On Sunday, two New York City police officers fired into a crowded Brooklyn subway station, shooting and injuring four people, including two bystanders, one of whom is a hospital employee now in critical condition after police shot him in the head during his commute. 

The catalyst for this bloody confrontation: an alleged fare evasion. In other words, $2.90.

According to the NYPD, officers suspected that 37-year-old Derell Mickles had skipped a turnstile at the Sutter Avenue subway station in Brooklyn. The officers followed Mickles, resulting in a chase that ended with officers shooting him, two bystanders, and another officer on duty. While police initially claimed that they had recovered a knife Mickles had used to threaten officers, officials later contradicted their own claim, prompting questions over what exactly had happened.

Asked about body camera footage on Tuesday, Mayor Eric Adams deflected, telling a reporter to “speak with the police commissioner,” before praising the officers involved in Sunday’s shooting for demonstrating a “great level of restraint.” The NYPD has since firmly defended the officers, with the police departments chief of patrol stating, “We are not perfect.”

The violent incident, inside one of the world’s busiest subway systems, has sparked outrage among New Yorkers as well as a victim’s family members, who condemned the officers’ actions as “reckless.”

And they’re far from alone. Criminal justice reform advocates are slamming what they see as an outsized response by the NYPD to something as minor and trivial as alleged fare evasion. It comes amid New York Mayor Eric Adams’ aggressive crackdown on fare evaders, a policy Adams has claimed would also help with violence that occurs on trains. Protests have since broken out across the city, calling for the officers involved in Sunday’s shooting to be held accountable.

I spoke with Michael Sisitzky, assistant policy director at the New York City Civil Liberties Union, to learn more about Adams’ crackdown on fare evasion, overpolicing, and lack of police transparency surrounding Sunday’s violent encounter. Our conversation has been edited for length and clarity.

This is an ongoing investigation. But there are already significant concerns over how the police handled this situation and how the mayor has responded.

This disturbing incident is sadly not surprising, given what we’ve seen from this administration. The Adams administration and NYPD have been dramatically ramping up enforcement activity, increasing their presence in the subways, increasing stops, increasing frisks, and increasing all of the hallmarks of broken windows policing.  This is a predictable and inevitable consequence of this administration’s approach to a very aggressive enforcement mindset. There are so many questions about what we’ve heard from the mayor’s office from the NYPD about what exactly unfolded. 

We have heard officer accounts of what happened. We’ve heard some witness accounts. The NYPD and the mayor’s office have been reviewing body camera footage. But, we have not been able to see this. We’re not getting a transparent accounting of what took place. It’s absolutely critical that we see the evidence that they’re relying on to make these assertions. 

We’re being asked to take the word of a mayor whose initial tweet in response to this incident had to get community noted because it was leaving out the important context of the officer he was talking about having been shot was shot by a fellow officer. We can’t really trust their version of events when they’re not showing us the evidence of what took place in that incident.

This is a predictable and inevitable consequence of this administration’s approach to a very aggressive enforcement mindset.

Are complaints over transparency from the NYPD common?

It’s a hallmark of the NYPD. We know that they can be transparent when they choose to be and when they think it serves their interest. Folks may remember back in January of 2024 the NYPD released body camera footage within hours, within a day of the traffic stop of a city council member when they sought to use that footage to highlight their version of what took place. But they treat incidents like this very differently.

How common—or rare—are shootings like this in New York?

I don’t know that we have the full stats on how common this type of shooting is in the subway from an officer.  It’s not something that I’ve seen a full accounting of, but what we have seen are increased reports of police misconduct and abuse of New Yorkers that have upticked with this administration. Civilian complaints going into the Civilian Complaint Review Board have reached alarmingly high levels. At the same time, there have also been real concerns about what the department is actually doing with complaints that are moving through the NYPD disciplinary system, where they’re just not taking those reports seriously. 

When you respond to everything with an officer, you are increasing the likelihood that we’re going to see more cases where someone is subject to use of force.

Can overpolicing backfire? How do outsize police presences affect communities, particularly communities of color?

The approach that this administration has taken since day one is overpolicing. 

They’ve identified police officers as the be-all, end-all, sole solution to every societal ill. Fare evasion? Send a cop after it. Homelessness? Send police to conduct sweeps. Mental health crises? Instead of sending peers and EMTs, send a cop instead.

It’s a formula that this administration seems wedded to, but it’s not improving community safety for New Yorkers. Police are primarily concerned with enforcing criminal laws, making arrests, and issuing summonses. They have an enforcement mindset, not a delivery of services or addressing root causes mindset.

So when you respond to everything with an officer, you are increasing the likelihood that we’re going to see more and more cases where someone is subject to use of force, someone is tased, someone is shot, someone is killed when they did not need to be, because you are responding to a situation with tools that are just fundamentally not a good fit for that scenario.

We see this play out largely in communities that need more investments to address the root causes of crime, poverty, homelessness, the need for increased mental health and healthcare services. Rather than making those investments, which are harder and will take more thought to accomplish, we instead default to a reliance on police officers.

In March, the NYPD announced they would send 800 officers into subways to combat fare evasion. In the same month, Gov. Kathy Hochul deployed the National Guard in response to several violent incidents that occurred a few weeks prior. Realistically, how effective are methods like this in preventing crime, and what are some of the pitfalls?

It’s brought up time and time again that if you focus on low-level crime and low-level signs of disorder, you’re mitigating the potential for it to escalate into more serious criminal activity and driving down overall crime rates as a result. 

That’s been studied and debunked numerous times. New York City hit historically low crime rates as stop and frisk plummeted to historic lows and was reined in as enforcement fell, as summonses and arrest activity went down. The data is just not there to justify the approach to broken windows or quality-of-life policing.

Instead, it’s very effective at funneling more and more people into the criminal legal system, saddling people with fines that they cannot afford, making them attend court dates that they cannot afford, and giving people the potentially lifelong consequence of acquiring a criminal record which can extend to every aspect of their life. What it’s not doing is meeting community needs and making New Yorkers safer.

