disappear by telling them not to believe their own bank balances.
"The president is trying to gaslight Americans into believing that everything is fine," he observed. "The reality is millions of Americans are worried about their checking accounts and whether they can put food on the table, afford healthcare, and pay their bills."
Rep. Sylvia Garcia (D-Texas) said that Trump's dismissal of voters' affordability worries are "easy to say when you are a billionaire who has never had to choose between groceries and the light bill."
"Working families in Texas know the real scam is his tariffs, his higher premiums, and his complete failure to offer any plan to address the housing crisis or actually lower prices," Garcia added.
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.
As the White House claims that President Donald Trump "has the authority" to blow up anyone he dubs a "narco-terrorist" and Adm. Frank M. "Mitch" Bradley prepares for a classified congressional briefing amid outrage over a double-tap strike that kicked off the administration's boat bombing spree, rights advocates and legal experts emphasize that all of the US attacks on alleged drug-running vessels have been illegal.
"Trump said he will look into reports that the US military (illegally) conducted a follow-up strike on a boat in the Caribbean that it believed to be ferrying drugs, killing survivors of an initial missile attack. But the initial attack was illegal too," Kenneth Roth, the former longtime director of the advocacy group Human Rights Watch, said on social media Monday.
Roth and various others have called out the US military's bombings of boats in the Caribbean and Pacific as unlawful since they began on September 2, when the two strikes killed 11 people. The Trump administration has confirmed its attacks on 22 vessels with a death toll of at least 83 people.
Shortly after the first bombing, the Intercept reported that some passengers initially survived but were killed in a follow-up attack. Then, the Washington Post and CNN reported Friday that Bradley ordered the second strike to comply with an alleged spoken directive from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to kill everyone on board.
The administration has not denied that the second strike killed survivors, but Hegseth and the White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, have insisted that the Pentagon chief never gave the spoken order.
However, the reporting has sparked reminders that all of the bombings are "war crimes, murder, or both," as the Former Judge Advocates General (JAGs) Working Group put it on Saturday.
— (@)
Following Leavitt's remarks about the September 2 strikes during a Monday press briefing, Roth stressed Tuesday that "it is not 'self-defense' to return and kill two survivors of a first attack on a supposed drug boat as they clung to the wreckage. It is murder. No amount of Trump spin will change that."
"Whether Hegseth ordered survivors killed after a US attack on a supposed drug boat is not the heart of the matter," Roth said. "It is blatantly illegal to order criminal suspects to be murdered rather than detained. There is no 'armed conflict' despite Trump's claim."
The Trump administration has argued to Congress that the strikes on boats supposedly smuggling narcotics are justified because the United States is in an "armed conflict" with drug cartels that the president has labeled terrorist organizations.
During a Sunday appearance on ABC News' "This Week," US Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said that "I think it's very possible there was a war crime committed. Of course, for it to be a war crime, you have to accept the Trump administration's whole construct here... which is we're in armed conflict, at war... with the drug gangs."
"Of course, they've never presented the public with the information they've got here," added Van Hollen, a member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "But it could be worse than that. If that theory is wrong, then it's plain murder."
— (@)
Michael Schmitt, a former Air Force lawyer and professor emeritus at the US Naval War College, rejects the Trump administration's argument that it is at war with cartels. Under international human rights law, he told the Associated Press on Monday, "you can only use lethal force in circumstances where there is an imminent threat," and with the survivors of the first strike, "that wasn't the case."
"I can't imagine anyone, no matter what the circumstance, believing it is appropriate to kill people who are clinging to a boat in the water... That is clearly unlawful," Schmitt said. Even if the US were in an actual armed conflict, he explained, "it has been clear for well over a century that you may not declare what's called 'no quarter'—take no survivors, kill everyone."
According to the AP:
Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the International Crisis Group and a former State Department lawyer, agreed that the US is not in an armed conflict with drug cartels.
"The term for a premeditated killing outside of armed conflict is murder," Finucane said, adding that US military personnel could be prosecuted in American courts.
"Murder on the high seas is a crime," he said. "Conspiracy to commit murder outside of the United States is a crime. And under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, Article 118 makes murder an offense."
Finucane also participated in a related podcast discussion released in October by Just Security, which on Monday published an analysis by three experts who examined "the law that applies to the alleged facts of the operation and Hegseth's reported order."
Michael Schmitt, Ryan Goodman, and Tess Bridgeman emphasized in Just Security that the law of armed conflict (LOAC) did not apply to the September 2 strikes because "the United States is not in an armed conflict with any drug trafficking cartel or criminal gang anywhere in the Western Hemisphere... For the same reason, the individuals involved have not committed war crimes."
"However, the duty to refuse clearly unlawful orders—such as an order to commit a crime—is not limited to armed conflict situations to which LOAC applies," they noted. "The alleged Hegseth order and special forces' lethal operation amounted to unlawful 'extrajudicial killing' under human rights law... The federal murder statute would also apply, whether or not there is an armed conflict."
Goodman added on social media Monday that the 11 people killed on September 2 "would be civilians even if this were an armed conflict... It's not even an armed conflict. It's extrajudicial killing."
From Common Dreams via This RSS Feed.