Reconciliation Bill

ACLU Issues Statement on 

Senate Vote to Add $70 Billion to 

ICE and Border Patrol's Bloated Budget

    WASHINGTON – (ACLU) -- 7/5/26 -- The Senate passed a reconciliation bill today that would provide an additional $70 billion in taxpayer funds for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol without any meaningful reforms to limit violent and abusive tactics by federal agents.

    The vote comes after a months-long standoff between members of Congress over funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), prompting Republicans in Congress to bypass normal Congressional procedures and use an obscure hyper partisan process called reconciliation. In July 2025, Congress also used the reconciliation process to give DHS over $170 billion in immigration enforcement funding – $150 billion of which remains unused, according to a recent analysis.

    In response to this news, Kate Voigt, senior policy counsel at the American Civil Liberties Union, had the following reaction:

    “Once again, President Trump’s allies in Congress are bypassing normal Congressional procedures to strong-arm billions more in taxpayer dollars to fuel ICE and Border Patrol’s assault on our communities. Instead of passing commonsense reforms to rein in ICE abuses or funding programs that would actually help American families, the Senate is choosing to add $70 billion to ICE and Border Patrol’s already bloated budget.

    “Make no mistake: a vote in favor of more ICE and Border Patrol funding is a vote to prioritize President Trump’s cruel mass deportation agenda. We now call on our House Representatives to hold the line and say no to any more funding for these abusive agencies that have killed and attacked our neighbors, demanded people show their papers based on the color of their skin, and tear thousands of families apart. The safety of our communities and our freedom depend on it.”

Voting Rights

Voting Rights Group Seeks Ruling

to Prevent Federal Interference

Before 2026 Midterms

    Washington, D.C. — (Common Cause) -- 5/21/2026 -- The group Common Cause and four individual voters have filed a motion for partial summary judgment in their federal lawsuit to stop the Trump administration from attempting to compile voters’ personal data and take over elections from the states. With just months before the midterm elections and primaries already underway, the plaintiffs are asking the court to block the Department of Justice (DOJ) from unlawfully creating a national voter database for surveilling voters and revoking voter registrations.

    There is no doubt that the DOJ’s actions are as illegal as they are dangerous. The law is clear that the DOJ does not have the authority to amass voters’ sensitive data and purge them from their state voter lists. Simultaneously, the DOJ is violating numerous federal laws meant to protect voters’ privacy and ensure government transparency. The plaintiffs argue that the court can and should move quickly to stop the DOJ’s ongoing unlawful attempts to destabilize the democratic process and trample on fundamental rights.

    The motion emphasizes that voters deserve to know immediately that their personal information is protected, their registrations are secure, and the federal government will not attempt to interfere with the administration of free and fair elections this November. The lawsuit seeks to stop the Trump administration’s efforts to create widespread confusion among eligible voters—or worse, prevent them from voting altogether.

    “I’ve been a U.S. citizen for over a decade and a voter for nearly as long,” said Anthony Nel, a plaintiff from Texas who was removed from voter rolls 30 days after the SAVE system flagged him as a potential noncitizen. “I found out my voter registration was canceled because the government is using a system it knows doesn’t work correctly for people like me. The DOJ should not be building a national database out of our most sensitive, personal information when it can’t even get this right.”

    On April 21, the group—represented by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the American Civil Liberties Union of the District of Columbia (ACLU-D.C.), Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the Democracy and Rule of Law Clinic at Harvard Law School, and Protect Democracy—sued the DOJ over its demands that states hand over confidential voter information, including home addresses, partial social security numbers, and past voting history.

    In 2025, the DOJ demanded that states provide their unredacted voter rolls. The agency plans to compare state voter lists with the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) notoriously inaccurate Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements (SAVE) system in an effort to identify suspected noncitizens on state voter rolls. As the lawsuit explains, however, the SAVE system has often mistakenly flagged lawful citizens as ineligible to vote. Nevertheless, the DOJ is claiming authority to demand that states remove any flagged voters within 45 days of informing states.

    At least eighteen states (Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, and Wyoming) have voluntarily complied with the DOJ’s demands for their unredacted state voter rolls, putting their voters’ data at risk of misuse and security breaches.

    “The Constitution gives states the authority to administer elections, and Congress has passed laws to protect voters against exactly this kind of abuse of power,” said Sara Chimene-Weiss, Counsel with Protect Democracy’s Free & Fair Elections program. “Here, this administration has brazenly ignored all of these legal guardrails. We’re moving for partial summary judgment because the legal violations are plain and the ongoing harm is serious: the government is invading voters’ privacy and putting their sacred right to vote at risk, all while baselessly casting doubt on our elections, which are secure.”

    Since 2025, the DOJ has sued 30 states to force them to turn over their non-public voter files. Common Cause has taken action in 16 of these states plus D.C., and judges in six states—Arizona, Michigan, Oregon, California, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island—have dismissed the DOJ’s lawsuits, holding that the DOJ cannot collect this confidential voter data.