Eric Adams has pushed for a crackdown on fare evasion. Last month, the MTA announced that they’ll be sending summons of up to $50 to $100 to fare evaders. Did a “tough on crime” approach play into what happened over the weekend?

What happened over the weekend is an inevitable outcome of that kind of tough-on-crime approach, where the only tool that we seem to have to offer is police officers, who are going to focus on enforcement and if they’re given an aggressive mandate to enforce, are going to enforce that aggressively.

We haven’t seen the actual footage yet. We’re relying on accounts of what happened. But it’s very easy to see how a police officer pursuing someone, chasing them, is a tactic that is escalatory, as opposed to thinking of ways we can tackle issues like fare evasion without the threat of violence.

That is such a mismatch we don’t need to be constrained thinking about responding to fare evasion with just a police law enforcement tool.

We should be thinking more broadly about getting people access to the support they need to enroll in programs for New Yorkers who can’t afford to pay for fares to get to work, pay for child care, or get access to medical care. We can think about other ways that we are addressing those causes without putting armed officers in and telling them you need to make sure that you are aggressively cracking down on everyone within the system.

As this case has gained traction on social media, one of the most disturbing responses I’ve seen is how so many people justify using this level of force because Mickles was suspected of evading a $2.90 fare. It’s a narrative that oftentimes rears its head after a high-profile case of police brutality. We saw this with George Floyd, Eric Garner. 

The level of force used here is so disproportionate to the alleged infraction. No one should be subject to having their life put in jeopardy because of an alleged evasion of a $2.90 cent fare, to say nothing of the fact that officers pursued him into a crowded station and onto a train.

That response is not only out of proportion to the individual’s alleged offense, but it is putting so many other people needlessly in harm’s way.

It’s deeply disturbing that the NYPD and the administration could view that level of a response as an appropriate reaction when we’re talking about something as trivial as the evasion of a $2.90 cent fare.

Since the shooting occurred, plenty of New Yorkers have started to protest the NYPD’s crackdown on fare evasion. What are your thoughts on some of these demonstrations?

People are recognizing an uptick in the targeting of their communities and an uptick in stop activity racial disparities as bad or even worse than they were at its height. There is a real sense that the NYPD is not providing a service to New Yorkers but is causing active harm In communities.

And I think that an expression that also finds a voice in the number of complaints of police misconduct going in, being on the rise, and is evident in the types of protests that we’re seeing against this incident and against other instances of police brutality and violence.

It’s important that New Yorkers be able to express their to raise their voice and express their views in protesting against policies that are causing harm in their communities rather than actually helping deliver real safety for them.

A bomb threat sent to “multiple agencies and media outlets” in Springfield, Ohio, forced the closure of the town’s City Hall on Thursday.

“City of Springfield received a bomb threat that has prompted an immediate response from local and regional law enforcement,” a statement from city officials said. “As a precautionary measure, the building has been evacuated, and authorities are currently conducting a thorough investigation.”

The evacuation comes amid racist, debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in the town. The claims started in obscure social media posts and quickly spread to prominent Republicans, including JD Vance and Donald Trump, who used the presidential debate this week to fuel the baseless conspiracy theory.

The mayor of Springfield, Ohio, has confirmed that Thursday’s bomb threats that prompted the evacuation of its City Hall and several other buildings were explicitly hostile to Haitians.

In an interview with the Washington Post, Mayor Rob Rue stated that the bomb threats “used hateful language towards immigrants and Haitians in our community.” 

He added that Springfield is a “community that needs help” and called on national leaders to step up and not “hurt a community like, unfortunately, we have seen over the last couple of days.”

The viral rumors have left Haitian immigrants in the area reporting incidents of harassment, including property damage. Many have elected to keep their children home from school; one Haitian resident told the Haitian Times that her cars were vandalized twice in the middle of the night.

“We’re all victims this morning,” she said the day following Trump’s racist remarks at the debate. “They’re attacking us in every way.”

Threat experts have long warned that Trump’s promotion of racist claims, particularly when they involve immigrants, can fuel violence. My colleague Mark Follman writes:

Immigration is a top issue for voters, and Trump’s unsubstantiated smears against migrants clearly are aimed at motivating his base. But his demagoguery is also part of a long campaign of thinly veiled incitement—one that increases the risk of political violence at the hands of Trump’s extremist supporters. For years, Trump has used this method, known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism, against an array of purported political enemies. With the help of Fox pundits, migrants have been on Trump’s list ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race

This story has been updated to reflect Mayor Rue’s comments.

A bomb threat sent to “multiple agencies and media outlets” in Springfield, Ohio, forced the closure of the town’s City Hall on Thursday.

“City of Springfield received a bomb threat that has prompted an immediate response from local and regional law enforcement,” a statement from city officials said. “As a precautionary measure, the building has been evacuated, and authorities are currently conducting a thorough investigation.”

The motive behind the threat is still under investigation. But Thursday’s evacuation comes amid racist, debunked rumors that Haitian immigrants are kidnapping and eating pets in the town. The claims started in obscure social media posts and quickly spread to prominent Republicans, including JD Vance and Donald Trump, who used the presidential debate this week to fuel the baseless conspiracy theory.

The viral rumors have left Haitian immigrants in the area reporting incidents of harassment, including property damage. Many have elected to keep their children home from school; one Haitian resident told the Haitian Times that her cars were vandalized twice in the middle of the night.

“We’re all victims this morning,” she said the day following Trump’s racist remarks at the debate. “They’re attacking us in every way.”

Threat experts have long warned that Trump’s promotion of racist claims, particularly when they involve immigrants, can fuel violence. My colleague Mark Follman writes:

Immigration is a top issue for voters, and Trump’s unsubstantiated smears against migrants clearly are aimed at motivating his base. But his demagoguery is also part of a long campaign of thinly veiled incitement—one that increases the risk of political violence at the hands of Trump’s extremist supporters. For years, Trump has used this method, known to national security experts as stochastic terrorism, against an array of purported political enemies. With the help of Fox pundits, migrants have been on Trump’s list ever since he entered the 2016 presidential race

As my colleague David Corn put it, Donald Trump lost the first presidential debate against Kamala Harris by simply being himself: He spent the night ranting, raving, and peddling his favorite conspiracy theories and untruths.

