House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.) said Monday on CNN’s The Situation Room that the Supreme Court had “enabled” President Donald Trump to act like a king, calling the situation shameful.
You know, one thing to understand, as people who are flirting with the Trump administration or doing the bidding of the Trump administration or engaging in the pay-to-play schemes of the Trump administration, the statute of limitations is five years,” the House’s top Democrat said.
“Donald Trump and this toxic administration will be long gone, but there will still be accountability to be had. And that process, of course, begins now. But it will not be complete until perhaps there is an independent Department of Justice, certainly an independent House of Representatives in Democratic hands,” he claimed.
It should be noted that Democratic attorneys general and prosecutors, as well as Joe Biden’s Justice Dept., all went after Trump during his four-year hiatus from the White House, engaging in unprecedented actions against a former president.
“The Department of Justice is one of the great institutions in law enforcement in the history of this country and Donald Trump and these extremists have been destroying its integrity,” Jeffries continued. “And we should also blame the conservative justices on the Supreme Court for all of the things that we see happening, because they basically gave this president blanket presidential immunity in a country where the framers of the Constitution said, we don’t want a king.
“They’ve effectively enabled Donald Trump at times to behave just like a king. That needs to be revisited as well. The Supreme Court, shame on them for what they’ve done to this country and unleashing this out-of-control behavior that needs to be reversed,” he said, without acknowledging the fact that even liberal justices on the court have regularly sided with the president and his administration.
SEE MORE
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, who faced criticism earlier this year for siding with Republicans to keep the government open, now says he is prepared to risk a shutdown at month’s end if GOP leaders reject Democratic demands.
Schumer said he and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries are aligned in opposing any spending measure that excludes key health care provisions or allows for their rollback. He argued the political landscape has shifted since March, when he pressed to avoid a shutdown, and predicted Republicans and President Donald Trump would bear the blame if they refuse to strike a bipartisan deal.
“Things have changed” since the March vote, Schumer said in an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday. He stated that Republicans have since enacted Trump’s significant tax cuts and spending reduction legislation, which has led to cuts in wasteful Medicaid spending and other government programs.
Schumer, a New York Democrat, noted that his party is now united, in contrast to March, when he voted alongside Republicans while Jeffries voted against the legislation to fund the government. Schumer argued that a shutdown would not significantly worsen the current climate, with Trump already challenging Congress’s authority.
“It will get worse with or without it, because Trump is lawless,” Schumer told the AP, though Trump’s administration has faced an unprecedented amount of lawsuits since he took office and began issuing executive orders, many of which have been blocked by courts.
Schumer’s warning comes as Republicans weigh a short-term stopgap spending bill to avert a Sept. 30 shutdown. Without a bipartisan agreement, Democrats face two difficult options — join Republicans to keep the government open or allow it to close with no clear path forward, the AP
Republicans argue Democrats will bear responsibility if they refuse to vote to keep the government open. Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-S.D.) has stressed that Schumer must present a concrete proposal on health care, including extending expanded tax credits under the Affordable Care Act for millions of Americans.
PORTLAND, OR — Federal officials have unveiled a sweeping new security policy aimed at curbing the chaos that has plagued Portland’s streets for years. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) announced this week that it is immediately enforcing a new “visibility and identification rule” outside federal buildings — a measure that effectively bans protest participants from wearing masks, full-face coverings, or elaborate disguises during demonstrations.
The rule, which had been slated to take effect in January 2026, was fast-tracked after a series of increasingly theatrical protests outside the city’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facility. According to federal officials, these nightly gatherings had shifted from standard demonstrations into organized, costume-heavy spectacles that blurred the line between political expression and obstruction.
“What we’ve seen recently is not protest — it’s coordinated disruption,” said Acting DHS Spokesperson Marisol Tanner. “Our officers have been confronted by individuals wearing masks, helmets, and costumes designed to prevent identification while engaging in illegal activity. That’s not peaceful assembly; that’s concealment with intent.”
A City With a Long Memory of Unrest
Portland has long been a flashpoint for clashes between law enforcement and protest groups, particularly those associated with Antifa and other anti-establishment movements. Since the 2020 protests that followed George Floyd’s death, the city has seen sporadic waves of demonstrations, often centered around federal facilities.
While the early movements drew broad public sympathy, recent iterations have become smaller but more confrontational. Protesters now frequently appear in costumes — from comic book villains to medieval knights — a strategy they describe as “creative resistance” but which law enforcement sees as deliberate confusion tactics.
