Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump likely to win tax returns fight in California, but battles continue elsewhere

Tax returns

A new law that requires candidates in California to provide their tax returns before being allowed on the ballot appears likely to be rejected by the state Supreme Court.

Tim Boyle/Getty Images

The legal battle to pry loose President Trump's tax returns appears to be headed to defeat in the California Supreme Court, while numerous other efforts continue to move forward.

According to reporting by the Sacramento Bee, a majority of the justices on Wednesday appeared to side with Republicans challenging the new state law that would force Trump to release the last five years of his tax returns in order to get on the 2020 primary ballot.

During oral arguments, several of the justices aggressively questioned an attorney representing Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

"Where does it end? Do we get all high school report cards?" asked Justice Ming Chin, according to the Bee.

If the court strikes down the law (it has 90 days to reach a decision), the state could still appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.


Trump was the first presidential candidate — and now president — to refuse to release his taxes since the 1970s.

Other states are considering laws similar to California's. In addition, four committees of the Democratic-controlled U.S. House of Representatives have subpoenaed Trump's tax returns and so has the Manhattan district attorney, also a Democrat. Trump is fighting all of those demands.

A provision requiring presidential candidates to disclose their tax returns was included in HR 1, the comprehensive political reform legislation that passed the House in March. The bill was the centerpiece of the Democrats' agenda when they took over the House in the 2018 election. It passed on a partisan vote but is unlikely to be considered in the GOP-controlled Senate.

Meanwhile, a federal judge said Wednesday that the House Democrats on the Ways and Means Committee had a "really strong argument" in their lawsuit seeking Trump's federal tax returns. They filed the suit after the Treasury secretary and the head of the IRS refused to turn over Trump's tax returns.

U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden urged Congress and the president to resolve the dispute outside of court.


Read More

U.S. Capitol.
Ken Burns’ The American Revolution highlights why America’s founders built checks and balances—an urgent reminder as Congress, the courts, and citizens confront growing threats to democratic governance.
Photo by Andy Feliciotti on Unsplash

Partial Shutdown; Congress Asserts Itself a Little

DHS Shutdown

As expected, the parties in the Senate could not come to an agreement on DHS funding and now the agency will be shut down. Sort of.

So much money was appropriated for DHS, and ICE and CBP specifically, in last year's reconciliation bill, that DHS could continue to operate with little or no interruption. Other parts of DHS like FEMA and the TSA might face operational cuts or shutdowns.

Keep ReadingShow less
Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

An ICE agent holds a taser as they stand watch after one of their vehicles got a flat tire on Penn Avenue on February 5, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

(Photo by Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Criminals Promised, Volume Delivered: Inside ICE’s Enforcement Model

Donald Trump ran on a simple promise: focus immigration enforcement on criminals and make the country safer. The policy now being implemented tells a different story. With tens of billions of dollars directed toward arrests, detention, and removals, the enforcement system has been structured to maximize volume rather than reduce risk. That design choice matters because it shapes who is targeted, how force is used, and whether public safety is actually improved.

This is not a dispute over whether immigration law should be enforced. The question is whether the policy now in place matches what was promised and delivers the safety outcomes that justified its scale and cost.

Keep ReadingShow less
NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

USA Election Collage With The State Map Of Utah.

Getty Images

NRF Moves to Defend Utah’s Fair Map Against Gerrymandering Lawsuit

On Wednesday, February 11, the National Redistricting Foundation (NRF) asked a federal court to join a newly filed lawsuit to protect Utah’s new, fair congressional map and defend our system of checks and balances.

The NRF is a non‑profit foundation whose mission is to dismantle unfair electoral maps and create a redistricting system grounded in democratic values. By helping to create more just and representative electoral districts across the country, the organization aims to restore the public’s faith in a true representative democracy.

Keep ReadingShow less
A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Voter registration in Wisconsin

Michael Newman

A Constitutional Provision We Ignored for 150 Years

Imagine there was a way to discourage states from passing photo voter ID laws, restricting early voting, purging voter registration rolls, or otherwise suppressing voter turnout. What if any state that did so risked losing seats in the House of Representatives?

Surprisingly, this is not merely an idle fantasy of voting rights activists, but an actual plan envisioned in Section 2 of the 14th Amendment, which was ratified in 1868 – but never enforced.

Keep ReadingShow less