It was a performance so on-brand for the former president that you could be forgiven for wondering if Trump had relied on an AI-generated script. Meanwhile, Harris successfully baited her opponent into garbled tangents about the size of his rallies.

Harris’ victory on Tuesday was so clear that even Fox News had to accept reality.

“Make no mistake about it: Trump had a bad night,” Brit Hume, Fox News chief political analyst, said shortly after the event. “He lost the debate repeatedly when she baited him, something I’m sure his advisors had begged him not to do. And we heard so many of the old grievances that we’ve long thought that Trump had learned were not winners politically.”

Hume wasn’t alone. As my colleague Noah Lanard reported, several right-wing bloggers and online personalities admitted that Trump had bombed, even after their man pushed some of their worst pieces of misinformation at the debate stage. Lanard writes:

Rod Dreher, a right-wing blogger who moved from the United States to Hungary largely due to his affinity for Orban and the direction he is taking the country, accepted that Trump had lost.

As Trump flailed during his Orban tangent, Harris looked on with a mix of amusement and seemingly genuine confusion. Across the stage was an angry and unhinged old man walking into every trap she laid for him when he was not stepping into ones of his own making.

Denying this was pointless for his fans. So, they turned to a tactic that losers have likely embraced for as long as debating has existed: From Catturd on down they blamed the moderators. 

In the aftermath of his disappointing performance, Trump has blamed ABC’s moderators for their “rigged” job, while simultaneously, insisting that it was his “best debate ever.”

“It was three to one. It was a rigged deal, as I assumed it would be,” Trump said, according to the Hill. He added that he’s “not inclined” to participate in another debate before Election Day.

I’m no legal expert, but I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that if you’ve just asked a judge to reconsider the verdict in your defamation case, you probably shouldn’t repeat similarly defamatory statements during a press conference later that same day.

But, of course, that’s precisely what Donald Trump did.

After appearing in a federal appeals court to fight his verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, Donald Trump proceeded to bash Carroll and several other women who’ve accused him of sexual assault for nearly an hour during a press conference on Friday.

Last year, the ex-president was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after a civil court found him liable for sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and then subsequently defaming her once she told the public her story.

Earlier this year, Trump was found liable yet again in a separate civil lawsuit for additional remarks he’d made in 2019 when she first came forward, including the assertion that she “wasn’t his type”—a venomous insult that made a reappearance during today’s press conference.

“She would not have been the chosen one,” said Trump, referencing an unnamed woman who he allegedly assaulted in the ’70s on an airplane—one of many sexual assault allegations that Trump dredged up during this conference.

But this wasn’t the only such remark Trump made that afternoon. He also took aim at Carroll directly, claiming again that he didn’t know who she was and accusing her of stealing her story from a Law & Order episode.

He also claimed to have never met her, called a picture of them together potentially “AI-generated,” and then later admitted that they did meet but claimed that meeting didn’t count.

He also, for whatever reason, insulted his own lawyers, who were standing right behind him, saying, “I’m disappointed in my legal talent, to be honest with you.”

The entire rant was chaotic, even by Trump’s standards. It will be interesting to see how it impacts the GOP presidential nominee’s chances at an appeal in the coming weeks—according to a report before his rambling speech today, the judge was already “skeptical.”

I’m no legal expert, but I’ve got a sneaky suspicion that if you’ve just asked a judge to reconsider the verdict in your defamation case, you probably shouldn’t repeat similarly defamatory statements during a press conference later that same day.

But, of course, that’s precisely what Donald Trump did.

After appearing in a federal appeals court to fight his verdict in the E. Jean Carroll defamation case, Donald Trump proceeded to bash Carroll and several other women who’ve accused him of sexual assault for nearly an hour during a press conference on Friday.

Last year, the ex-president was ordered to pay Carroll $5 million after a civil court found him liable for sexually assaulting her in the mid-1990s and then subsequently defaming her once she told the public her story.

Earlier this year, Trump was found liable yet again in a separate civil lawsuit for additional remarks he’d made in 2019 when she first came forward, including the assertion that she “wasn’t his type”—a venomous insult that made a reappearance during today’s press conference.

“She would not have been the chosen one,” said Trump, referencing an unnamed woman who he allegedly assaulted in the ’70s on an airplane—one of many sexual assault allegations that Trump dredged up during this conference.

But this wasn’t the only such remark Trump made that afternoon. He also took aim at Carroll directly, claiming again that he didn’t know who she was and accusing her of stealing her story from a Law & Order episode.

He also claimed to have never met her, called a picture of them together potentially “AI-generated,” and then later admitted that they did meet but claimed that meeting didn’t count.

He also, for whatever reason, insulted his own lawyers, who were standing right behind him, saying, “I’m disappointed in my legal talent, to be honest with you.”

The entire rant was chaotic, even by Trump’s standards. It will be interesting to see how it impacts the GOP presidential nominee’s chances at an appeal in the coming weeks—according to a report before his rambling speech today, the judge was already “skeptical.”

On Thursday, the Biden administration announced that—after months of negotiations—it had finally struck a deal with prescription drug companies to slash the prices of some of Medicare’s most expensive medications, prescriptions for which currently cost the federal government some $56 billion last year.

“It’s a relief for the millions of seniors that take these drugs to treat everything from heart failure, blood clots, diabetes, arthritis, Crohn’s disease, and more—and it’s a relief for American taxpayers,” President Biden said in a statement. 

“Kamala and I both get it. We know it isn’t just about health care,” he added, appearing alongside Vice President Kamala Harris for their first joint event since she gained the Democratic presidential nomination. “It’s about your dignity.”

Starting in 2026, ten prescriptions for ailments ranging from diabetes to blood cancer will have their costs drastically lowered—by up to 79 percent of their manufacturers’ list price. These cuts will save taxpayers $6 billion and seniors and beneficiaries alone more than $1.5 billion, according to the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services.

The action was reportedly made possible by the 2022 passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, which opened the door for changes to Medicare with the aim of “expanding benefits, lowering drug costs, and improving sustainability.” The deal is only phase one of the administration’s plan to make Medicare more affordable: The Department of Health and Human Services will be allowed to select another set of 15 drugs for price negotiations next year.