“They call it art; we call it camouflage,” said ICE regional director Jason Cordova, who has overseen federal operations in Portland since 2023. “When people are lighting flares and blocking entrances in masks that hide their identity, that’s not performance art. That’s obstruction and evasion.”
The New DHS Directive: Visibility is Non-Negotiable
Under the new directive, anyone participating in or near a protest outside federal property in Portland must keep their face visible to law enforcement at all times. The rule prohibits:
The measure grants federal security officers the authority to detain or remove individuals who violate the rule and imposes fines of up to $2,500 for repeat offenders.
According to internal DHS documents reviewed by The Northwest Chronicle, the agency fast-tracked the enforcement date after a Halloween-week protest where more than 200 participants — many dressed as clowns, skeletons, and fantasy characters — surrounded the ICE facility, using strobe lights and noise machines to disrupt operations.
Antifa-Aligned Groups Cry Foul
Almost immediately after the announcement, local activist groups denounced the move as an attempt to suppress free speech.
The Portland Anti-Fascist Network (PAFN) called the DHS order “a pretext for criminalizing dissent” and accused federal agents of targeting left-wing demonstrators while ignoring similar tactics used by right-wing activists in other parts of the country.
“People wear masks at protests to protect themselves from retaliation — from employers, police, and extremists,” said Kara Jennings, a PAFN organizer. “Now the government is saying you have to unmask to speak. That’s not democracy; that’s intimidation.”
Civil liberties organizations also raised concerns. The American Civil Liberties Union of Oregon issued a statement saying it was “reviewing the legality of the DHS directive,” warning that restrictions on anonymity at protests could have a “chilling effect on First Amendment rights.”
“The government cannot equate concealment with criminality,” said ACLU attorney Jacob Heller. “There are legitimate reasons individuals choose to remain anonymous, especially in politically charged environments.”
Federal Officials Push Back
DHS officials insist the new rule is not about ideology but about maintaining order and accountability.
“We don’t care who’s protesting — left, right, or center,” Tanner said. “What matters is that law enforcement can identify individuals when crimes occur. The anonymity of masks has been exploited for too long to enable vandalism, assaults, and the destruction of public property.”
Federal agents say the change could dramatically improve safety in Portland, where nightly protests often strain police resources and lead to standoffs lasting into the early morning.
“When you can’t see who’s in the crowd, every movement becomes a potential threat,” said Federal Protective Service Officer Raymond Cho, who has been stationed in Portland since 2020. “It’s about transparency. Visibility keeps everyone safer — protesters and officers alike.”
Mixed Reaction From Portland Officials
City leaders, meanwhile, have offered mixed responses. Mayor Ted Wheeler, who has struggled for years to balance civil liberties with public order, said the federal government “acted within its jurisdiction” but urged DHS to ensure “clear communication and restraint in enforcement.”
Several members of the Portland City Council criticized the move, saying it could reignite tensions between residents and federal agents.
“Federal intervention has never gone over well here,” said Councilmember Alicia Ruiz. “Every time they step in heavy-handed, it leads to more conflict, not less. I’m worried this new rule could escalate rather than de-escalate things.”
Public Opinion: Fatigue and Frustration
Many Portland residents, weary of years of unrest, appear to support the new measure.
“I’m all for the right to protest,” said local business owner Mark Wallace, whose downtown café has been vandalized multiple times during demonstrations. “But if you’re showing up in a mask at 2 a.m. with fireworks and spray paint, you’re not a protester — you’re a problem.”
A recent poll by Oregon Watch, a regional media firm, found that 62% of Portland residents support stricter enforcement around federal buildings, while 28% oppose such measures on civil liberties grounds.
A ‘Game-Changer’ or Another Flashpoint?
DHS officials describe the anti-mask directive as a “game-changing” step toward restoring accountability in protest zones. But activists vow to resist, calling the rule another chapter in the ongoing clash between law enforcement and demonstrators who see themselves as defenders of free expression.
Social media posts from local groups have already called for a “visible resistance rally” this weekend — a protest that organizers say will feature “creative, unmasked solidarity.” Federal officials, however, warn that any attempt to defy the new rule will be met with “firm but lawful action.”
As Portland braces for yet another round of confrontation, one thing seems certain: the battle over masks — and what they represent — has become symbolic of a deeper national divide between order and expression, visibility and anonymity.
“For years, masks have been both protection and provocation,” said political analyst Lena Moritz. “Now the government has decided to pull them off. Whether that restores peace or sparks new defiance, we’ll soon find out.”