Wisconsin Lt. Gov. Sara Rodriguez launched her gubernatorial bid on Friday, making her the first entrant into what’s expected to be a crowded Democratic primary to replace retiring Gov. Tony Evers.
In her announcement video, Rodriguez, a former emergency room nurse and state legislator, pledged to work to expand Medicaid and give public school teachers a pay raise if elected.
“We’ve got a maniac in the White House. His tariffs are killing our farmers and his policies are hurting our kids. Next, our legislature refuses to expand Medicaid, even though 41 other states have done it,” Rodriguez said in the video. “With a Democratic governor, we can finally expand Medicaid and boost our healthcare workforce, strengthen our farms, unions, and small businesses, fund our public schools, and give teachers the raise they’ve earned. That’s the right path.”
Rodriguez’s launch video focused on biographical details, including her path from emergency room nurse, to health care executive, to state lawmaker.
Evers, who announced his retirement Thursday, unseated Republican Scott Walker in 2018 and won reelection in 2022. But the state remains a battleground, providing President Donald Trump his narrowest victory in 2024.
Wisconsin Democratic operatives listed several other potential primary contenders, including Attorney General Josh Kaul, Milwaukee County Executive David Crowley, state Sen. Kelda Roys and Milwaukee Mayor Chevy Johnson.
Republicans also expect a crowded primary. Walker posted a photo on X with a “Make Wisconsin Great Again” hat with “45-47” on the side with the comment: “Interesting.” Walker served as the 45th governor of Wisconsin. Rep. Tom Tiffany (R-Wis.) has also suggested he’s interested in a run. Business executive Bill Berrien is already running.
While 94% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents said in a May 2025 survey that they are worried Medicaid cuts will lead to more adults and children losing their health insurance, 44% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents expressed concern about this, according to the KFF Health Tracking Poll.
Sure, their reasoning goes, bumps in the road are expected. But they think that most of the criticism of Trump and this latest bill is ultimately fake news spread by radical leftists who have what some call Trump Derangement Syndrome, meaning anti-Trump hysteria.
President Donald Trump holds up the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that he signed into law on July 4, 2025, at the White House. Alex Brandon − Pool/Getty Images
Trump alone can fix it
In the eyes of the MAGA faithful, Trump is no ordinary politician. To them, he is a savior who can help ward off the threat of radical left socialism. They believe Trump’s proclamation: “I alone can fix it.”
As I have repeatedly observed firsthand at Trump rallies and MAGA gatherings and heard in my conversations with Trump supporters, many Trump supporters – even those whom Democrats contend will be hurt by the bill – see the bill as a key step to making America great again. Doing so will not be easy and may cause some pain.
Even if the bill may cause some short-term pain, MAGA stalwarts contend, the apocalyptic claims of critics of massive health cuts are hoaxes spread by the radical left media. White House National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett, for example, dubbed the Medicare cut claims “a big fake news story.”
This view, based on my research and observations, is unsurprising. Trump has been pushing the “fake news conspiracy” theory, which holds that the media is part of the deep state, since his first term. He even dubbed the press “the enemy of the people.”
Trump’s fake news rhetorical strategy has been successful in helping him maintain support. Trump supporters take it for granted that negative news coverage of the president is most likely fake news.
There is already evidence that this depiction is resonating in places such as rural Nebraska, where many residents do not blame Trump for a health clinic that claims it is shutting down due to Medicaid cuts. “Anyone who’s saying that Medicaid cuts is why they’re closing is a liar,” said one woman of the clinic’s closure.
He withheld funding from the University of Pennsylvania until it agreed to ban transgender women from playing on women’s sports teams. Trump also cut $400 million in funding for Columbia University because the administration said it did not sufficiently protect Jewish students from harassment during Palestinian rights protests.
Recounting Trump’s foreign policy achievements, one conservative commentator gushed that Trump “promised we would win so much we’d get tired of winning. Instead, the wins keep coming – and America isn’t tired at all.”
