Raw Story

California Gov. Gavin Newsom delivered a blistering rebuke of Donald Trump on Tuesday, accusing the president of unleashing a “military dragnet” across Los Angeles and targeting vulnerable residents under the guise of law and order.

“This moment we have feared has arrived,” Newsom proclaimed in a televised address Tuesday.

“California may be first, but it clearly will not end here,” the Democratic governor added. “Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes.”

Newsom said Trump’s federal agents were arresting “dishwashers. gardeners, day laborers and seamstresses” – far beyond the stated goal of apprehending violent criminals.

“That's just weakness. Weakness masquerading as strength,” he said. “Donald Trump's government isn't protecting our communities; they're traumatizing our communities, and that seems to be the entire point.” But he added: “California will keep fighting.”

He announced that the state had filed an emergency court order Tuesday to block the use of military forces for domestic law enforcement. The new action follows a legal challenge California filed Monday over what he called Trump’s “reckless deployment” of troops.

“Trump is pulling a military dragnet all across Los Angeles,” Newsom said Tuesday.

Newsom also warned that Trump has taken “a wrecking ball to our Founding Fathers’ historic project – three co-equal branches of independent government,” and also saved a jab for House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).

“Speaker Johnson has completely abdicated that responsibility,” Newsom said.

Watch the video below via CNN or at the link here:

Since being ousted from his position in President Donald Trump's first administration, former White House chief strategist Steve Bannon has carved out a new lane casting himself as a populist outsider advocating for the American working class. But one analyst is arguing that Bannon's new image is simply an elaborate ruse.

In a Tuesday essay for the Hill, writer and researcher John Mac Ghlionn pointed out the numerous ways in which Bannon has "conned" his target audience. He accused the "War Room" podcast host of "LARPing as a coal-dusted crusader for the common man" despite having a net worth in excess of $20 million and a cushy career on Wall Street before launching his political career.

"Steve Bannon was something far less revolutionary: a banker. And not just any banker — he was a high-powered executive at Goldman Sachs, the very temple of global finance he now pretends to rage against," Ghlionn wrote. "He didn’t walk picket lines. He walked into boardrooms, advised mergers and helped move capital around like puzzle pieces in the portfolios of the powerful. He got in on the deals most Americans would never even hear about, let alone benefit from."

Ghlionn expanded on calling Bannon someone who "talks like a patriot but lives like a prince," pointing out that he was a "Hollywood financier" who acquired a stake in Castle Rock Entertainment — which produced the hit 1990s sitcom "Seinfeld." The analyst observed that every time Americans laughed at "Seinfeld" character Cosmo Kramer's over-the-top entrance, Bannon literally "got richer" thanks to the royalties he got from the show.

"While working-class Americans were juggling bills and wondering if they could afford another tank of gas, Bannon was cashing passive income from a sitcom about nothing," he wrote.

The essayist reminded readers that Bannon was also the brainchild behind a crowdfunding campaign that successfully convinced Americans to donate millions of dollars to build a wall along the Southern border. The former Breitbart leader ultimately pleaded guilty to fraud in order to avoid jail time (Bannon still went to federal prison in 2024 after defying a Congressional subpoena). Ghlionn contrasted Bannon's everyman branding as a facade to hide his true identity as a "salesman in battle gear, with a podcast mic and a passport full of donor meetings."

"The flannel, the Catholic mysticism, the bunker aesthetic — it’s all part of the shameless act," he wrote. "Underneath is a Machiavellian tactician who understands power not as something to dismantle, but to inhabit. Part P.T. Barnum, part Pat Buchanan, this is a man who preaches humility while flying private."

Click here to read Ghlionn's full essay in the Hill.

A Republican senator reportedly got into a "shouting match" with White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller Thursday.

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) confronted President Donald Trump's leading adviser during a Senate Republican meeting over funding for border security, and the pair got into a heated argument when the senator told Miller his numbers don't add up, reported Punchbowl News correspondent Andrew Desiderio.

— (@)

Multiple GOP senators left the room frustrated," Desiderio reported.

“We’re fighting over an issue that unifies us," one GOP senator told Desiderio in a text. "Can’t wrap my head around it.”

