Newsweek: Medicaid cuts: Judge backs Trump administration move

A network of family planning clinics in Maine will remain without Medicaid funding as it challenges Trump administration restrictions on abortion providers, a federal judge ruled Monday.

The decision leaves Maine Family Planning unable to access reimbursements that support thousands of low-income patients during the course of its lawsuit.

Why It Matters

The cuts stem from President Donald Trump‘s flagship congressional reconciliation package, known as the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which barred Medicaid dollars from going to Planned Parenthood.

But the law’s cuts weren’t limited to Planned Parenthood, which is the nation’s largest reproductive health care provider.

Smaller organizations, like Maine Family Planning, which operates 18 clinics in the state, were also swept up in the cuts. The group provides affordable reproductive health care, primary care and other services to people across Maine, which is one of the poorest and most rural states in the Northeast.

What To Know

Maine Family Planning argued that the Trump administration’s cuts unfairly targeted its operations even though Medicaid funds do not cover abortion care, which makes up only a fraction of its services.

“It’s unfair to cut off funding for the clinics solely because Congress wanted to defund Planned Parenthood,” an attorney for the provider told the court earlier this month.

But U.S. District Judge Lance Walker, who was appointed by Trump in 2018, ruled that Medicaid payments will not resume while the case is ongoing.

His decision came despite a ruling last month by another federal judge requiring that Planned Parenthood clinics across the U.S. continue receiving Medicaid reimbursements while their legal fight with the Trump administration plays out.

That court battle is still underway.

Earlier this month, Emily Hall, a lawyer for the Department of Justice, defended the administration’s cuts in court, telling Walker that Congress has the authority to withhold funds from abortion providers, even when they provide other health care services.

“The rational basis is not simply to reduce the number of abortions, it’s to ensure the federal government is not paying out money to organizations that provide abortions,” Hall said.

Supporters of Maine Family Planning, meanwhile, emphasize that its clinics deliver essential care far beyond abortion. Services include contraception, cervical cancer screenings and primary care for roughly 8,000 low-income patients statewide. Losing Medicaid reimbursements, they argue, would devastate access to affordable health care.

The impact is “nothing short of catastrophic,” Meetra Mehdizadeh, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in court earlier this month.

The network previously warned that without Medicaid dollars, it could be forced to halt primary care services by the end of October.

While the Trump administration’s push centered on defunding Planned Parenthood, the bill avoided naming the organization directly. Instead, it barred reimbursements to providers primarily engaged in family planning services that received more than $800,000 from Medicaid in 2023.

Maine Family Planning argues the threshold was lowered specifically to ensure the cuts extended beyond Planned Parenthood, making it the only other organization so far to acknowledge its funding is at risk.

What People Are Saying

George Hill, the president and CEO of Maine Family Planning, said in a statement to Newsweek“This ruling is a devastating setback for Mainers who depend on us for basic primary care. The loss of Medicaid funds—which nearly half our patients rely on—threatens our ability to provide life-saving services to communities across the state. Mainers’ health should never be jeopardized by political decisions, and we will continue to fight for them.”

Nancy Northup, president and CEO at the Center for Reproductive Rights, said in a statement provided to Newsweek“This ruling means that thousands of Mainers across the state may lose access to their trusted health provider for essential health care services, including cancer screenings, birth control, and primary care at Maine Family Planning.

She added, “The Trump Administration and Congress would rather topple a statewide health safety network than let low-income patients receive a cancer screening at a clinic that also offers abortions. This ruling takes a sledgehammer to an already overstretched health care network, and Mainers statewide will feel the effects of defunding Maine Family Planning, regardless of their insurance status.”

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-judge-medicaid-abortion-providers-maine-2118945

Moneywise: Trump’s ‘no tax on overtime’ is now US law — but some Americans don’t even qualify. Here’s the catch

They say that the only two certainties in life are death and taxes. The recently passed “Big Beautiful Bill,” however, claims to eliminate one of those — at least for overtime hours.

The budget bill, passed in July, followed up on a key Trump campaign promise to eliminate taxes on overtime pay. Even better: the law is retroactive to the beginning of 2025, giving those who work overtime an additional six months of tax-free wages ahead of all the money the bill will save them going forward.

But the reality may be far less generous than it sounds.

Before you start planning how to spend all that extra cash, be aware that the new law contains several big, not-so-beautiful catches.

Not all overtime pay is tax exempt

In touting the elimination of taxes on overtime pay in the budget bill, the White House claimed that the law “makes good on … President Trump’s cornerstone campaign promises and benefits hardworking Americans where they need it the most — their paychecks.”

And in some ways, it does. The reality, however, is that the “Big Beautiful Bill” only eliminates some tax on overtime pay.

To start, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) noted that the tax break only pertains to a portion of overtime pay, or the “‘half’ of ‘time and a half pay’, required under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act.”

For example, if a worker makes $40 an hour, then their time and a half overtime would amount to $60 an hour. Of that $60, only $20 (the “half” part of “time and a half”) remains tax-free.

Additionally, “no tax on overtime” is a federal income-tax change only. State and local income taxes still apply (unless your state separately conforms), and Social Security and Medicare taxes are still withheld on all wages, including overtime.

As well, there’s a cap to how much overtime pay remains tax-exempt: $12,500 per person annually, or $25,000 for people filing together. Earners who make more than $150,000 (or $300,000 combined between two people filing together) are not eligible for tax-free overtime pay.

Another issue, raised by Forbes, is horizontal equity: two people with the same annual pay can end up taxed differently. An hourly worker who logs FLSA overtime can deduct part of that overtime, while a salaried worker putting in the same extra hours gets no break.

Then there are those workers whose overtime pay is dictated by different agreements or laws. The WSJ pointed to airline and railroad workers as examples of those “who often get overtime pay under union contracts and are exempt from FLSA because they are covered by the Railway Labor Act.” These workers generally will not qualify for the deduction on their contract overtime.