Trumpism = Trump
Yet, Trump faces challenges.
A June 2025 KFF Health Tracking Poll found that support for the new legislation decreased when people were informed about its negative health care impact, for example.
Republicans could also face backlash in 2028 after the full impact of the act takes effect and people lose health insurance and other public benefits.
Regardless, I believe MAGA faithful will likely continue to support Trump.
Alex Hinton receives receives funding from the Rutgers-Newark Sheila Y. Oliver Center for Politics and Race in America, Rutgers Research Council, and Henry Frank Guggenheim Foundation.
After a two-year break, “South Park” returned to TV on Wednesday night with an explosive episode aimed squarely at Donald Trump that depicted the president in bed with Satan and referenced Jeffrey Epstein.
The start of the new season of “South Park” was delayed by several weeks while the Paramount network secured a deal worth $1.5 billion with the show’s creators for the streaming rights. Paramount is the owner of CBS, which has been firmly in Trump’s crosshairs.
The episode features Trump arguing with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, who complains about tariffs on Canada and says: “What are you, some kind of dictator from the Middle East?” After confusing Iran and Iraq, the “South Park” version of Trump tells Carney to “relax.”
Trump is also depicted lining the walls of the White House with naked pictures of himself. In another scene, Trump jumps into bed with Satan, who rejects his sexual advances and comments on the size of his penis.
Satan later confronts Trump about his name appearing on the “Epstein list” and adds: “It’s weird that whenever it comes up, you just tell everyone to relax.”
The satirical animated show also referenced Trump’s lawsuit against Paramount (Trump reached a $16 million settlement with Paramount Global, the parent of CBS News, over what he claimed was misleading editing of a pre-election interview with Democratic candidate Kamala Harris on the show “60 Minutes”).
Days after that settlement, Paramount canceled “The Late Show” hosted by Stephen Colbert, in what it said was “purely a financial decision” and not because of performance or content. Colbert is a frequent critic of Trump.
President Donald Trump is backing Florida state Sen. Joe Gruters to chair the Republican National Committee and replace Michael Whatley as he runs for Senate in North Carolina.
“Fortunately, I have somebody who will do a wonderful job as the Chairman of the RNC,” he wrote. “His name is, Joe Gruters, and he will have my Complete and Total Endorsement.”
The 48-year-old Florida lawmaker is the RNC treasurer and previously served as chair of the Florida Republican Party. Gruters had been expected to run to be the state’s chief financial officer against an ally backed by Gov. Ron DeSantis.
The governor had opposed his candidacy. “Joe Gruters has taken major positions that are totally contrary from what our voter base wants to do,” DeSantis said earlier this month.
Every week political cartoonists throughout the country and across the political spectrum apply their ink-stained skills to capture the foibles, memes, hypocrisies and other head-slapping events in the world of politics. The fruits of these labors are hundreds of cartoons that entertain and enrage readers of all political stripes. Here’s an offering of the best of this week’s crop, picked fresh off the Toonosphere. Edited by Matt Wuerker.
The main reading room is seen at the Library of Congress on June 13, 2025, in Washington. Kevin Carter/Getty Images
Carla Hayden, the 14th librarian of Congress, who has held the position since 2016, received an unexpected email on May 8, 2025.
“Carla, on behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I am writing to inform you that your position as the Librarian of Congress is terminated effective immediately. Thank you for your service,” wrote Trent Morse, deputy director of presidential personnel at the White House.
Democratic politicians sharply criticized Hayden’s termination, saying the firing was unjust. It was actually about Trump punishing civil servants “who don’t bend to his every will,” New York Sen. Chuck Schumer said.
An information science scholar, I have written extensively about the history of libraries and archives, including the Library of Congress. To fully understand the role Hayden played for the past nine years, I think it is important to understand what the Library of Congress does, and the overlooked and underappreciated role it has played in American life.
Carla Hayden, the recently fired librarian of Congress, attends an event in March 2025 in Washington. Shannon Finney/Getty Images
The Library of Congress’ work
The Library of Congress is an agency that was first established, by an act of Congress, in 1800. The act provided for “the purchase of such books as may be necessary for the use of Congress at the said city of Washington, and for fitting up a suitable apartment for containing them.” Its chief librarian is appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The library has six buildings in Washington that hold a print and online collection of nearly 26 million books, as well as more than 136 million other items, including manuscripts, maps, sheet music and prints and photographs.
The library is the property of the American people. Anyone over the age of 16 with a government-issued photo identification can enter its buildings and read or view its materials on-site. The Library of Congress was partially designed as a research institution to suit the needs of members of Congress, and only Congress members can borrow items from the library and take them home.
The Library of Congress has an annual budget of about US$900 million, with a staff of 3,263. In 2024, the library’s staff helped acquire 1,437,832 million new items, issue nearly 69,000 library cards and answer more than 764,000 reference requests, among other tasks.
The library’s deep roots
The library has evolved alongside the U.S. itself. Five years before the Constitutional Convention of 1787, future president James Madison called for a library to provide materials to help inform Congress and its members. In 1800, President John Adams signed a bill that established the institution, which began with a $5,000 government appropriation, equivalent to more than $127,000 today.
The library’s first collection included 152 works in 740 volumes imported from England. It occupied a space in a Washington Senate office that measured just 22 feet by 34 feet.
Tragedy struck again in 1851, with a fire that incinerated two-thirds of the library’s 55,000 volumes, including most of Jefferson’s personal collection.
Spofford also successfully lobbied Congress to pass the Copyright Act of 1870, which stipulated that any party registering a work for copyright needed to deposit two copies of that work with the library.
A growing place in American life
As its collections burgeoned in both scale and scope in the latter part of the 19th century, the library assumed an increasingly visible role and became known by some as “the nation’s library.” By 1900, it had nearly 1 million printed books and other materials.
The opening of a new library building in 1897, offering services to blind people with a designated reading room containing 500 raised character – or braille – books and music items, epitomized the library’s new status.
President Theodore Roosevelt said in 1901 that the library was “the one national library of the United States” and that was “a unique opportunity to render to the libraries of this country – to American scholarship – service of the highest importance.”
The library’s work, and global approach, continued to grow during the 20th century.
It continued to add remarkable items to its collection, including a Gutenberg Bible, the first book printed in Europe from movable metal type, a kind of printing technology, in 1455.
Documenting the evolution of democracy, the library also assumed stewardship of 23 presidents’ official papers, from George Washington to Calvin Coolidge, during this time frame.
A public service
While primarily designated a research institution for Congress, the library has also catered to a diverse range of patrons, including by mail and telephone.
As one Science Digest writer noted in 1960, reference staff members fielded questions ranging from “What was the color of a mastodon’s eye?” to “How many words are there in the English language?” and “Could you suggest a name for twins?”
The library’s register of copyrights received similarly diverse and even humorous inquiries. One older woman seeking to publish her poetry wrote in 1954 to request “a poetic license” to ensure her work conformed to the law.
In the late 20th century, the library focused on a new democratic national and international mission, as it embraced a new role. Daniel Boorstin, the librarian from 1975 to 1987, termed that role a “multimedia encyclopedia.”
As the library marks its 225th year, it continues to represent, as David Mearns, chief of the library’s manuscript division, said in 1947, “the American story.”
The Thomas Jefferson Building of the Library of Congress is seen on June 11, 2025, in Washington. Kevin Carter/Getty Images
A library for all
Following Hayden’s dismissal, Trump appointed Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, his former personal lawyer, as acting librarian of Congress.
Hayden has contended that her dismissal, which occurred alongside other firings of top civil servants, including the national archivist, represents a broad threat to people’s right to easily access free information.
“Democracies are not to be taken for granted,” Hayden said in June. She explained in an interview with CBS that she never had a problem with a presidential administration and is not sure why she was dismissed.
“And the institutions that support democracy should not be taken for granted,” Hayden added.