It’s been a rough week for JD Vance. While half the internet was laughing at the unfounded rumor about his relationship with a couch, the vice presidential nominee was also getting digitally dragged for misogynistic comments he made in a 2021 Fox News appearance.

Earlier this week, celebrities, Swifties, and politicians on both sides of the aisle were calling out JD Vance for claiming Vice President Kamala Harris was one of a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” 

“I truly can’t believe this is coming from a potential VP of The United States,” actress Jennifer Aniston reportedly wrote in an Instagram story on Wednesday, in which she also pointed to Vance’s hypocritical stance on reproductive rights. “Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.” Aniston, who has been open about her own experiences with in vitro fertilization, was potentially referencing how Vance, alongside many other Republicans, voted against a bill to protect the procedure in February.

Late this week, the Ohio senator dug himself an even deeper hole when he apologized to cats and seemed to double down on his comments about women.

“Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment,” said Vance during an appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show, “I’ve got nothing against cats.” He added: “People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said. And the substance of what I said, I’m sorry, it’s true.”

JD Vance responds to the backlash to his “childless cat ladies” comment by apologizing to cats and then doubling down on attacking women: “I’m sorry, it’s true” pic.twitter.com/JZjqZJOp5y

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 26, 2024

Then another 2021 clip resurfaced of him blaming all his bad press on journalists who’re mostly “childless adults.” As Mother Jones‘s David Corn reported earlier this week:

When Vance dissed Harris as a “childless cat lady,” he was not speaking off the cuff. This runs deep for him. The right, as he sees it, has been outmaneuvered by the left on various fronts, and its only target of opportunity is the government.

To win that battle, conservatives must target Democrats as foes of the family.

Meanwhile, people have continued to mock Trump’s VP pick online with a nearly endless stream of memes referencing accomplished “cat ladies” with no children. We grabbed a few of our favorites for your own amusement:

Childless cat lady. pic.twitter.com/ePojfFVFAm

— Dr Charlotte Proudman (@DrProudman) July 25, 2024

Forever my favorite childless cat lady. pic.twitter.com/8lYCM32kjv

— H. Alan Scott (@HAlanScott) July 26, 2024

Dolly Parton, childless cat lady who is actually Appalachian. pic.twitter.com/g7RsjxCDjb

— AskAubry (@ask_aubry) July 27, 2024

'Childless Cat Ladies' going to the polls to vote for Kamala Harris in November. pic.twitter.com/rtDaZN77hK

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) July 26, 2024

Update, July 27, 2024: This post has been updated with an additional quote from Aniston’s Instagram story.

In more dystopian news, Donald Trump just implied that if he’s elected in November, there will be no need to vote in the future.

Trump: “Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore.”

On Friday night at the conservative political nonprofit Turning Points Action’s “Believer Summit” in Florida, the former president told his Christian supporters that if they cast their ballot for him in the upcoming presidential election, they wouldn’t have to vote anymore.

Trump: “Get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years it will be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore…In four years you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good your not gonna have to vote.” pic.twitter.com/Ig91KpOeCl

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 27, 2024

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said to thunderous applause. “You won’t have to do it anymore, four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

As my colleague David Corn reported last year, Trump and his political allies have been sowing the seeds for a far-right autocracy for several years. Corn writes:

Trump’s desire to be a strongman ruler are no secret. He has repeatedly uttered statements that reveal a craving to be in total control of the US government. As he mounts a second campaign for the White House, his team has openly discussed his plans to consolidate government power in the White House should he win.

The New York Times recently reported that his crew aims “to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”

So far, neither Trump nor his campaign have clarified the meaning behind his comments. But, taken at face value, they’re not a good sign for the future state of our democracy.

It’s been a rough week for J.D. Vance. While half the internet was laughing at the unfounded rumor about his relationship with a couch, the vice presidential nominee was also getting digitally dragged for misogynistic comments he made in a 2021 Fox News appearance.

Earlier this week, celebrities, Swifties, and politicians on both sides of the aisle were calling out J.D. Vance for claiming Vice President Kamala Harris was one of a “bunch of childless cat ladies who are miserable at their own lives and the choices that they’ve made and so they want to make the rest of the country miserable too.” 

“I truly can’t believe this is coming from a potential VP of The United States,” actress Jennifer Aniston reportedly wrote in an Instagram story on Wednesday, in which she also pointed to Vance’s hypocritical stance on reproductive rights. “Mr. Vance, I pray that your daughter is fortunate enough to bear children of her own one day. I hope she will not need to turn to IVF as a second option. Because you are trying to take that away from her, too.” Aniston, who has been open about her own experiences with in vitro fertilization, was potentially referencing how Vance, alongside many other Republicans, voted against a bill to protect the procedure in February.

Late this week, the Ohio senator dug himself an even deeper hole when he apologized to cats and seemed to double down on his comments about women.

“Obviously, it was a sarcastic comment,” said Vance during an appearance on The Megyn Kelly Show, “I’ve got nothing against cats.” He added: “People are focusing so much on the sarcasm and not on the substance of what I actually said. And the substance of what I said, I’m sorry, it’s true.”

JD Vance responds to the backlash to his “childless cat ladies” comment by apologizing to cats and then doubling down on attacking women: “I’m sorry, it’s true” pic.twitter.com/JZjqZJOp5y

— Kamala HQ (@KamalaHQ) July 26, 2024

Then another 2021 clip resurfaced of him blaming all his bad press on journalists who’re mostly “childless adults.” As Mother Jones‘s David Corn reported earlier this week:

When Vance dissed Harris as a “childless cat lady,” he was not speaking off the cuff. This runs deep for him. The right, as he sees it, has been outmaneuvered by the left on various fronts, and its only target of opportunity is the government.

To win that battle, conservatives must target Democrats as foes of the family.