They added that “One result is different treatment for similar jobs. An airline jet mechanic wouldn’t get the deduction but an airplane mechanic at a separate maintenance company could.”

The long-term fallout

Beyond the immediate monetary effect, a more broad catch to the new law could make itself known in the long run.

The Economic Policy Institute (EPI) raised concerns that the law will incentivize many to work as much overtime as possible to gain the extra income, including evenings and weekends — habits “associated with a range of negative impacts on physical and mental health, well-being, and productivity.”

In addition, those unable to work overtime for personal or health reasons will lose out on the benefits. The EPI called the law “another gimmick that does more harm than good” and suggested that offering workers raises so they don’t have to work the extra hours would prove a better option.

Forbes, meanwhile, labeled the law “a stealth anti-job creation measure” because it lessens the need for employers to hire more workers.

“A 50-hour week for one employee can be replaced by tacking on an additional 10 hours across five separate workers. The overtime deduction thus may boost take-home pay for some, but it does so by encouraging a labor distribution that concentrates hours in the hands of fewer people.”

That said, according to Tax Policy Center estimates, only 9% of American households will actually save money by paying fewer taxes on overtime pay, resulting in an average added windfall of roughly $1400 annually. Most workers will see the benefit at tax time.

And, of course, there’s one final caveat to the “no tax on overtime pay” law: it expires in 2028.

As usual where King Donald is concerned, the joke’s on us!

https://moneywise.com/news/trumps-no-tax-on-overtime-is-now-law-but-some-americans-dont-even-qualify-heres-the-catch

Newsweek: Social Security predicted to run out of money sooner due to Trump bill

A federal actuary has acknowledged that Social Security trusts will begin to become insolvent by 2034, with just 81 percent of beneficiaries estimated to receive their promised benefits.

Chief Actuary Karen Glenn wrote in a letter to Democratic Senator Ron Wyden, a Senate Finance Committee ranking member, on Tuesday: “Because the revenue from income taxation of Social Security benefits is directed to the Social Security and Medicare trust funds, implementation of the OBBBA will have material effects on the financial status of the Social Security trust funds.”

“The ‘One, Big, Beautiful Bill Act’ provides historic tax relief to America’s seniors,” a Social Security Administration (SSA) spokesperson told Newsweek on Thursday. “As Commissioner [Frank] Bisignano has repeatedly emphasized, ensuring the long-term financial health of these trust funds remains a top priority.

“The Social Security Administration is committed to working with Congress and other stakeholders to protect and strengthen these vital programs, ensuring that millions of Americans can continue to rely on Social Security for a secure retirement and support in times of disability—both now and in the future. We remain focused on responsible stewardship and transparent communication.”

Why It Matters

The Social Security system, supporting retirement income for tens of millions of Americans, now faces an earlier-than-expected financial crisis following major United States tax policy changes. The 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted under President Donald Trump, has shifted the projected date of insolvency, which could impact benefit payouts for about 62 million retirees and dependents.

Policymakers, financial experts and advocacy groups have responded with warnings about the urgent need for legislative action to preserve benefits and the long-term viability of the program that remains a cornerstone of American social policy. Without intervention, automatic cuts could leave Americans with roughly three-quarters of the benefits currently anticipated.

This issue not only affects today’s retirees but also has profound implications for future generations of U.S. workers who depend on the ongoing stability of the Social Security system. The projected financial strain intensifies longstanding debates on tax policy, government spending and entitlement reform.

The SSA reported that roughly 70 million people were receiving Social Security benefits as of June of this year.

What To Know

The SSA revised its timetable for trust fund depletion following the passing of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on July 4, 2025.

The Office of the Chief Actuary, under the guidance of SSA, reported that cumulative costs to the Social Security’s Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI) trust funds (jointly called OASDI) would increase by roughly $168.6 billion over the coming decade due largely to lower income tax rates and new deduction rules, including a temporarily enhanced standard deduction for seniors.

As a result, the actuarial balance further deteriorated to -3.98 percent from -3.82 percent.

If combined with further projections, Social Security reductions for future generations could reach or exceed 30 percent.

Social Security benefits will face an automatic 24 percent cut at the time of insolvency in late 2032, according to an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). By 2099, that cut could exceed well over 30 percent.

That 2032 estimate is equivalent to an $18,100 annual benefit cut for a dual-earning couple retiring at the start of 2033, shortly after trust fund insolvency. Simultaneously, those same retirees might experience reduced access to health care due to an 11 percent cut in Medicare Hospital Insurance payments.

Cuts would grow over time as scheduled benefits continue to outpace dedicated revenues, per the nonpartisan CRFB. The same actuarial forecasts warned that Medicare’s trust fund faces a similar timeline, expecting depletion in 2033.

CRFB’s estimates are somewhat larger than those implied by the most recent trustees’ report, due to tax rate cuts and an increase in the senior standard deduction from OBBBA, reducing Social Security’s revenue from the income taxation of benefits, which they say is increasing the required cut by about a percentage point upon insolvency.

“If the expanded senior standard deduction and other temporary measures of OBBBA are made permanent, the benefit cut would grow larger,” CRFB said.

Newsweek reached out to CRFB via email for additional comment.

The revised insolvency projections are also the product of broader demographic changes, including increased retirements among baby boomers, a declining birth rate, and lowered wage-growth expectations.

The latest trustee report in mid-June highlighted that, even apart from recent legislation, taxes collected for Social Security have struggled to keep pace with payouts due to the program’s structure.

What People Are Saying

Social Security Commissioner Frank Bisignano, in a June 18 press release: “To ensure we serve the public and deliver high-quality service to the 185 million people who work and pay payroll taxes for Social Security and the 70 million beneficiaries who will receive benefits during 2025, the financial status of the trust funds remains a top priority for the Trump Administration.