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) tried to ease tensions with a rallying speech reminding the senators they had all campaigned on border security, so he urged them to carry through on their promise and deliver a win for the president.

"Republicans in disarray!" commented the reporter's X follower Davis Michael Wayne.

"The unlikeable quotient in a Stephen miller vs Ron Johnson contest breaks my brain," said X user dbr0675own1.

"if even ron johnson's calling out your math, you know it's bad," added X user Abdul Rahman. "gop's own house is crumbling over border bills now."

Officials said a JetBlue flight rolled off the runway Thursday morning at Boston Logan airport.

WCVB reported that Massachusetts State Police confirmed the flight skidded off the runway and into the grass.

Reports indicated that the runway was closed until at least 1 p.m. EST.

The flight, JetBlue flight 312, left Chicago's O'Hare International Airport at 8:41 a.m. The plane was in the process of landing when the incident occurred, reports said.

Watch the video below from WBTS.

Montana Supreme Court strikes down trio of abortion bills as unconstitutional

by Darrell Ehrlick, Daily Montanan
June 11, 2025

A trio of abortion-related bills, passed in 2021, were declared unconstitutional by a nearly unanimous Montana Supreme Court on Monday.

Nearly, because Justice Jim Rice wrote both a concurring and dissenting opinion affirming again Montana’s constitutionally protected right-to-privacy, which includes medical procedures and abortion.

The laws were halted before they could even be practically enacted, so the hurdles to the procedure, including waiting periods, mandatory ultrasound, a pile of documentation and banning abortion after 20 weeks, even before the point of fetal viability, never rippled throughout the state.

Justice Beth Baker wrote the opinion on behalf of the court, which not only reaffirmed the state Constitution’s right-to-privacy as unique and separate from federal cases on abortion, but also took the state to task for failing to support its claim that the State of Montana had a compelling interest in abortion, while not proving that any of the legislative hurdles were scientifically supported.

The lawsuit was brought by Planned Parenthood of Montana, and had a handful of other entities that wrote friends-of-the-court briefs, including a group of delegates to the 1972 Montana Constitutional Convention.

The three laws that were challenged were House Bill 136, House Bill 140 and House Bill 171:

• HB 136 would have banned abortion at 20 weeks, even though expert opinion agreed that fetal viability is not possible until at least 22 weeks.
• HB 171 would have put paperwork and more requirements for healthcare providers who provide abortion via medication or telehealth, subjecting them to both civil and criminal penalties.
• HB 180 would have required healthcare professionals to provide both ultrasound and fetal heartbeat tones to those considering abortion, and requiring a patient to sign a form created by the state, demonstrating that the patient had been offered the choice, and yet declined.

Because fetal viability — or the concept a child can survive outside the womb — is dictated by a host of factors, including medical science and approximate age of the fetus, the court rejected the state’s attempts to prescribe a fixed number of weeks for viability.

“A fixed gestational age that does not allow a provider’s case-specific determination fails to ensure that the government does not interfere with an individual’s private medical decision,” the ruling said. “Until a fetus is viable and able to survive outside the womb, the right of personal autonomy belongs to the person on whose body the fetus depends.

“We find no legal authority for the idea that the state’s interest in preserving fetal life or the fetus’ right to life takes precedence over all constitutional protections and dignities of the mother.”

Attorneys for the state had argued that physical safety risks of abortion increase as the pregnancy progresses, and that abortions lead to worse mental health outcomes, an argument that the Supreme Court dismissed and debunked.

“The record shows that abortion is safe,” the decision said. “As the district court noted, there were zero deaths cause by abortion in Montana between 2010 and 2020 and only 25 of 8,402 (0.3%) reported abortions in Montana from 2016 to 2021 resulted in complications. This court cannot find a bona fide health risk simply based on a detailed step-by-step description of what the state defines as ‘barbaric’ and ‘gruesome’ procedure when the overwhelming evidence shows that procedural abortions are safe.”

The ruling also said if the state wanted to address health outcomes or mental health issues, banning abortion was not the least restrictive way to do it.