Meanwhile, people have continued to mock Trump’s VP pick online with a nearly endless stream of memes referencing accomplished “cat ladies” with no children. We grabbed a few of our favorites for your own amusement:

Childless cat lady. pic.twitter.com/ePojfFVFAm

— Dr Charlotte Proudman (@DrProudman) July 25, 2024

Forever my favorite childless cat lady. pic.twitter.com/8lYCM32kjv

— H. Alan Scott (@HAlanScott) July 26, 2024

Dolly Parton, childless cat lady who is actually Appalachian. pic.twitter.com/g7RsjxCDjb

— AskAubry (@ask_aubry) July 27, 2024

'Childless Cat Ladies' going to the polls to vote for Kamala Harris in November. pic.twitter.com/rtDaZN77hK

— Ed Krassenstein (@EdKrassen) July 26, 2024

Update, July 27, 2024: This post has been updated with an additional quote from Aniston’s Instagram story.

In more dystopian news, Donald Trump just implied that if he’s elected in November, there will be no need to vote in the future.

Trump: “Four more years, it’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore.”

On Friday night at the conservative political nonprofit Turning Points Action’s “Believer Summit” in Florida, the former president told his Christian supporters that if they cast their ballot for him in the upcoming presidential election, they wouldn’t have to vote anymore.

Trump: “Get out and vote just this time. You won't have to do it anymore. Four more years it will be fixed. It'll be fine. You won't have to vote anymore…In four years you don't have to vote again. We'll have it fixed so good your not gonna have to vote.” pic.twitter.com/Ig91KpOeCl

— Republican Voters Against Trump (@AccountableGOP) July 27, 2024

“Christians, get out and vote. Just this time,” he said to thunderous applause. “You won’t have to do it anymore, four more years, you know what? It’ll be fixed, it’ll be fine, you won’t have to vote anymore, my beautiful Christians.”

As my colleague David Corn reported last year, Trump and his political allies have been sowing the seeds for a far-right autocracy for several years. Corn writes:

Trump’s desire to be a strongman ruler are no secret. He has repeatedly uttered statements that reveal a craving to be in total control of the US government. As he mounts a second campaign for the White House, his team has openly discussed his plans to consolidate government power in the White House should he win.

The New York Times recently reported that his crew aims “to alter the balance of power by increasing the president’s authority over every part of the federal government that now operates, by either law or tradition, with any measure of independence from political interference by the White House.”

So far, neither Trump nor his campaign have clarified the meaning behind his comments. But, taken at face value, they’re not a good sign for the future state of our democracy.

Last week, at J.D. Vance’s first rally as the GOP’s vice presidential nominee, Ohio state Sen. George Lang said that civil war would be necessary if former President Donald Trump does not win the 2024 presidential election.

“I believe wholeheartedly Donald Trump and Butler County’s J.D. Vance are the last chance to save our country politically. I’m afraid if we lose this one, it’s going to take a civil war to save the country, and it will be saved,” Lang said, as the crowd erupted in raucous applause.

Three days later, Lang apologized on X, claiming that the statement “didn’t accurately represent his views.” But while the Ohio legislator’s statement may not represent his views, it certainly seems to represent those of other Trump supporters.

Since campaigning for the 2024 race began, several MAGA loyalists have openly advocated for political violence in the event the real estate mogul loses the race.

“The right to have your vote count and your voice heard in free and fair elections is at the heart of our democracy, but Donald Trump and his allies are deliberately working to undermine that right,” said Abhi Rahman of the Democratic National Committee. “Donald Trump and his far-right allies are doing and saying anything they can to gain power.”

As my colleague David Corn has extensively covered, “stochastic terrorism” is a key part of Trump’s playbook, with the ex-president openly encouraging his followers to commit violent acts on his behalf. Corn writes:

Stochastic terrorism is more indirect and perhaps more effective: It’s pinning a bull’s-eye on the back of an opponent in a volatile situation—perhaps suggesting the world would be safer without this supposed threat—knowing this could lead to violence against that target. It’s indirect incitement, inspiring someone else to do the dirty work.

Trump is a master of this. After all, he got thousands of his cultists to storm the Capitol and try to prevent the congressional certification of his loss to Joe Biden. In recent days, he has fired up his stochastic terrorism machine. For a Rosh Hashanah messaged posted on social media earlier this month, Trump railed against “liberal Jews”: “Just a quick reminder for liberal Jews who voted to destroy America & Israel because you believed in false narratives! Let’s hope you learned from your mistake & make better choices moving forward!”

And if these politicians, pundits, and podcast hosts are to be believed, they’re more than willing to take drastic measures if the ex-president doesn’t win come November.

Shelby Busch, Arizona Republican National Convention Chair

In June, a video dropped revealing Shelby Busch, Arizona’s RNC chair, asserting that she’d lynch Stephen Richer, a fellow Republican who helped oversee the 2020 presidential election in Georgia’s Maricopa County.

“Let’s pretend that this gentleman over here was running for county recorder,” Busch said, according to the Washington Post. “And he’s a good Christian man that believes what we believe. We can work with that, right? That, that’s unity.”

She continued: “But if Stephen Richer walked in this room, I would lynch him. I don’t unify with people who don’t believe the principles we believe in and the American cause that founded this country. And so, I want to make that clear when we talk about what it means to unify.”

Georgia State Sen. Colton Moore

In August of last year, State Senator Colton Moore, who was banned from the House floor in March for calling another legislator “corrupt” in a speech, suggested a civil war would break out if Trump wasn’t reelected.

“Do you want a civil war? I don’t want a civil war,” said Moore in a video. “I don’t want to have to draw my rifle. I want to make this problem go away with my legislative means of doing so.”

Kandiss Taylor, Host of Jesus, Guns, and Babies

Right-wing podcast host Kandiss Taylor has been aboard the Trump Train for quite some time. In 2022, after losing the Georgia GOP gubernatorial primary to Brian Kemp by 70 points, she refused to concede the results, following in Trump’s footsteps. So it should come as no surprise that she said, in 2023, that her side was prepared to “use guns” against Trump’s perceived enemies.

“This is war, and I hope and pray it gets resolved before we use guns…we’re at war right now, a war for our freedom,” said Taylor on a podcast in 2023.