“Congress, along with the Social Security Administration and others committed to eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, must work together to protect and strengthen the trust funds for the millions of Americans who rely on it—now and in the future— for a secure retirement or in the event of a disability.”

From an analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget on July 24: “Policymakers pledging not to touch Social Security are implicitly endorsing these deep benefit cuts for 62 million retirees in 2032 and beyond. It is time for policymakers to tell the truth about the program’s finances and to pursue trust fund solutions to head off insolvency and improve the program for current and future generations.”

What Happens Next

Congress faces mounting pressure to act before the projected Social Security trust fund depletion in 2034 to avoid automatic benefit cuts. Options under discussion include tax hikes, changes to the benefit formula, or increasing the full retirement age.

https://www.newsweek.com/social-security-retirement-savings-benefits-money-2110258

Guardian: IRS commissioner’s removal reportedly over clash on undocumented immigrant data

Trump removed Billy Long from post months after agency said it couldn’t release information on some taxpayers

The removal of the Internal Revenue Service commissioner Billy Long after just two months in the post came after the federal tax collection agency said it could not release some information on taxpayers suspected of being in the US illegally, it was reported on Saturday.

The IRS and the White House had clashed over using tax data to help locate suspected undocumented immigrants soon before Long was dismissed by the administration, according to the Washington Post.

Long’s dismissal came less than two months after he was confirmed, making his service as Senate-confirmed IRS commissioner the briefest in the agency’s 163-year history. Treasury secretary Scott Bessent will serve as acting commissioner, making him the agency’s seventh leader this year.

The outlet reported the Department of Homeland Security had sent the IRS a list of 40,000 names on Thursday that it suspects of being in the country illegally. DHS asked the tax service to crosscheck confidential taxpayer data to verify their addresses.

The IRS reportedly responded that it was able to verify fewer than 3% of the names on the DHS list, and mostly names that came with an individual taxpayer identification, or ITIN number, provided by DHS.

Administration officials then requested information on the taxpayers the IRS identified, which the service declined to do, citing taxpayer privacy rights.

The White House has identified the IRS as a component of its crackdown on illegal immigration and hopes that the tax agency help locate as many as 7 million people in the US without authorization. In April, homeland security struck a data sharing agreement with the treasury department – which oversees the IRS.

But Long appears to have resisted acting on that agreement, saying the IRS would not hand over confidential taxpayer information outside its statutory obligation to the treasury.

Related: Trump removes IRS commissioner Billy Long two months after he was sworn in

White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson rejected the notion that the IRS was not in harmony with administration priorities.

“Any absurd assertion other than everyone being aligned on the mission is simply false and totally fake news,” Johnson told the Post. “The Trump administration is working in lockstep to eliminate information silos and to prevent illegal aliens from taking advantage of benefits meant for hardworking American taxpayers,” she addedIn fact, undocumented immigrants paid $96.7bn in federal, state and local taxes in 2022, including $59.4bn to the federal government, helping to fund social security and Medicare, despite being excluded from most benefits, according to an analysis from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy thinktank.

DHS told the Post that its agreement with IRS “outlines a process to ensure that sensitive taxpayer information is protected, while allowing law enforcement to effectively pursue criminal violations”.

Pressure on federal agencies to conform to administration priorities has also led to pressures on the Census Bureau to conduct a mid-decade population review as well as the firing of Bureau of Labor head last week after it published a unfavorable job report.

After being dismissed on Friday, Long, a former six-term Missouri congressman, said that he would be the new US ambassador to Iceland.

“It is a honor to serve my friend President Trump and I am excited to take on my new role as the ambassador to Iceland,” Long said in post on X. “I am thrilled to answer his call to service and deeply committed to advancing his bold agenda. Exciting times ahead!”

He followed that up with a more humorous entry that referred to former TV Superman actor Dean Cain’s decision, at 59, to join to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Ice) agency.

“I saw where Former Superman actor Dean Cain says he’s joining ICE so I got all fired up and thought I’d do the same. So I called @realDonaldTrump last night and told him I wanted to join ICE and I guess he thought I said Iceland? Oh well.”

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/aug/09/billy-long-irs-removal-immigrant-data-trump

Law & Crime: ‘This discrepancy is not insignificant’: Judge alleges Trump admin misled SCOTUS about injunction over federal layoffs

The Trump administration provided incorrect information to the U.S. Supreme Court in a recent high-profile case about firing federal employees, according to a federal judge sitting in San Francisco.

On Monday, in a terse, two-page filing, U.S. District Judge Susan Illston, a Bill Clinton appointee, told the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit that the U.S. Department of Justice substantially mischaracterized the reach of a preliminary injunction the lower court issued in response to one of President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

That injunction, issued in late May, came on the heels of a temporary restraining order issued in early May. Later that same month, a three-judge panel on the 9th Circuit upheld the lower court order, rejecting the government’s request to stay the injunction.

Then, in early June, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed a 147-page application for an emergency stay with the nation’s high court.

In that application, Sauer described Illston’s injunction in the following terms: “In fact, this Office has been informed by OPM that about 40 [reductions in force] in 17 agencies were in progress and are currently enjoined.”

Now, Illston says Sauer protested a bit too much.

The district court judge, in her Monday statement, alleges the fourth-highest ranking DOJ official got both sets of numbers wrong.

“Petitioners provided this information to argue that the preliminary injunction was causing them irreparable harm,” Illston writes. “Now that petitioners have filed their RIF list, it is apparent that the figure presented to the Supreme Court included numerous agencies that are not defendants in this case and therefore were not enjoined by the District Court.”

The document goes on to list seven “non-defendant” agencies and nine RIFs which were incorrectly included in the government’s representations before the justices in its June stay application.