Law and Liberty

Event Criticized as Shocking

Mix of Church and State

    (FFRF) -- May 13, 2026 -- The White House’s “Rededicate 250: A National Jubilee of Prayer, Praise & Thanksgiving” on May 17 is an unprecedented and shocking mix of church and state.
The Freedom From Religion Foundation is sounding the alarm over the prayer fest’s sponsor, “Freedom 250,” a public/private initiative aligned with the White House to mark the nation’s 250th anniversary with explicitly Christian nationalist programming.
    President Trump promoted the all-day prayer fest on the National Mall during his remarks at the National Prayer Breakfast: “On May 17, 2026, we are inviting Americans from all across the country to come together on our National Mall to pray, to give thanks, and to rededicate America as one nation under God.”
    The all-day spectacle of prayer, testimony, Scripture and worship calls on Americans to gather for “Scripture, testimony, prayer, and rededication of our country as One Nation to God.” The overtly sectarian gathering is dominated by Christian nationalist figures and promoted with government involvement. FFRF’s Freedom of Information Act request seeking information on public funding is on appeal, so financial details are murky.
    The event overwhelmingly features Christian leaders and activists, including those among the Trump cabinet, with token non-Christian representation. Besides House Speaker Mike Johnson and cabinet members Pete Hegseth and Mark Rubio, they include a long list of pastors and religious figures, including Rev. Franklin Graham, Eric Metaxas (a vocal proponent of Christian nationalist ideology), White House Faith Adviser Paula White and Rev. Robert Jeffress, who has repeatedly argued that the United States was founded as a Christian nation. All but one of the 15 religious leaders are Christian.
    Military and other governmental bands will perform alongside religious choirs, such as with the extremist Christian Hillsdale College.
    “This is not a celebration of America’s founding principles — but an overtly sectarian, exclusionary event catering to evangelicals and other conservative Christians, with participation and the full blessing of the federal government,” says FFRF Co-President Annie Laurie Gaylor. “Our Constitution is godless by design. The government has no authority to organize religious revivals, much less use them to promote a Christian nationalist agenda.”
    FFRF Co-President Dan Barker adds, “This isn’t subtle. They are openly declaring a goal of redefining America as a Christian nation and using the machinery of government to do it.”
    Major corporations — including Mastercard, Deloitte, SAP and Lockheed Martin — have signed on as sponsors of Freedom 250, even as questions mount about the initiative’s sectarian agenda and lack of transparency. Critics have called out the companies for potentially enabling what amounts to a government-backed religious campaign.
    The United States belongs to all of us — not just conservative Christians, FFRF points out. Our government was founded on secular principles to ensure freedom of conscience for everyone.
    FFRF is calling on federal officials to immediately cease any involvement in sectarian events, and on corporate sponsors to reconsider their support.
    “The 250th anniversary of our nation should celebrate liberty, equality and the constitutional separation of church and state,” Gaylor concludes. “Anything less betrays the very ideals the Declaration of Independence set in motion.”

    Original date of release: May 5/26

Economic Trends

Law Center Report: GOP Bill Will 

Worsen Hospital Closure Trend 

    MONTGOMERY, Ala. — (SPLC) -- 5/12/2026 -- The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently released Critical Condition: Rural Health Care Access Following HR 1, a report that examines how implementation of the so-called “Big Beautiful Bill” could exacerbate a dangerous trend of hospital closures throughout the rural South.

    Between 2005 and 2023, at least 146 rural hospitals across the country stopped offering inpatient services, with 34 located in the Deep South. New analysis from the SPLC shows that an additional 99 rural hospitals in Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Louisiana and Mississippi could also be at risk of closing.

    “For people living in the rural South, hospital closures aren’t just an inconvenience; they can be the difference between whether a person survives a trip in an ambulance or doesn’t make it in time to receive lifesaving care,” said Gina Azito Thompson, policy analyst, SPLC. “Unfortunately, these critical lifelines are under threat thanks to devastating cuts to programs that ensure Americans in these areas have health insurance. In a region with alarming rates of chronic illness, diabetes and high blood pressure, making healthcare more expensive will result in people forgoing necessary visits to the doctor, causing treatable problems to turn deadly.”

    The current U.S. healthcare system relies heavily on patients’ insurance to ensure that doctors and hospitals get paid for providing care. As the report notes, many rural hospitals are already operating on slim profit margins, with residents in their areas less likely to be able to afford their medical expenses.

    The legislation passed by Congress in 2025 cut more than $1 trillion of federal funding from healthcare programs including Medicaid, which the Congressional Budget Office forecasts could result in millions of low-income Americans losing health insurance. This could in turn cut off critical revenue streams for rural hospitals.

    “When we talk about making America healthy, one of the fundamental ways to do that is to ensure everyone can see a doctor or health professional without the fear of taking on tremendous medical debt,” added Azito Thompson. “By kicking people off of their insurance, this administration’s signature piece of legislation will only worsen so many of the health disparities that already exist across the Deep South.”

    In addition to exploring how rural Southerners’ insurance could be impacted by HR 1, the report also outlines recommendations for policymakers to help strengthen rural healthcare infrastructure and prevent unnecessary hospital closures.