Michigan State Rep. Matt Maddock

In August 2023, Michigan state Rep. Matt Maddock was caught on tape saying Democrats’ opponents would “shoot someone,” and the country would descend into civil war, if the government continued to charge Trump’s followers with election crimes.

“The goal is communism, right?” Maddock said during a fundraiser in his Michigan home, according to the Michigan Advance. “Or Marxism, the Democrats’ dream, right? But what’s going to happen before that? Someone’s going to get so pissed off, they’re going to shoot someone.”

Maddock continued: “That’s what’s going to happen. Or we’re going to have a civil war or some sort of revolution. That’s where this is going. And when that happens, we’re going to get squashed. The people here are going to be the first ones to go.”

He later compared the prosecution of January 6 protesters to Nazis leading Jewish people to the gas chambers during the Holocaust.

North Carolina Lieutenant Gov. Mark Robinson

North Carolina’s lieutenant governor is known for his wild statements, but this one takes the cake. On June 30, Robinson went on a screed about “wicked people” on the left, wrapping up his rant by appearing to endorse deadly force on those who oppose him.

“Some folks need killing!” Robinson said, according to the New Republic. “It’s time for somebody to say it. It’s not a matter of vengeance. It’s not a matter of being mean or spiteful. It’s a matter of necessity!”

Correction, July 27: An earlier version of this article misattributed a quote about a “second American Revolution, which will remain bloodless if the left allows it to be.” It was said by Heritage Foundation president Kevin Roberts.

Update: On Tuesday, Attorney Ben Crump announced that the Department of Justice will be investigating the death of Sonya Massey, who was shot and killed by a former Illinois sheriff’s deputy earlier this month. 

“We don’t know what the scope is. We just know they’ve opened an investigation file on Sonya Massey,” said Crump in a press conference. “Obviously, with the family’s guidance, if the family wants them to go deeper, we’re going to advocate for them to go deeper.”

On Monday, an Illinois county sheriff’s department released body camera footage showing the fatal shooting of a Black woman who originally called 911 for help. Earlier this month, Deputy Sean Grayson shot 36-year-old Sonya Massey after she attempted to move a pot of water off of her stove at the officer’s behest.

The Sangamon County Sheriff’s Office has reportedly fired Grayson, who was later charged with first-degree murder last week. He’s pleaded not guilty.

“She needed a helping hand,” attorney Ben Crump said at a press conference on Monday. “She didn’t need a bullet to the face.” On July 6, Massey reportedly called the authorities about a potential prowler around her Springfield home. Officer Grayson and another deputy arrived on the scene.

While asking her a few questions, Grayson asked her to turn off her stove, where a pot of water was reportedly boiling. Massey gets up to turn it off and pick up the pot. The officers then step back. She asks where they’re going; Grayson replies, “Away from your hot steaming water.”

Massey then says, “I rebuke you in the name of Jesus.” Grayson responds that she “better not,” threatening to shoot her “in her fucking face.” She apologizes before three shots ring in the air.

As Massey laid bleeding in her kitchen, the other unnamed officer said he was going to get his medical kit from his car when Grayson said, “Nah, she’s done. You can go get it, but that’s a headshot.”

Following the shooting, the 30-year-old deputy referred to Massey as a “crazy fucking bitch” to other officers who arrived on the scene. Grayson’s body camera was reportedly turned off for most of the shooting.

The footage of Massey’s death, captured by the other deputy’s body camera, shocked the nation. Several local, state, and federal officials have condemned the officer’s actions. President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris both released statements calling for justice for Massey’s family on Tuesday.

“Sonya Massey deserved to be safe,” said Harris. “After she called the police for help, she was tragically killed in her own home at the hands of a responding officer sworn to protect and serve.”

In an interview with CNN, her father, James Wilburn, alleged that law enforcement had given them conflicting information about his daughter’s death, leading him to believe that a robber had killed her. Massey’s killing has devastated him.

“Sonya was a daddy’s girl. She never ended a conversation—whether by text or telephone or in person—without saying, ‘Daddy, I love you,” her father, James Wilburn, told CNN’s Laura Coates in an interview. “And that’s the last message I have from my daughter that’s saved on my voicemail, was ‘Daddy, I love you.'”

Even after the attempted assassination of their presidential candidate, the GOP remains focused on being shitty: During a House Oversight Committee hearing Monday, several GOP representatives blamed Donald Trump’s assassination attempt on the Secret Service hiring women.

In that hearing, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle raked Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle over the coals for the agency’s failure to prevent 20-year-old gunman Thomas Crooks from shooting the GOP presidential candidate with an AR-15 rifle. While most remained focused on the agency’s alleged procedural failings, or our nation’s epidemic of gun violence, a few representatives took a more misogynistic approach.

“You are a DEI horror story,” said Rep. Tim Burchett (R-Tenn.). “My wife and I have told my daughter multiple times about how she is going to succeed. She will succeed in life by achieving. Ma’am, you have not achieved today. You’ve let the American public down, and if it were up to me, you’d be gone.”

He wasn’t the only one expressing these thoughts. Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) asked Cheatle if she thought there were “too many men” in the Secret Service—and whether she wasn’t hiring men to “meet certain targets.”

The remarks did not go unchecked by their Democratic colleagues: Both Reps. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) called those legislators out during the meeting.

“Some Republicans have used this moment to attack progress towards racial justice and gender equity in America. Disappointing, but not surprising,” said Pressley, adding, “In the wake of gun violence and tragic loss of life, Republicans are ignoring solutions like gun safety reform and are instead trotting out sexist tropes.”

Sexist sentiments were not contained to today’s hearing. Conservative media outlets and far-right influencers were quick to blame female Secret Service agents for the attempt on the president’s life.

A few days following Trump’s attack, the Daily Wire‘s Matt Walsh posted a video of female agents surrounding Trump with the caption:

“There should not be any women in the Secret Service. These are supposed to be the very best, and none of the very best at this job are women.”

YouTuber Pearl Davis, often described as the “female Andrew Tate,” tweeted, “Why do we keep trying to put women in positions where we don’t belong? Go work in human resources, assistant, sales, or low-level management.”