Illston then crunches the numbers – using bold to highlight the math.

Based on this list, petitioners’ application to the Supreme Court should have stated that the injunction paused 31 RIFs in 10 agencies, not 40 RIFs in 17 agencies. This discrepancy is not insignificant. In this Court’s view, this further underscores the Court’s previous finding that any deliberative process privilege, if it exists at all, is overridden by ‘the need for accurate fact-finding in this litigation[.]'”

While the Supreme Court stayed the injunction itself, other business in the litigation has been moving forward at the district court level.

The underlying lawsuit, filed by a coalition of labor unions, nonprofit groups, and municipalities, challenges the 45th and 47th president’s Feb. 11 executive order, “Implementing The President’s ‘Department Of Government Efficiency’ Workforce Optimization Initiative.” The order, on its own terms, purports to “commence” a “critical transformation of the Federal bureaucracy” by “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity.” In real terms, Trump’s plans ask agency heads to quickly “initiate large-scale reductions in force,” or massive layoffs, in service of a goal to restructure the government.

The plaintiffs, for their part, have continued to push for discovery regarding the extent of the government’s RIFs and reorganization plans. The defendants, in turn, have sought various reprieves from both the district court and the court of appeals.

On July 18, Illston issued a discovery order which directed the government to provide the requested information. The order provided a win for the plaintiffs on the basic request as well as a win for the government – which requested to file some information under seal.

More Law&Crime coverage: ‘Greenlighting this president’s legally dubious actions’: Jackson upbraids SCOTUS colleagues for ‘again’ issuing a ‘reckless’ ruling in Trump’s favor on emergency docket

That discovery order is the first instance in which the “40 RIFs in 17 agencies” assertion was called into question by the court.

“Defendants made this assertion to the Supreme Court to highlight the urgency of their stay request and the extent of irreparable injury facing the government,” Illston observed. “Yet defendants now back-track, telling this Court that, actually, ‘those RIFs have not been finalized, many were in an early stage, and some are not now going forward.'”

The court ordered the DOJ to clear things up as follows:

Defendants must file with the Court, not under seal, a list of the RIFs referenced in the Supreme Court stay application. Defendants may note which RIFs, if any, agencies have decided not to move forward, or provide any other details they wish.

On July 21, the DOJ filed a petition for a writ of mandamus – a request for a court to force another government entity to do what it says – with the 9th Circuit. That petition complains Illston’s discovery order “directs the government to produce voluminous privileged documents to plaintiffs’ counsel and the district court.” The petition goes on to ask the appellate court to both pause and kibosh completely the elements of the discovery order which require the filing of the documents under seal.

On July 22, the panel issued a stay on the sealed production order.

On July 28, the 9th Circuit directed the parties to respond and reply to the mandamus request by Aug. 1 and Aug. 8, respectively. The panel also said the district court “may address the petition if it so desires.”

In her filing, Illston said she “appreciates the invitation to address” the government’s mandamus petition.

As it turns out, even after the government filed its requests to stay Illston’s more invasive discovery orders, the Trump administration provided the information the lower court directed them to file “not under seal.”

“Since the Discovery Order issued, petitioners produced the list of the reductions in force (RIFs) that petitioners represented to the Supreme Court were in progress and were halted by the District Court’s May 22, 2025 preliminary injunction,” Illston explains.

Now, that information is being used against the Trump administration to allege the DOJ overstated its case before the nation’s highest court.

Alternet: Trump official brutally mocked after saying he was ‘not going to tolerate’ sick Americans

Dr. Mehmet Oz, President Donald Trump’s Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, declared that the administration will no longer “tolerate” what he called a culture that makes it “easy to be sick in America.” Framing childhood illness as a failure of parenting and physical activity rather than medical need, Oz linked obesity to national security and warned that industries would be forced to cooperate—or face government retaliation.

Oz—often called a conspiracy theorist who has been widely criticized for promoting “quack” products—appeared to endorse an authoritarian vision of public health, suggesting that under Trump and Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Americans would no longer be allowed to remain “sick” without consequences, and threatened industry with demands to either cooperate or face retribution.

He also railed against what he called the “over-medicalization” of American society—particularly among children—but failed to distinguish between conditions driven by behavior and those rooted in biology or beyond individual control.

“You’re diagnosing problems that probably should be dealt with with the parents,” he told Fox News Business, referring to children’s health, “or by going out and playing, or just dealing with issues and teaching kids how to mental resilience [sic].”

He warned of risk factors that “cause an obesity epidemic that now prevents three quarters of young men from entering the military,” a questionable claim, and said that this “crisis” is “rolling up towards the older ages.”

“There’s a reason we’re twice as obese as [our] European counterpart countries, we’re ten times more obese than Japan: we’ve made it easy to be sick in America. And this president and this Secretary of Health, Bobby Kennedy, they’re not going to tolerate it anymore,” Oz declared.

Warning that he and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary, “are the tip of the spear,” he threatened “to make sure that we get industry to work with us, or we’ll be coming after them.”

Dr. Oz has a history of linking healthcare policy to politics.

In 2022, during his failed senatorial campaign, Oz said he wanted abortion to be between a woman, her doctors, and local political leaders.

More recently, Oz has said Americans must “earn the right” to be on Medicaid, and said current Medicaid users should “prove you matter.”

Critics, meanwhile, blasted Oz’s latest remarks.

California Democratic Governor Gavin Newsom responded, telling Oz, “You just stripped 17 million people of their healthcare.”

Dr. Rachel Bedard, an internist, geriatrician, and palliative care physician, wrote: “Stop being sick, Americans. They aren’t gonna tolerate it anymore.”

Anthony M. Hopper, who teaches healthcare administration, noted, “You know … We would be a lot healthier (in the future) if we spent more money on medical research.”

Retired professor MA Rasmussen wrote: “So you guys are OK with the gutting of the EPA, an agency created to protect us from polluted air & water & the Labor Department which enforces worker safety rules? I guess so. You’re all into blaming the individual rather than corporations or agribusiness or bad public policy.”

Watch the video … at this link.

https://www.alternet.org/trump-official-sick-americans

NBC News: Calls to strip Zohran Mamdani’s citizenship spark alarm about Trump weaponizing denaturalization

Past administrations, including Obama’s, have sought to denaturalize U.S. citizens, such as terrorists and Nazis. But advocates worry he could target political opponents.

Immediately after Zohran Mamdani became the presumptive Democratic nominee for mayor of New York City last month, one Republican congressman had a provocative suggestion for the Trump administration: “He needs to be DEPORTED.”

The Uganda-born Mamdani obtained U.S. citizenship in 2018 after moving to the United States with his parents as a child. But Rep. Andy Ogles, R-Tenn., argued in his post on X that the Justice Department should consider revoking it over rap lyrics that, he said, suggested support for Hamas.

The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it has replied to Ogles’ letter, but White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said of his claims about Mamdani, “Surely if they are true, it’s something that should be investigated.”

Trump himself has claimed without evidence that Mamdani is an illegal immigrant, and when erstwhile ally Elon Musk was asked about deporting another naturalized citizen, he suggested he would consider it.

The congressman’s proposal dovetails with a priority of the Trump administration to ramp up efforts to strip citizenship from other naturalized Americans. The process, known as denaturalization, has been used by previous administrations to remove terrorists and, decades ago, Nazis and communists.

But the Trump DOJ’s announcement last month that it would “prioritize and maximally pursue denaturalization proceedings” has sparked alarm among immigration lawyers and advocates, who fear the Trump administration could use denaturalization to target political opponents.

Although past administrations have periodically pursued denaturalization cases, it is an area ripe for abuse, according to Elizabeth Taufa, a lawyer at the Immigrant Legal Resource Center.

“It can be very easily weaponized at any point,” she said.

Noor Zafar, an immigration lawyer at the American Civil Liberties Union, said there is a “real risk and a real threat” that the administration will target people based on their political views.

Asked for comment on the weaponization concerns, a Justice Department spokesperson pointed to the federal law that authorizes denaturalizations, 8 U.S.C. 1451.

“We are upholding our duty as expressed in the statute,” the spokesperson said.

Immigrant groups and political opponents of Trump are already outraged at the way the Trump administration has used its enforcement powers to stifle dissent in cases involving legal immigrants who do not have U.S. citizenship.

ICE detained Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist engaged in campus protests critical of Israel, for more than 100 days before he was released. Turkish student Rümeysa Öztürk was also detained for two months over her pro-Palestinian advocacy.

More broadly, the administration has been accused of violating the due process rights of immigrants it has sought to rapidly deport over the objection of judges and, in cases involving alleged Venezuelan gang members and Salvadoran man Kilmar Abrego Garcia, the Supreme Court.

Denaturalization cases have traditionally been rare and in past decades focused on ferreting out former Nazis who fled to the United States after World War II under false pretenses.

But the approach gradually changed after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001. Aided by technological advances that made it easier to identify people and track them down, the number of denaturalization cases has gradually increased.

It was the Obama administration that initially seized on the issue, launching what was called Operation Janus, which identified more than 300,000 cases where there were discrepancies involving fingerprint data that could indicate potential fraud.

But the process is slow and requires considerable resources, with the first denaturalization as a result of Operation Janus secured during Trump’s first term in January 2018.

That case involved Baljinder Singh, originally from India, who had been subject to deportation but later became a U.S. citizen after assuming a different identity.

In total, the first Trump administration filed 102 denaturalization cases, with the Biden administration filing 24, according to the Justice Department spokesperson, who said figures for the Obama administration were not available. The new Trump administration has already filed five. So far, the Trump administration has prevailed in one case involving a man originally from the United Kingdom who had previously been convicted of receiving and distributing child pornography. The Justice Department declined to provide information about the other new cases.

Overall, denaturalization cases are brought against just a tiny proportion of the roughly 800,00 people who become naturalized citizens each year, according to the Department of Homeland Security.

‘Willful misrepresentation’

The government has two ways to revoke citizenship, either through a rare criminal prosecution for fraud or via a civil claim in federal court.

The administration outlined its priorities for civil enforcement in a June memo issued by Assistant Attorney General Brett Shumate, which listed 10 potential grounds for targeting naturalized citizens.

Examples range from “individuals who pose a risk to national security” or who have engaged in war crimes or torture, to people who have committed Medicaid or Medicare fraud or have otherwise defrauded the government. There is also a broad catch-all provision that refers to “any other cases … that the division determines to be sufficiently important to pursue.”

The denaturalization law focuses on “concealment of a material fact” or “willful misrepresentation” during the naturalization proceeding.

The ACLU’s Zafar said the memo leaves open the option for the Trump administration to at least try to target people based on their speech or associations.

“Even if they don’t think they really have a plausible chance of succeeding, they can use it as a means to just harass people,” she added.

The Justice Department can bring denaturalization cases over a wide range of conduct related to the questions applicants for U.S. citizenship are asked, including the requirement that they have been of “good moral character” in the preceding five years.

Immigration law includes several examples of what might disqualify someone on moral character grounds, including if they are a “habitual drunkard” or have been convicted of illegal gambling.

The naturalization application form itself asks a series of questions probing good moral character, such as whether the applicant has been involved in violent acts, including terrorism.

The form also queries whether people have advocated in support of groups that support communism, “the establishment in the United States of a totalitarian dictatorship” or the “unlawful assaulting or killing” of any U.S. official.

Failure to accurately answer any of the questions or the omission of any relevant information can be grounds for citizenship to be revoked.

In 2015, for example, Sammy Chang, a native of South Korea who had recently become a U.S. citizen, had his citizenship revoked in the wake of his conviction in a criminal case of trafficking women to work at a club he owned.

The government said that because Chang had been engaged in the scheme during the time he was applying for naturalization, he had failed to show good moral character.

But in both civil and criminal cases, the government has to reach a high bar to revoke citizenship. Among other things, it has to show that any misstatement or omission in a naturalization application was material to whether citizenship would have been granted.

In civil cases, the government has to show “clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence which does not leave the issue in doubt” in order to prevail.

“A simple game of gotcha with naturalization applicants isn’t going to work,” said Jeremy McKinney, a North Carolina-based immigration lawyer. “It’s going to require significant materiality for a judge to strip someone of their United States citizenship.”

Targeting rap lyrics

In his June 26 tweet, Ogles attached a letter he sent to Attorney General Pam Bondi asking her to consider pursuing Mamdani’s denaturalization, in part, because he “expressed open solidarity with individuals convicted of terrorism-related offenses prior to becoming a U.S. citizen.”

Ogles cited rap lyrics that Mamdani wrote years ago in which he expressed support for the “Holy Land Five.”

That appears to be a reference to five men involved in a U.S.-based Muslim charitable group called the Holy Land Foundation who were convicted in 2008 of providing material support to the Palestinian group Hamas. Some activists say the prosecution was a miscarriage of justice fueled by anti-Muslim sentiment following the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Ogles’ office and Mamdani’s campaign did not respond to requests seeking comment.

Speaking on Newsmax in June, Ogles expanded on his reasons for revoking Mamdani’s citizenship, suggesting the mayoral candidate had “failed to disclose” relevant information when he became a citizen, including his political associations. Ogles has alleged Mamdani is a communist because of his identification as a democratic socialist, although the latter is not a communist group.

Anyone speaking on Newsmax these days is an irrelevant fruitcake.

The Trump administration, Ogles added, could use a case against Mamdani to “create a template for other individuals who come to this country” who, he claimed, “want to undermine our way of life.” (Even if Mamdani were denaturalized, he would not, contrary to Ogles’ claim, automatically face deportation, as he would most likely revert his previous status as a permanent resident.)

In an appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press” on June 29, Mamdani said calls for him to be stripped of his citizenship and deported are “a glimpse into what life is like for many Muslim New Yorkers and many New Yorkers of different faiths who are constantly being told they don’t belong in this city and this country that they love.”

Targeting Mamdani for his rap lyrics would constitute a very unusual denaturalization case, said Taufa, the immigration lawyer.

But, she added, “they can trump up a reason to denaturalize someone if they want to.”

McKinney, a former president of the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said the relatively low number of denaturalization cases that are filed, including those taken up during Trump’s first term, shows how difficult it is for the government to actually strip people of their citizenship.

“But what they can be very successful at is continuing to create a climate of panic and anxiety and fear,” he added. “They’re doing that very well. So, mission accomplished in that regard.”

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/calls-strip-zohran-mamdanis-citizenship-trump-denaturalization-power-rcna216653

Mirror: Trump officials give ICE access to Medicaid patients’ home addresses and ethnicity data

The Trump administration has quietly authorized ICE to access personal data from 79 million Medicaid recipients—including addresses and ethnicities.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents are set to gain access to the personal details of America’s 79 million Medicaid members, including home addresses and ethnicities, in a bid to locate immigrants who may be residing unlawfully in the United States, as per an agreement seen by The Associated Press.

The data will empower ICE officials to pinpoint “the location of aliens” nationwide, according to the pact inked Monday between the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and the Department of Homeland Security. This deal has yet to be disclosed to the public, the Associated Press reported.

This unprecedented sharing of vast amounts of personal health information with immigration enforcement is the latest move in the Trump administration’s intensified efforts to detain 3,000 individuals daily, pushing the envelope of legal limits.

Legislators and certain CMS officials have questioned the lawfulness of deportation authorities’ access to some states’ Medicaid enrollee information.

This development, revealed by the Associated Press, was described by Health and Human Services officials as an effort to identify individuals improperly enrolled in the program.

However, the recent data-sharing arrangement clarifies what ICE officials plan to do with the health information.

“ICE will use the CMS data to allow ICE to receive identity and location information on aliens identified by ICE,” the agreement says.

The database will expose to ICE officials the names, addresses, birth dates, ethnic and racial information, as well as Social Security numbers for all individuals enrolled in Medicaid.

The state and federally funded program delivers health care coverage for the nation’s poorest residents, including millions of children.

The arrangement does not permit ICE officials to download the information.

Rather, they will be granted access to it for a restricted timeframe from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, until Sept. 9.

“They are trying to turn us into immigration agents,” said a CMS official who did not have permission to speak to the media and insisted on anonymity.

Revelations about potential immigration enforcement in emergency medical settings could spark panic among those in need of urgent care for themselves or their kids.

The crackdown on illegal immigration has already cast a shadow of fear over schools, churches, courthouses, and other common spaces, leaving immigrants and even U.S. citizens anxious about being swept up in raids.

Big Brother has arrived! 🙁

https://www.themirror.com/news/us-news/breaking-trump-officials-give-ice-1274202

LA Times: Hiltzik: Stephen Miller says Americans will live better lives without immigrants. He’s blowing smoke

Stephen Miller, the front man for Donald Trump’s deportation campaign against immigrants, took to the airwaves the other day to explain why native-born Americans will just love living in a world cleansed of undocumented workers.

“What would Los Angeles look like without illegal aliens?” he asked on Fox News. “Here’s what it would look like: You would be able to see a doctor in the emergency room right away, no wait time, no problems. Your kids would go to a public school that had more money than they know what to do with. Classrooms would be half the size. Students who have special needs would get all the attention that they needed. … There would be no fentanyl, there would be no drug deaths.” Etc., etc.

No one can dispute that the world Miller described on Fox would be a paradise on Earth. No waiting at the ER? School districts flush with cash? No drug deaths? But that doesn’t obscure that pretty much every word Miller uttered was fiction.

Trump aide Stephen Miller concocts a fantasy about L.A.

The gist of Miller’s spiel — in fact, the worldview that he has been espousing for years — is that “illegal aliens” are responsible for all those ills, and exclusively responsible. It’s nothing but a Trumpian fantasy.

Let’s take a look, starting with overcrowding at the ER.

The issue has been the focus of numerous studies and surveys. Overwhelmingly, they conclude that undocumented immigration is irrelevant to ER overcrowding. In fact, immigrants generally and undocumented immigrants in particular are less likely to get their healthcare at the emergency room than native-born Americans.

In California, according to a 2014 study from UCLA, “one in five U.S.-born adults visits the ER annually, compared with roughly one in 10 undocumented adults — approximately half the rate of U.S.-born residents.”

Among the reasons, explained Nadereh Pourat, the study’s lead author and director of research at the UCLA Center for Health Policy Research, was fear of being asked to provide documents.

The result is that undocumented individuals avoid seeking any healthcare until they become critically ill. The UCLA study found that undocumented immigrants’ average number of doctor visits per year was lower than for other cohorts: 2.3 for children and 1.7 for adults, compared with 2.8 doctor visits for U.S.-born children and 3.2 for adults.

ER overcrowding is an issue of long standing in the U.S., but it’s not the result of an influx of undocumented immigrants. It’s due to a confluence of other factors, including the tendency of even insured patients to use the ER as a primary care center, presenting with complicated or chronic ailments for which ER medicine is not well-suited.

While caseloads at emergency departments have surged, their capacities are shrinking.

According to a 2007 report by the National Academy of Sciences, from 1993 to 2003 the U.S. population grew by 12%, hospital admissions by 13% and ER visits by 26%. “Not only is [emergency department] volume increasing, but patients coming to the ED are older and sicker and require more complex and time-consuming workups and treatments,” the report observed. “During this same period, the United States experienced a net loss of 703 hospitals, 198,000 hospital beds, and 425 hospital EDs, mainly in response to cost-cutting measures.”

President Trump’s immigration policies during his first term suppressed the use of public healthcare facilities by undocumented immigrants and their families. The key policy was the administration’s tightening of the “public charge” rule, which applies to those seeking admission to the United States or hoping to upgrade their immigration status.

The rule, which has been part of U.S. immigration policy for more than a century, allowed immigration authorities to deny entry — or deny citizenship applications of green card holders — to anyone judged to become a recipient of public assistance such as welfare (today known chiefly as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF) or other cash assistance programs.

Until Trump, healthcare programs such as Medicaid, nutrition programs such as food stamps, and subsidized housing programs weren’t part of the public charge test.

Even before Trump implemented the change but after a draft version leaked out, clinics serving immigrant communities across California and nationwide detected a marked drop off in patients.

A clinic on the edge of Boyle Heights in Los Angeles that had been serving 12,000 patients, I reported in 2018, saw monthly patient enrollments fall by about one-third after Trump’s 2016 election, and an additional 25% after the leak. President Biden rescinded the Trump rule within weeks of taking office.

Undocumented immigrants are sure to be less likely to access public healthcare services, such as those available at emergency rooms, as a result of Trump’s rescinding “sensitive location” restrictions on immigration agents that had been in effect at least since 2011.

That policy barred almost all immigration enforcement actions at schools, places of worship, funerals and weddings, public marches or rallies, and hospitals. Trump rescinded the policy on inauguration day in January.

The goal was for Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents “to make substantial efforts to avoid unnecessarily alarming local communities,” agency officials stated. Today, as public shows of force and public raids by ICE have demonstrated, instilling alarm in local communities appears to be the goal.

The change in the sensitive locations policy has prompted hospital and ER managers to establish formal procedures for staff confronted with the arrival of immigration agents.

A model policy drafted by the Emergency Medicine Residents Assn. says staff should request identification and a warrant or other document attesting to the need for the presence of agents. It urges staff to determine whether the agents are enforcing a judicial warrant (signed by a judge) or administrative warrant (issued by ICE). The latter doesn’t grant agents access to private hospital areas such as patient rooms or operating areas.

What about school funding? Is Miller right to assert that mass deportations will free up a torrent of funding and cutting class sizes in half? He doesn’t know what he’s talking about.

Most school funding in California and most other places is based on attendance. In California, the number of immigrant children in the schools was 189,634 last year. The total K-12 population was 5,837,700, making the immigrant student body 3.25% of the total. Not half.

In the Los Angeles Unified School District, the estimated 30,000 children from immigrant families amounted to about 7.35% of last year’s enrollment of 408,083. Also not half.

With the deportation of immigrant children, the schools would lose whatever federal funding was attached to their attendance. Schools nationwide receive enhanced federal funding for English learners and other immigrants. That money, presumably, would disappear if the pupils go.

What Miller failed to mention on Fox is the possible impact of the Trump administration’s determination to shutter the Department of Education, placing billions of dollars of federal funding at risk. California receives more than $16 billion a year in federal aid to K-12 schools through that agency. Disabled students are at heightened risk of being deprived of resources if the agency is dismantled.

Then there’s fentanyl. The Trump administration’s claim that undocumented immigrants are major players in this crisis appears to be just another example of its scapegoating of immigrants. The vast majority of fentanyl-related criminal convictions — nearly 90% — are of U.S. citizens. The rest included both legally present and undocumented immigrants. (The statistics comes from the U.S. Sentencing Commission.)

In other words, deport every immigrant in the United States, and you still won’t have made a dent in fentanyl trafficking, much less eliminate all drug deaths.

What are we to make of Miller’s spiel about L.A.? At one level, it’s echt Miller: The portrayal of the city as a putative hellscape, larded with accusations of complicity between the city leadership and illegal immigrants — “the leaders in Los Angeles have formed an alliance with the cartels and criminal aliens,” he said, with zero pushback from his Fox News interlocutor.

At another level, it’s a malevolent expression of white privilege. In Miller’s ideology, the only obstacles to the return to a drug-free world of frictionless healthcare and abundantly financed education are immigrants. This ideology depends on the notion that immigrants are raiding the public purse by sponging on public services.

The fact is that most undocumented immigrants aren’t eligible for most such services. They can’t enroll in Medicare, receive premium subsidies under the Affordable Care Act, or collect Social Security or Medicare benefits (though typically they submit falsified Social Security numbers to employers, so payments for the program are deducted from their paychecks).

2013 study by the libertarian Cato Institute found that low-income immigrants use public benefits for which they’re eligible, such as food stamps, “at a lower rate than native-born low-income residents.”

If there’s an impulse underlying the anti-immigrant project directed by Miller other than racism, it’s hard to detect.

Federal Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong, who last week blocked federal agents from using racial profiling to carry out indiscriminate immigration arrests in Los Angeles, ruled that during their “roving patrols” in Los Angeles, ICE agents detained individuals principally because of their race, that they were overheard speaking Spanish or accented English, that they were doing work associated with undocumented immigrants, or were in locations frequented by undocumented immigrants seeking day work.

Miller goes down the same road as ICE — indeed, by all accounts, he’s the motivating spirit behind the L.A. raids. Because he can’t justify the raids, he has ginned up a fantasy of immigrants disrupting our healthcare and school programs, and the corollary fantasy that evicting them all will produce an Earthly paradise for the rest of us. Does anybody really believe that?

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2025-07-15/stephen-miller-says-americans-will-live-better-lives-without-immigrants-hes-blowing-smoke

MSNBC: How DOGE’s reckless cuts created chaos at the Social Security Administration

Staff reassignments are not going to fix the growing problems at the agency.

The Trump administration’s colossal cuts to the Social Security Administration in the name of “efficiency” are sowing chaos and dysfunction throughout the agency. Even attempts to fix these new problems are akin to rearranging deck chairs on a sinking ship because they fail to address the core problem: staff shortages.

The Washington Post reports the SSA is “temporarily reassigning about 1,000 customer service representatives from field offices to work on the swamped toll-free phone line, increasing the number of agents by 25 percent.” And when the Post reports the phone line is “swamped,” what that means in practice is that people are complaining about dropped calls and previously reported wait times of up to five hours.

But there’s one little oversight: There is no one in place to do the work that the reassigned representatives had to leave behind. According to the Post, “Jessica LaPointe, president of Council 220 of the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), said the move will slow responses to the complex cases that the field office employees handle and be only a temporary bandage for the phone problems.”

“The 1-800 number — they do offer a critical role at the agency, but it’s triage, whereas customer service representatives actually clear work for the agency,” LaPointe told the Post. “So it’s just going to create a vicious cycle of work not getting cleared, people calling for status on work that’s sitting because the claims specialists now are going to have to pick up the slack of the customer service representatives that are redeployed to the tele-service centers.”

So how did the SSA end up so shorthanded that it has to rob Peter to pay Paul? Before the second Trump administration, SSA had a staff of roughly 57,000. According to the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, the Trump administration’s DOGE operation enacted “the largest staffing cut in SSA’s history,” which involved “indiscriminately pushing out 7,000 workers to hit an arbitrary staffing reduction target.” The Trump administration has also ousted dozens of officials with expertise in running SSA’s benefits and information technology systems.

On top of the problems noted above, reassigning workers adds further inefficiency because they have to do on-the-job training and lean on more experienced co-workers to get them up to speed. And field offices themselves were already beleaguered, dealing with the effects of other reassignments within SSA. “Field office staff are struggling to resolve the most difficult cases, due to disproportionate losses and reassignments in SSA’s regional offices, which provide daily support to their colleagues in the field by answering complex policy questions and troubleshooting system problems,” the CBPP reports.

Trump’s “efficiency” efforts now have a single staff member serving 1,480 beneficiaries, according to AFGE. That’s three times the number of clients that one staffer served in 1967.

On top of all this, the SSA’s new phone system, implemented in May, seems to have problems of its own. Jen Burdick, a Social Security expert and a divisional supervising attorney with Community Legal Services, told The Philadelphia Inquirer that the system’s new artificial intelligence could be exacerbating the problem.

“We spend a lot of time calling Social Security offices on people’s behalf — sometimes 15 times a day,” Burdick told the Inquirer. “We’re on hold for hours, then get AI bots spewing random information you never asked for before hanging up.”

“It really hurts our clients who are in trouble, trying to navigate this difficult system. It’s very upsetting for people,” she added.

Staff shortages seem to result occasionally in callers being rerouted to offices in other parts of the country, the Inquirer report adds, and thus the responding staffer is not always able to answer specific questions.

Trump is turning one of the country’s most important lifelines for the elderly and the disabled into a mess — all for foreseeable reasons. Indiscriminate mass cuts don’t represent a serious bid at generating efficiency in administering a public benefit. The only thing these cuts do with any efficiency is rip a major hole in the American safety net.

The future doesn’t look so good, either. Trump’s recently passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” is only going to make things worse, since changes in the tax code will accelerate Social Security and Medicare’s insolvency. MAGA’s policy vision is all about divestment from the common good — and America’s collective future.

https://www.msnbc.com/opinion/msnbc-opinion/social-security-administration-phone-benefits-wait-doge-trump-rcna218252