In her final annual report as librarian, Hayden characterized the institution as “truly, a library for all.” So far, even without her leadership, it remains just that.
Alex H. Poole does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
In June 2025, Immigration Judge ShaSha Xu in New York City reportedly told lawyers in her courtroom: “We’re not really doing names publicly.” Only the government lawyers’ names were hidden – the immigrants’ attorneys had to give their names as usual. Xu cited privacy concerns, saying, “Things lately have changed.”
When one immigration lawyer objected that the court record would be incomplete without the government attorney’s name, Xu reportedly refused to provide it. In another case, New York immigration Judge James McCarthy in July referred to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, attorney as merely “Department” throughout the hearing.
New York immigration Judge Shirley Lazare-Raphael told The Intercept that some ICE attorneys believe it is “dangerous to state their names publicly.” This follows a broader pattern of ICE agents wearing masks during arrests to hide their identities.
This secrecy violates a fundamental principle that has protected Americans for centuries: open courts. Here’s how those courts operate and why the principle governing them matters.
Hiding of ICE attorneys’ names in court fits a broader pattern seen here outside a New York immigration courtroom of ICE agents wearing masks. AP Photo/Olga Fedorova
‘Presumption of openness’
The U.S. legal system is built on openness, with multiple layers of legal protection that guarantee public access to court proceedings.
This tradition of open courts developed as a direct rejection of secret judicial proceedings that had been used to abuse power in England. The notorious Star Chamber operated in secret from the 15th to 17th centuries, initially trying people “too powerful to be brought before ordinary common-law courts.”
But the Star Chamber eventually became a tool of oppression, using torture to obtain confessions and punishing jurors who ruled against the Crown. Parliament abolished it in 1641 after widespread abuses.
By the time American colonial courts were established, the reaction against the Star Chamber had already shaped English legal thinking toward openness. American courts adopted this principle of transparency from the beginning, rejecting the secretive proceedings that had enabled abuse.
Today, the term “star chamber” refers to any secret court proceeding that seems grossly unfair or is used to persecute individuals.
Many state constitutions also guarantee open courts – such as Oregon’s mandate that “no court shall be secret.”
While there’s no explicit law requiring attorneys to be publicly named, there’s also no policy allowing their names to be kept secret. The presumption is always toward openness.
In response to these recent developments, law professor Elissa Steglich said that she’d “never heard of someone in open court not being identified,” and that failing to identify an attorney could impair accountability “if there are unethical or professional concerns.”
Rules for anonymity
Courts sometimes allow anonymity, but only in specific circumstances.
Juries can be anonymous when there’s “substantial danger of harm or undue influence,” as legal expert Michael Crowell writes – like in high-profile organized crime cases or when defendants have tried to intimidate witnesses before. Even then, the lawyers still know the jurors’ names.
Similarly, parties to a lawsuit can sometimes use pseudonyms like “Jane Doe” when the case involves highly sensitive matters such as sexual abuse, or when there’s a real risk of physical retaliation.
What’s happening with ICE attorneys is different. There’s no formal court ruling allowing it, no specific safety findings and no established legal process.
Immigration courts have fewer protections
Immigration courts operate differently from regular federal courts. They are so-called “administrative courts” that are part of the executive branch, not the judicial branch.
These courts decide claims involving an individual’s right to stay in the U.S., either when the government seeks to remove someone from the country for violating immigration law or when an individual seeks to stay in the country through the asylum process.
Immigration judges lack the lifetime job protections that regular federal judges have. As executive branch government employees, they can be hired and fired, just like other Department of Justice employees.
People in immigration court also have fewer procedural protections than criminal defendants. They have no right to court-appointed counsel and must represent themselves unless they can afford to hire an attorney. The majority of immigrants appear without an attorney. Outcomes are better for those who can afford to hire counsel.
Immigration court records are also less accessible to the public than other federal court proceedings.
For years, the Board of Immigration Appeals, the nation’s highest immigration court, made less than 1% of its opinions publicly available. A federal court ruled that public disclosure was required; the Board of Immigration Appeals now posts its decisions online.
Because immigration courts operate with less oversight than regular federal courts, public observation becomes more critical.
Open courts aren’t just about legal procedure – they’re about democracy itself. When the public can observe how justice is administered, it builds confidence that the system is fair.
Federal agents patrol the halls of immigration court at the Jacob K. Javitz Federal Building on July 21, 2025, in New York City. Michael M. Santiago/Getty Images
Court watching protects transparency
Court watching has become an important way for citizens to ensure due process is honored, especially in immigration cases.
Observers can monitor whether proper legal procedures are being followed. They can watch for signs that attorneys are prepared, treating people respectfully and following court rules – regardless of whether those attorneys identify themselves.
Observers help track trends such as lack of legal representation, language barriers or procedural unfairness that can inform advocacy for reforms. This kind of public oversight is especially important in immigration court, where people often don’t have lawyers and may not understand their rights.
When community members bear witness to these proceedings, it helps ensure the system operates fairly and transparently.
State bar associations have clear standards about attorney conduct in court proceedings. The American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct emphasize that lawyers are “officers of the legal system” with duties to uphold its integrity.
Immigration judges, despite being government employees rather than lifetime-tenured federal judges, are also bound by judicial conduct codes that require them to uphold public confidence in the justice system. When judges allow or encourage anonymity without formal procedures or safety findings, they risk violating these ethical obligations.
Bar associations can investigate professional conduct violations and impose sanctions ranging from reprimands to suspension or disbarment. While enforcement against federal government lawyers has historically been uncommon, sustained documentation by court observers can provide the evidence needed for formal complaints.
While government attorneys, judges and other court personnel may face real safety concerns, hiding their identities in open court is unprecedented and breaks with centuries of legal tradition that requires accountability and transparency in our justice system.
As pressure mounts to process immigration cases quickly, courts are ethically and legally bound to ensure that speed doesn’t come at the expense of fundamental fairness and transparency.
Cassandra Burke Robertson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.
Roy Cooper is expected to announce his campaign for the North Carolina Senate as soon as Monday, according to two people directly familiar with the former governor’s decision.
The popular, former two-term governor’s entrance into the Senate race — for a seat Republican Sen. Thom Tillis is leaving open with his announcement last month that he won’t seek reelection — is expected to transform the Senate race into the most competitive of 2026. Democrats, facing a difficult path to seizing control of the Senate next year, landed their dream recruit with Cooper, who would enter the race as a favorite.
North Carolina represents one of the few offensive opportunities for Democrats, who are locked out of power at every level in Washington.
Lara Trump, President Donald Trump’s daughter-in-law, is considering her own bid for the seat, effectively freezing Republican recruitment. Republican National Committee Chair Michael Whatley, who served as the head of the state’s party, is also interested, but is deferring to Trump, POLITICO reported last month.
Tillis, who was first elected in 2014, denounced Trump’s tax-and-spend megabill in a fiery speech last month, warning that the drastic Medicaid cuts would “betray the promise Donald Trump made” to voters. He was one of two Republicans to vote against the legislation, drawing Trump’s threats to recruit a GOP primary challenger. The next day, Tillis announced he would not run for reelection.
But the North Carolina Senate seat has eluded Democrats since 2008, even as Cooper and his successor, Democratic Gov. Josh Stein, held onto the governor’s mansion. Democrats hope that Cooper can crack the code with his aw-shucks demeanor, broad popularity and ability to raise big cash for his race.
Cooper was initially considered a top choice to be then-Vice President Kamala Harris’ running mate in 2024, but he pulled himself out of contention, citing concerns that North Carolina’s controversial Republican lieutenant governor would take over each time Cooper traveled out of state.
For now, Cooper still faces a potential primary. Former Rep. Wiley Nickel jumped into the race in April. He demurred earlier this month when asked if he would leave the primary should Cooper get in.