It’s easy to write off conservatives’ obsession with “DEI” as pathetic (which it is). But as my colleague Isabela Dias has reported, it absolutely should be taken seriously. Removing DEI programs from institutions like universities and workplaces is a large part of Project 2025, the 920-page plan to introduce a Trump-led autocracy to the US; stigmatizing DEI and its advocates is an element of that process. Dias reports:

The group suggests the next conservative presidential administration “must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for culture warriors” and proposes removing terms such as gender equality, DEI, abortion, and reproductive rights from “every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”

It also calls for: amending Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to prevent the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from collecting data on race and ethnicity; doing away with disparate impact legal theory; limiting the applications of the Supreme Court decision in Bostock v. Clayton County that established Title VII protections for employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity; and rescinding regulations that bar discrimination based on “sexual orientation, gender identity, transgender status, and sex characteristics.”

With President Joe Biden dropping out of the 2024 presidential race, and Kamala Harris, a Black woman, the frontrunner to become his replacement, we’re already seeing an uptick in “DEI” being leveled as an insult, especially towards Harris herself.

On Sunday, Grothman, the Wisconsin Republican, told CBS that Democrats are only endorsing the vice president as the Democratic nominee because of “her ethnic background.” Judging by today’s congressional hearing, if Harris clinches the candidacy, those racist and sexist attacks are surely going to escalate.

Rep. Glenn Grothman, a Republican congressman from Wisconsin, tells our Milwaukee affiliate, @CBS58, that many Democrats feel they must stick with VP Kamala Harris for the presidential nomination "because of her ethnic background."

Grothman also said it "is going to be more… pic.twitter.com/BKiuBNGGAY

— CBS News (@CBSNews) July 22, 2024

Since kicking off his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s team has tried everything to appeal to Black voters. In February, Trump told a group of Black conservatives that his indictments endeared him to “the Black people.”

“A lot of people said that’s why the Black people liked me, because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against,” he said at the time.

When the former president was convicted of 34 felony charges for attempting to overturn the election, his team claimed that he was being railroaded by the country’s corrupt criminal justice system—not unlike a Black man.

And during his debate against President Biden, Trump tried to rally Black voters by accusing migrants of stealing “Black jobs,” whatever that means.

Now, the GOP presidential nominee is turning to rap and hip-hop artists to win over Black audiences, probably more than any other presidential candidate before him. Many of the genre’s stars are embracing him with open arms.

On Tuesday night, rapper Forgiato Blow, who went viral for a song about boycotting Target’s Pride collection, premiered the video for his track “Trump, Trump, Baby.”

The #RNC2024 is in full swing.

From the VP pick to right-wing celebrities, there’s no shortage of Republicans who are excited for a week of… Trump everything. pic.twitter.com/k3LRn1kCXD

— Mother Jones (@MotherJones) July 16, 2024

The video featured most of the hallmarks of the far-right rapper: his giant chain with Trump’s head, a Cybertruck spraypainted with “Trump 2024,” and absolutely god-awful editing.

Forgiato Blow is a far cry from a star in mainstream hip-hop, but his co-star in the video, rapper, model, and alleged feminist Amber Rose, is a different story.

For those not in the know, back in the late 20o0s, Amber rose to fame for dating fellow rapper Kanye West—now Ye—who had his own right-wing rebrand in recent years. But in the 2010s, after she and West parted ways, Rose became a household name in digital feminist spaces for her outspoken progressive politics and activism. In 2015, she organized the first “Amber Rose Slutwalk,” an annual protest to empower women and the LGBTQ community. She frequently called out rape culture and society’s misogynistic double standards in interviews. She even called Trump a “fucking idiot” in 2016.

But her politics have recently, and bizarrely, shifted to the right. Three months ago, Rose posted a photo on Instagram with Trump and his wife, Melania, with the caption “Trump 2024.” Since then, many of her posts on the app have featured her decked out in the signature bright-red MAGA hat or contained a pithy caption dunking on President Biden.

On Monday, she gave a rousing speech at the Republican National Convention, exclaiming that Trump supporters were her people and where she belonged.

“I realized that Donald Trump and his supporters don’t care if you’re Black, white, gay, or straight, it’s all love,” said Rose.

Rose is not the only rapper riding the Trump Train.

Last week, rapper and Internet troll Azealia Banks, who emerged as a Trump supporter in 2023, was spotted at the former president’s rally in Miami. “O Let’s Do It” artist Waka Flocka Flame reportedly told any Biden supporters in the crowd to “get out of my concert” during a show earlier this month.

Both Lil Wayne and Kodak Black, pardoned by Trump for federal weapons and firearms charges, respectively, have proclaimed their admiration for the real estate mogul. And SexxyRed, a St. Louis rapper who said in October 2023 that she supported Trump, has used Trump campaign imagery throughout her “Make America Sexy Again” tour, including a giant MAGA-style cap.

Curtis Jackson, better known as 50 Cent, was even rumored to be a surprise guest at the RNC, after sharing a truly terrifying edit of Trump’s head on the rapper’s body—a reference to a meme circulating after Trump’s assassination attempt. Jackson has said that Black men relate to Donald Trump because they “got RICO charges.”

As the election ramps up, Trump has been courting more of these performers—with help from a fellow fraudster. Earlier this year, Rolling Stone reported that Billy McFarland, who organized the infamously disastrous Fyre Festival, was connecting Trump’s campaign to rappers including Brooklyn’s Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow, who joined Trump onstage at a rally in the Bronx.

Are these stunts winning over Black voters? It’s hard to say. Many Black media figures and social media users have called out the former president and the artists who support him. MSNBC host Joy Reid has cautioned Black voters to do their own research in response to Rose’s RNC speech.

As November nears, even more hip-hop artists may pledge their allegiance to Trump—whether or not it makes a difference at the polls.

Since kicking off his 2024 presidential campaign, Donald Trump’s team has tried everything to appeal to Black voters. In February, Trump told a group of Black conservatives that his indictments endeared him to “the Black people.”

“A lot of people said that’s why the Black people liked me, because they have been hurt so badly and discriminated against,” he said at the time.