The court also pointed out waiting-periods and requiring multiple in-person visits, as outlined by HB 171, actually increased the odds of harm or complications, instead of avoiding them.

“The record demonstrates that compliance with the 24-hour wait period, the multiple in-person visits, and the telehealth ban serve only to delay access to abortion care — thus increasing the odds that the patient will not be able to obtain an abortion or increasing the odds of the very complications this state asserts it wishes to protect against,” the opinion said.

The ruling also said in addition to violating the state’s constitutional provisions for privacy, it also impacted physician’s free-speech rights by requiring them to provide forms and documents, for example, information about a disputed abortion reversal procedure, that have not been medically verified or supported. They said HB 171 compelled healthcare professionals to give advice contrary to their training and conscience.

Physicians and experts also raised concerns about the state’s assertion abortion led to other health care concerns, for example, an increase in breast cancer, which has never been scientifically established.

“Forcing medical providers to give medical advice that they disagree with — like the safety and efficacy of abortion reversal — is a form of compelled-speech triggering protections,” the ruling said. “(Planned Parenthood) asserts that patients may mistakenly understand the consent form to indicate DPHHS’s and their provider’s approval of abortion reversal.”

The ruling calls such compelled speech egregious because it “favors one viewpoint over another — namely, the viewpoint that abortion reversal is safe and possible over the judgements and viewpoints of providers that it is unsafe, ineffective and undermines informed consent.”

The court noted the state does not mandate documentation or consent that requires medical providers to discuss the risk of carrying a pregnancy to term.

Finally, the court also called into question the real purpose of HB 140, which mandates ultrasounds and fetal heart tones before an abortion, something that providers said either happens during the course of pregnancy, but may not be medically necessary.

“The court stated it was ‘left with the strong impression that the law aims to advance the ulterior motive of discouraging abortion,’ which is unacceptable under the law,” the ruling said.

Montana’s highest court found that in the case of HB 140, it was exactly substituting the judgment of the state, and the lawmakers who supported it, with the views of the doctor.

The case was active for several years of litigation, and had district court Judge Amy Eddy sitting in place of former Chief Justice Mike McGrath, who retired at the end of 2024, as well as Judge Shane Vannatta, who was sitting in for Dirk Sandefur, who also retired.

McGrath has since been replaced by Chief Justice Cory Swanson, and Sandefur was succeeded by Justice Katherine Bidegaray.

Daily Montanan is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Daily Montanan maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Darrell Ehrlick for questions: info@dailymontanan.com.

Democratic leaders are struggling to mount a unified response to Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown, as party officials “watched in horror” at the president’s escalating tactics in Los Angeles.

That’s according to a new report in The Bulwark, which described Wednesday how protests over ICE raids have become a “playground for Donald Trump’s authoritarian fantasies.” But while Democrats have mostly come out to condemn the raids and the use of the National Guard to target immigrant communities, including garment workers and day laborers, many in the party remain uncertain about how to confront Trump politically.

Democratic leaders are “all over the place,” one prominent immigration advocate told The Bulwark. A Democratic aide described a House caucus meeting Tuesday meant to hone the party's message as “boring” with no strategy.

The internal chaos comes as the party has, so far, been unable “to unite around a single, effective countermessage about Trump’s trampling of L.A.,” according to the report. And behind closed doors, frustrations are boiling.

“The diverging approaches and bubbling frustrations attest to the unease many Democrats continue to feel in conversations about immigration,” The Bulwark said. “It’s also highlighted that the Democratic party remains in disagreement over how much urgency and alarm it should offer in response to what many believe is an existential threat to American democracy.”

“Democrats aren’t going to be able to wish away the news coverage that for the last few days has been dominating the news cycle, simply because we decide we have nothing to say,” one Congressional Hispanic Caucus member said.

Still others in the party, like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, have emerged in the public debate with a sharper tone targeting Trump. The Democratic governor warned Tuesday in a nationally televised address that “democracy is under assault before our eyes.”

But while Democrats “continue to struggle to find their footing,” some fear that the internal party debate will allow Trump to control the narrative, the Bulwark added, as Trump plows ahead with his escalating immigration enforcement threats.