When the former president was convicted of 34 felony charges for attempting to overturn the election, his team claimed that he was being railroaded by the country’s corrupt criminal justice system—not unlike a Black man.

And during his debate against President Biden, Trump tried to rally Black voters by accusing migrants of stealing “Black jobs,” whatever that means.

Now, the GOP presidential nominee is turning to rap and hip-hop artists to win over Black audiences, probably more than any other presidential candidate before him. Many of the genre’s stars are embracing him with open arms.

On Tuesday night, rapper Forgiato Blow, who went viral for a song about boycotting Target’s Pride collection, premiered the video for his track “Trump, Trump, Baby.”

The video featured most of the hallmarks of the far-right rapper: his giant chain with Trump’s head, a Cybertruck spraypainted with “Trump 2024,” and absolutely god-awful editing.

Forgiato Blow is a far cry from a star in mainstream hip-hop, but his co-star in the video, rapper, model, and alleged feminist Amber Rose, is a different story.

For those not in the know, back in the late 20o0s, Amber rose to fame for dating fellow rapper Kanye West—now Ye—who had his own right-wing rebrand in recent years. But in the 2010s, after she and West parted ways, Rose became a household name in digital feminist spaces for her outspoken progressive politics and activism. In 2015, she organized the first “Amber Rose Slutwalk,” an annual protest to empower women and the LGBTQ community. She frequently called out rape culture and society’s misogynistic double standards in interviews. She even called Trump a “fucking idiot” in 2016.

But her politics have recently, and bizarrely, shifted to the right. Three months ago, Rose posted a photo on Instagram with Trump and his wife, Melania, with the caption “Trump 2024.” Since then, many of her posts on the app have featured her decked out in the signature bright-red MAGA hat or contained a pithy caption dunking on President Biden.

On Monday, she gave a rousing speech at the Republican National Convention, exclaiming that Trump supporters were her people and where she belonged.

“I realized that Donald Trump and his supporters don’t care if you’re Black, white, gay, or straight, it’s all love,” said Rose.

Rose is not the only rapper riding the Trump Train.

Last week, rapper and Internet troll Azealia Banks, who emerged as a Trump supporter in 2023, was spotted at the former president’s rally in Miami. “O Let’s Do It” artist Waka Flocka Flame reportedly told any Biden supporters in the crowd to “get out of my concert” during a show earlier this month.

Both Lil Wayne and Kodak Black, pardoned by Trump for federal weapons and firearms charges, respectively, have proclaimed their admiration for the real estate mogul. And SexxyRed, a St. Louis rapper who said in October 2023 that she supported Trump, has used Trump campaign imagery throughout her “Make America Sexy Again” tour, including a giant MAGA-style cap.

Curtis Jackson, better known as 50 Cent, was even rumored to be a surprise guest at the RNC, after sharing a truly terrifying edit of Trump’s head on the rapper’s body—a reference to a meme circulating after Trump’s assassination attempt. Jackson has said that Black men relate to Donald Trump because they “got RICO charges.”

As the election ramps up, Trump has been courting more of these performers—with help from a fellow fraudster. Earlier this year, Rolling Stone reported that Billy McFarland, who organized the infamously disastrous Fyre Festival, was connecting Trump’s campaign to rappers including Brooklyn’s Sheff G and Sleepy Hallow, who joined Trump onstage at a rally in the Bronx.

Are these stunts winning over Black voters? It’s hard to say. Many Black media figures and social media users have called out the former president and the artists who support him. MSNBC host Joy Reid has cautioned Black voters to do their own research in response to Rose’s RNC speech.

As November nears, even more hip-hop artists may pledge their allegiance to Trump—whether or not it makes a difference at the polls.

One bright spot for President Joe Biden as he defended his decision to remain in the presidential race at his first news conference following the debate was foreign policy, an area Biden proved skillful and clear-eyed. But while Biden spoke at the NATO summit on Thursday, Donald Trump was reportedly in Mar-a-Lago rubbing elbows with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

The split-screen scenarios underscored, once again, the immense gulf between the two presidential candidates in a pivotal election year for US democracy.

Peace mission 5.0
It was an honour to visit President @realDonaldTrump at Mar-a-Lago today. We discussed ways to make #peace. The good news of the day: he’s going to solve it! pic.twitter.com/AiTRsdexM5

— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) July 12, 2024

Trump appeared to confirm the meeting, posting on Truth Social, “Thank you Viktor.” The message followed a series of posts mocking Biden for his “big boy” news conference.

This was not Orbán’s first visit to Mar-a-Lago. Earlier this year, Trump invited the self-proclaimed “illiberal” prime minister to his private club, saying there’s no leader “better, stronger, or smarter” than Orbán.

An anti-democracy icon on the far-right, Orbán has ruled Hungary for over a decade with a distinctly authoritarian platform. As my colleague David Corn reported, here are a few of the things Orbán has done as prime minister:

One bright spot for President Joe Biden as he defended his decision to remain in the presidential race at his first news conference following the debate was foreign policy, an area Biden proved skillful and clear-eyed. But while Biden spoke at the NATO summit on Thursday, Donald Trump was reportedly in Mar-a-Lago rubbing elbows with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán.

The split-screen scenarios underscored, once again, the immense gulf between the two presidential candidates in a pivotal election year for US democracy.

Peace mission 5.0
It was an honour to visit President @realDonaldTrump at Mar-a-Lago today. We discussed ways to make #peace. The good news of the day: he’s going to solve it! pic.twitter.com/AiTRsdexM5

— Orbán Viktor (@PM_ViktorOrban) July 12, 2024

Trump appeared to confirm the meeting, posting on Truth Social, “Thank you Viktor.” The message followed a series of posts mocking Biden for his “big boy” news conference.

This was not Orbán’s first visit to Mar-a-Lago. Earlier this year, Trump invited the self-proclaimed “illiberal” prime minister to his private club, saying there’s no leader “better, stronger, or smarter” than Orbán.

An anti-democracy icon on the far-right, Orbán has ruled Hungary for over a decade with a distinctly authoritarian platform. As my colleague David Corn reported, here are a few of the things Orbán has done as prime minister: