All posts tagged "alexandria ocasio-cortez"

'Wah, wah, wah:' AOC scoffs at GOP whining over gerrymandering

WASHINGTON — Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-NY, had strong words for Republicans complaining about the gerrymandering in Virginia that voters approved on Tuesday, with strong support from her party.

"Wah, wah, wah," Ocasio-Cortez told Raw Story on Wednesday, mimicking a whining baby and laughing in response to a question from reporter Matt Laslo. "Democrats have attempted and asked Republicans for 10 years to ban partisan gerrymandering, and for 10 years, Republicans have said, 'no.'"

Laslo was asking Ocasio-Cortez to respond to complaints from the GOP that it would be unconstitutional for Democrats to have a 10-1 congressional majority in Virginia, which the gerrymandering ballot measure would make possible. A Virginia circuit court judge blocked the vote-approved redistricting on Wednesday, however.

Still, Ocasio-Cortez saw no problem with Democrats supporting gerrymandering after years of opposing it when done on the Republican side. For AOC, the GOP "wanted to start this," and the Democrats are just fighting back.

"What they're mad at is they're accustomed to a Democrat Party that rolls over, doesn't fight and takes everything sitting down," Ocasio-Cortez said. "What they're mad at right now is that we are here in a new day."

She mentioned Republican gerrymandering in North Carolina and Texas, where Democrats lost seats. Trump's call for Texas Republicans to gerrymander arguably kicked off what's now seen as a redistricting arms race.

"We have been asking the Democratic Party to stand up and fight, and now they did," AOC continued. "Now the Republican Party doesn't like the fact that they are fighting against someone who actually will stand up for the American people."

Ocasio-Cortez said she would "welcome" working with the Republicans to pass a ban on partisan gerrymandering.

"We have the bill right here to end this all today," she said, smiling. "But they don't want to because they like pursuing and continuing to enact an unfair electoral landscape."

MAGA rep rails against 'tone deaf' GOP senator — in defense of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) Saturday saw an unlikely person jump to her defense in a feud with a GOP senator over the weekend.

It started with Sen. John Kennedy, a Republican, attacking Ocasio-Cortez and her past bartending experience.

Kennedy said, "The congresswoman is kind of like Vice President Kamala Harris, but with more bartending experience."

That didn't sit well with MAGA lawmaker Rep. Anna Paulina Luna. She said, "I don't agree with a lot AOC does and I can debate with her on it but to knock her or anyone for being a bartender is not a 'hit,' it’s tone deaf."

She went on to say, "Plenty of people don’t come from political pedigree. There are plenty of people who go through school etc. and are hardworking Americans and they have the right to run for office. Shoot, half of DC spends its time in bars and love the bartenders."

She concluded, "NO TAX ON TIPS AND NO TAX ON OVERTIME is FOR the service industry workers. Focus on calling out McConnell for BLOCKING THE SAVE ACT. THATS A WIN! @SenJkennedy."

For her part, Ocasio-Cortez responded to Kennedy by saying, "My having been a waitress makes me 1000x more qualified to govern on behalf of working people than whatever lifelong politician nonsense you’ve swung from your whole career."

"Why should working people vote for you if this is what you think of them?" she asked.

Bernie and AOC wouldn't be known without this American giant

By Bert Johnson, Professor of Political Science, Middlebury College.

Jesse Jackson’s two campaigns for president, in 1984 and 1988, were unsuccessful but historic. The civil rights activist and organizer, who died on Feb. 17, 2026, helped pave the way for Barack Obama’s election a generation later as the nation’s first – and so far only – African American president.

Jackson’s campaigns energized a multiracial coalition that not only provided support for other late-20th-century Democratic politicians, including President Bill Clinton, but helped create an organizing template – a so-called Rainbow Coalition combining Black, Latino, working-class white and young voters – that continues to resonate in progressive politics today.

Vermont, where I teach political science, did not look like fertile ground for Jackson when he first ran for president. Then, as now, Vermont was one of the most homogeneous, predominantly white states. But if Jackson seemed like an awkward fit for a mostly rural, lily-white state, he nonetheless saw possibilities.

He campaigned in Vermont twice in 1984, buoyantly declaring in Montpelier, the state capital, “If I win Vermont, the nation will never be the same again.”

He did not win Vermont, taking just 8 percent of the Democratic primary vote in 1984 but tripling his share to 26 percent in 1988. Appealing to voters in small, rural New England precincts was a remarkable achievement for a candidate identified with Chicago and civil rights campaigns in the South.

Jackson’s presidential ambitions coincided with a pivotal moment in Vermont politics: The state’s voting patterns were shifting left, with new residents arriving and changing the state’s culture and economy. In 1970, nearly 70 percent of Vermonters had been born there. By 1990, that figure had dropped by 10 percentage points.

The Vermont Rainbow Coalition, which was formed to support Jackson’s first campaign, organized a crucial constituency in a fluid time, establishing patterns that would persist for decades.

Setting the standard

Jackson created a “People’s Platform” that would sound familiar to today’s progressives, calling for higher taxes on businesses, higher minimum wages and single-payer, universal health care.

In light of Jackson’s efforts, Vermont activists saw the potential for a durable statewide organization. Rather than disband the Vermont Rainbow Coalition after the 1984 primary, they kept the group going, endorsing candidates in campaigns for the legislature and statewide office in each of the next three election cycles. The coalition also endorsed Bernie Sanders’ failed bid for Congress in 1988.

Sanders served eight years as mayor of Burlington as an “independent socialist,” cultivating a core collection of local allies known as the Progressive Coalition who sought to wrest power away from establishment members of the city’s Board of Aldermen.

In 1992, the Vermont Rainbow Coalition merged with Burlington’s Progressive Coalition to form the statewide Progressive Coalition.

Jackson-Sanders lineage

Sanders eventually went on to win election to the House as an independent in 1990, serving in the chamber until winning his Senate seat, also as an independent, in 2006. His presidential runs in 2016 and 2020 made him a prominent national figure and a leader among progressives.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who unseated a member of the House Democratic leadership in a stunning 2018 primary upset in New York, had been a Sanders campaign organizer and remains his close ally. On Jan. 1, 2026, Sanders swore in Zohran Mamdani – like Ocasio-Cortez, a Democratic socialist – as mayor of New York City.

Sanders had endorsed Jackson for president in 1988. Years later, Jackson returned the favor.

Sanders paid tribute to Jackson at the 2024 Democratic National Convention.

“Jesse Jackson is one of the very most significant political leaders in this country in the last 100 years,” Sanders said. “Jesse’s contribution to modern history is not just bringing us together – it is bringing us together around a progressive agenda.”

Not just Vermont

In Vermont, Jackson performed surprisingly well in unlikely places – taking nearly 20 percent of the 1984 primary vote in working-class Bakersfield and Belvidere, for example.

Today’s Vermont Progressive Party, which emerged out of the old Vermont Progressive Coalition, is one of the most successful third parties in the nation, winning official “major party” status in the state shortly after its official founding in 2000. The party has elected candidates to the state legislature, city councils and even a few statewide offices, including that of lieutenant governor.

Vermont was not alone in experiencing the catalyzing effect of Jackson’s presidential runs. Jackson had a significant mobilizing impact on Black voters nationwide. In Washington state, the Washington Rainbow Coalition started in Seattle and spread across the state between 1984 and 1996. New Jersey and Pennsylvania had their own successful and independent Rainbow Coalitions. In 2003, the Rainbow Coalition Party of Massachusetts joined the Green Party to become the Green Rainbow Party.

In my own research, I’ve investigated the durability of the “Jackson effect” in Vermont. There is no better test of what differentiates the Vermont Progressive Party from the state’s Democratic Party than the 2016 Democratic primary race for lieutenant governor, which pitted progressive David Zuckerman against two prominent, mainstream Democrats.

Zuckerman beat the Democrats most handily in towns that had voted the most heavily for Jesse Jackson in 1984, an effect that persisted even when controlling for population, partisanship and liberalism.

Many people would point to Sanders as the catalyst for Vermont’s continuing progressive movement. But Sanders and the progressives owe much to Jackson.

Bert Johnson has taught American politics at Middlebury since 2004. His research and teaching interests include campaign finance, federalism, and state and local politics. Johnson is author of Political Giving: Making Sense of Individual Campaign Contributions (Boulder: FirstForum Press, 2013), and coauthor (with Morris Fiorina, Paul E. Peterson, and William Mayer) of The New American Democracy (Longman, 2011). His articles have appeared in Social Science History, Urban Affairs Review, and American Politics Research. He is owner and author of Basicsplainer.com.

These signs show a new force is coming to clean out the White House

The media is freaking out over a new Rasmussen poll that found:

“A majority of voters under 40 want a democratic socialist to win the White House in the next presidential election.

“… 51 percent of Likely U.S. Voters ages 18 to 39 would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election. Thirty-six percent (36 percent) don’t want a democratic socialist to win in 2028, while 17 percent are not sure…

“Among the youngest cohort (ages 18-24) of voters, 57 percent want a democratic socialist to win the next presidential election…

“Among those who voted for Kamala Harris in last year’s presidential election, 78 percent would like to see a democratic socialist candidate win the 2028 presidential election…” (emphasis added).

I was on Ali Velshi’s MSNOW show discussing this, along with Michael Green who recently wrote a thought-provoking article about how the official poverty line in America is completely out-of-date and out of touch with the needs of most Americans. I shared a few statistics from my recent book The Hidden History of the American Dream: the Demise of the Middle Class and How to Rescue Our Future:

When, in 1957, my dad bought the house I grew up in, the average cost of a single-family home in America was about 2.2 times the average annual wage. Today it’s more than ten times the average wage.
When my Boomer generation was the same age as today’s Millennials, we owned a bit over 22 percent of the nation’s wealth; Millennials today control only about 4 percent of the country’s wealth (and it’s the same for Zoomers).
From the 1930s right up until the Reagan Revolution, it was possible for seniors to live comfortably on Social Security alone; Reagan undid that with his “reforms” so today that’s nearly impossible.
When I ran my first seriously successful business in the early 1970s, it cost me around $35/month for comprehensive health insurance for each of my 18 employees; at that time hospitals and health insurance companies were required by Michigan law (where I lived; most other states were identical) to be run as non-profits. Today, health insurance can be as much as one-fifth of a company’s payroll expense.
When Reagan came into office in 1981, a single wage earner could support a family with a middle-class lifestyle, and fully 65 percent of us were in the middle class (up from around 20 percent in the 1930s). Today, after 44 years of Reaganomics, it takes two full-time people to achieve the same status, which triggers huge childcare expenses, which is part of why only 43 percent of us are middle class .

FDR’s great — and successful — Democratic Socialist experiment following the Republican Great Depression was to drive the economy from the bottom up, reversing the “Horse and Sparrow” trickle-down economics and deregulation of the Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover administrations that provoked the Great Crash.

He did that by:

Expanding the notion of the commons — the stuff we all collectively own and is administered or funded and regulated by government — to include free public education nationwide (and cheap college), old-age retirement (Social Security), and public power and transportation systems (Tennessee Valley Authority, federal support for local transit, roads and highways).
Legalizing unions, an effort that was so successful that when Reagan came into office fully a third of us had good union jobs and, because they set the local wage floors, two-thirds of Americans had the equivalent of a union wage and benefit package.
Establishing a minimum wage on which a single worker could raise a family of three and still stay above the federal poverty level (today’s federal minimum wage is $7.25: adjusted with the Consumer Price Index, that $1.60 minimum wage in 1968 is equivalent to about $14.90 an hour in 2025 dollars).

In the years since, we’ve continued to expand the commons by establishing national single-payer healthcare systems for low-income people (Medicaid) and retired people (Medicare), both of which came out of LBJ’s Democratic Socialist program that he called The Great Society.

Meanwhile, Republicans and a few neoliberal Democrats have pushed back against these Democratic Socialist programs that made the American middle class the first in the history of the world to exceed more than half the population.

Reagan’s war on unions has cut our union membership down to well under 10 percent in the private sector.
His gutting federal funding for education has exploded college costs to the point where three generations are saddled with over $2 trillion in debt that can’t be discharged by bankruptcy.
Reagan’s tax cuts for the rich (from 74 percent down to 27 percent) and corporations tripled the national debt (from $800 billion to $2.4 trillion) just in his eight years; since then the four GW Bush and Trump tax cuts have, when combined with Reagan’s, produced a $38 trillion national debt so big that we now spend more on servicing their debt than we do on our defense budget or would on administering a national healthcare system.

Back in the 1940s, after the incredible success of the New Deal, President Roosevelt wanted to further expand the commons by expanding the scope of his Democratic Socialist programs. Just before he died, he proposed a “Second Bill of Rights” that included:

“The right to a useful and remunerative job in the nation’s industries, shops, farms, or mines. (Unionization and an above-poverty-level minimum wage.)
“The right to earn enough to provide adequate food, clothing, and recreation. (Ditto and government as the employer of last resort.)
“The right of every farmer to raise and sell products at a return that gives his family a decent living. (Don’t manipulate farm prices with stupid tariff wars, etc., and make the government the purchaser of last resort.)
“The right of every businessperson, large and small, to trade free from unfair competition and domination by monopolies. (Break up the giant corporations and encourage average people to start small businesses, including with loan supports.)
“The right of every family to a decent home. (Today this would mean no more corporations, hedge funds, and foreign billionaires owning single-family homes to squeeze us dry by jacking up rents.)
“The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to enjoy good health. (FDR favored a single-payer healthcare system like Medicare for All.)
“The right to protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment (i.e., robust Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance).
“The right to a good education.” (Free or inexpensive college, quality public schools in every community.)

Much to the chagrin of my Republican-activist father, my grandfather (a 1917 Norwegian immigrant) frequently and proudly described himself as a socialist. When I asked him what he meant, he always pointed me to FDR, the New Deal, and his proposed Second Bill of Rights.

And here we are again.

My grandfather’s generation saw up-close and firsthand the tax-cutting and deregulation binge of the Roaring 20s (which were only “roaring” for the morbidly rich), and then had the lived experience of watching FDR put the country back together and create the world’s first widespread middle class.

Millennials and Zoomers today are seeing the same thing, between the Bush Housing Crash of 2008, the botched Covid Crash of 2020, and the GOP’s relentless program to drive the wealth of the nation into the money bins of the billionaires who own that party.

They see the example of most European countries, where the commons includes college (many will actually pay you a stipend to attend), healthcare, and daycare/preschool, and union density is often well above 80%. Housing is subsidized or heavily regulated, leading several to have essentially ended homelessness. Giant corporate monopolies are prohibited and local small businesses are encouraged.

Europeans call these programs Democratic Socialism or social democracy, and young Americans clearly are enthusiastic about bringing the “European Dream” to this country.

My sense is that — much like in the 1930s — a significant majority of Americans are sick of the neoliberal “let the rich run things because they know best” bullshit that Republicans, “Tech Bros,” and a shrinking minority of on-the-take Democratic politicians embrace.

Meanwhile, nobody’s sure why the Democratic National Committee (DNC) is refusing to release the autopsy they did of the 2024 election, producing speculation it may have uncovered examples of Russian and Republican manipulation of both voters and the vote, but I’m guessing the real reason is that the neoliberals who largely run the DNC saw feedback that reflected the Rasmussen poll I opened this article with.

The exploding popularity of progressive politicians from Zohran Mamdani to Bernie Sanders, Jasmine Crockett, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez aren’t an anomaly; they’re a signpost to both electoral and governing success for the next generation of genuinely progressive Democratic politicians.

'Trump said no': Ocasio-Cortez flags source of Marjorie Taylor Greene's GOP 'revenge tour'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) offered an explanation for Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA) speaking out against the Republican Party.

The Georgia Republican has spoken out against GOP leadership – and House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA), in particular – and continued to press for the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files, which have plagued President Donald Trump for months, and Ocasio-Cortez told her Instagram followers why Greene is speaking out, according to Fox News.

"Here’s some tea for you," Ocasio-Cortez said Monday in a livestream video. "MTG, people are like, 'Oh my God, she’s saying all these things, like, what’s gotten into her lately?' ‘Oh, like, she's bucking against Trump, she's bucking against the administration."

"Marjorie Taylor Greene wanted to run for Senate in Georgia," the New York Democrat continued. "She wanted to run for Senate earlier this year in the state of Georgia, she wanted to be the Republican nominee for Senate, so she was gearing up for that statewide race, and Trump told her no."

"Trump said no, and the White House and Trumpland shut down Marjorie Taylor Greene’s personal ambitions to run for Senate — and she has been on a revenge tour ever since," Ocasio-Cortez added.

Greene announced in May that she would not challenge Sen. Jon Ossoff (D-GA) in her state's Senate race, which Republicans see as one of the best pickup opportunities in next year's midterms.

"Even with a few good Republicans in the Senate, nothing changes," Greene wrote on X at the time. "So no, Jon Ossoff isn’t the real problem. He’s just a vote. A pawn. No different than the Uniparty Republicans who skip key votes to attend fundraisers and let our agenda fail."

In addition to her criticism of Johnson, especially over his stance on Affordable Care Act subsidies and the government shutdown, Greene has broken with Republicans on Israel's war in Gaza, which she has called a "genocide" and "humanitarian crisis," but she told ABC's "The View" that she still supported the president.

"I do love him," she said. "When I ran for Congress in 2020, I ran criticizing Republicans and Democrats equally, because I come from a working-class family."

'Republicans are making a foolish mistake': AOC puts GOP on notice over big shutdown error

"Republicans are making a foolish mistake," according to Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

In the budgeting fight related to the government shutdown, Donald Trump and other top Republicans have vowed to make cuts that they say are "Democrat priorities," in an attempt to force the Dem hand and compel a resolution in favor of the GOP. But in doing so, Ocasio-Cortez says that they are making a grave miscalculation.

"Republicans are making a foolish mistake by saying they think that making investments in housing and energy are so-called 'Democrat priorities,'" she wrote in an email to supporters late on Wednesday evening. "Cutting the EPA as a 'Democrat priority.' Do you know what this country looked like before the EPA?"

She went on to explain, "Rivers in rural areas were on fire because of corporations poisoning the people who lived in those areas. Poor, middle-class communities getting poisoned and dumped on by corporations — like Deloitte and 3M — pouring chemicals into these places."

Then, AOC took a defiant tone, digging in her heels on those priorities.

"Well, you know what? You're damn well right that it's a Democratic priority to keep people from getting poisoned by identifying dangerous chemicals that are being dumped and causing cancer in people without their knowledge. You're damn right that it's a Democratic priority to bring down the cost of housing, and mortgages, and rent. And you're damn right that it's a Democratic priority to raise the minimum wage in this country to allow people to get a fair shot at the American dream," she wrote.

She then concluded, "If they want to say that's a 'Democratic priority' — they're right. And they are targeting all of us with this. And it's important for us to remember that these priorities are actually not partisan at all."

'Embarrassing cowards’: Analyst says AOC’s Trump aide takedown exposed how to attack MAGA

An analyst on Tuesday revealed the "trick" to Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's (D-NY) mockery of Stephen Miller after the congresswoman called the White House deputy chief of staff "insecure" and warned MAGA followers not to follow the "embarrassing cowards."

Ocasio-Cortez didn't mince words last week when she told her Instagram followers to “Laugh at them! Stephen Miller is a clown! I’ve never seen that guy in real life, but he looks like he’s, like, 4′10″.”

An analyst warned that the attack on Miller, who stands 5 feet, 10 inches, could backfire unless it's done "without making it feel as if elitist liberals and man-hating women are taking aim at all conservative men," journalist and lawyer Jill Filipovic writes for Slate.

Filipovic argues there is a straightforward way to poke at Miller and shame his followers into reconsidering their support.

“People talk about this toxic masculinity. Let’s put that to the side for just one second—this is about insecure masculinity, and one of the best ways that you can dismantle a movement of insecure men is by making fun of them,” the author writes.

She also emphasizes that Miller deserves ridicule.

"Few people in American politics are as deserving of condemnation and mockery as Miller. He was the impetus behind Donald Trump’s family-separation policy. He has been pushing the outrageous claim that left-leaning groups are 'domestic terrorist organizations,' a lie (domestic terrorist organization also is not a legitimate legal designation) that seems to be a pretext for bringing the full force of the federal government down on Trump’s political opponents. It is truly difficult to overstate how authoritarian, dark, and dangerous Miller’s politics are, and how much sway he maintains over the president."

Filipovic points to fear as a tactic to mobilize MAGA followers, something that opponents can use to their advantage.

"And it seems to stem mostly from the fact that despite actually being closer to 5’10”, he’s a big, scared baby: scared of immigrants, scared of liberals, and begging Big Daddy Trump to send in the troops to protect him. If there were ever a legitimate target for mockery, he’s it," she writes.

The best tactic to disrupt MAGA's stronghold on men would be to focus on a key element: manliness.

"And Ocasio-Cortez is right that MAGA is a movement premised on insecure masculinity—and in that, it is like many other authoritarian movements throughout history," she adds.

"The mockery is merited. And sometimes it works," she writes. "Revealing men like Miller for who he is—an anxious scaredy-cat dweeb—helps dispel some of the mythology that this administration is trying to create. It also sends a message to men that the leaders of MAGA are not impressive tough guys but embarrassing cowards: men not to emulate but to move away from."

However, specifically humiliating men — even ones targeting immigrants, children and women — could have repercussions. But there could be a way to approach it.

"That doesn’t mean that liberals have to embrace or court these guys. But it does mean drawing a line between mocking the MAGA men in power and MAGA men writ large. The trick is making MAGA less appealing to men by being honest about how unappealing MAGA male leaders are," Filipovic writes.

AOC insiders reveal 2028 plans: 'Height of arrogance to assume she couldn't win'

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) is gearing up to either launch a presidential bid or challenge Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) in 2028, multiple people “familiar with her operation” told Axios in a report published Friday.

"It would be the height of arrogance to assume she couldn't win the 2028 nomination,” said Ari- Rabin-Havt, former deputy campaign manager for Sen. Bernie Sanders’ 2020 presidential bid, speaking with Axios.

“...She has a supporter base that, in many ways, has a larger potential width than Bernie's. She has been in the glare of the spotlight from day one and has the national campaigning experience a lot of other potential candidates are now trying to get."

According to those familiar with AOC’s 2028 plans, who spoke with Axios under the condition of anonymity, AOC has recently hired former senior advisors to Sanders in an effort to “bolster her operation.”

Insiders said AOC had not made any final decisions as to whether to pursue the Oval Office or Schumer’s seat, the latter of which was described by Axios’ Alex Thompson as a potential “generational clash,” pitting the 35-year-old progressive against the 74-year-old Democratic Party powerhouse.

AOC traveled the nation this year alongside Sanders as part of the two’s “Fight Oligarchy” tour, a series of rallies highlighting the outweighed influence of wealthy elites in politics, drawing tens of thousands in attendance, including 34,000 to one rally in Las Vegas, Nevada, the single-largest event ever held by the Democratic Party at the time.

According to recent polling, AOC is viewed more favorably than either President Donald Trump or former President Joe Biden, and in another recent poll, remains one of only three American politicians with a net positive favorability.

'Horrible!' Trump accused of using immigrants as guinea pigs for terrifying tech trial

WASHINGTON — Before leaving town for the August recess, Senate Commerce Committee Chair Ted Cruz was forced to pull a measure aimed at limiting federal government use of facial recognition data captured at airports by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA).

But the Texas Republican says he’s got no problem with federal agents deploying more invasive facial recognition technology against immigrants.

“ICE, quite reasonably, is using every tool available,” Cruz told Raw Story.

The Trump administration is deploying facial recognition apps on agents’ phones, testing wrist-worn GPS monitors, collecting migrants’ DNA, and buying eye-scanners.

“It's horrible,” Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told Raw Story.

Ocasio-Cortez and other Democrats are aghast that their GOP counterparts are willing to cede so much power to the Trump administration. They’re also bracing for the federal government to deploy these new technologies against American citizens in the near future.

‘It’s great’

Self-described GOP privacy hawks on Capitol Hill are up in arms over the TSA deploying facial recognition tools without their constituents' knowledge.

Cruz is vowing to bring the facial recognition measure aimed at the broader traveling public — forcing TSA transparency with travelers, while limiting how the government stores biometric data — before his committee when Congress returns this fall.

But according to Cruz, that’s different from what the Department of Homeland Security and its ICE — Immigration and Customs Enforcement — agents are doing in migrant communities.

“ICE, quite reasonably, is using every tool available to try to apprehend dangerous criminals and potential terrorists before they murder or otherwise harm American citizens,” Cruz told Raw Story.

“ICE is confronting an acute public safety and national security challenge. After four years of Democrats’ open borders, we have millions of illegal immigrants, criminals, murderers, gang members and potential terrorists who come into this country.”

In Trump’s GOP, Cruz is far from an outlier.

“It’s great,” Rep. Joe Wilson (R-SC) told Raw Story, on the other side of Capitol Hill.

“To me it’s just really important that we make every effort to deport, in my view, anyone illegally in the United States.”

Raw Story asked: “Do you worry we might see technology creep, that we’ll use it on migrants but then it will start being deployed on everyday citizens?”

“No,” Wilson said.

“Why not?”

“What ICE is doing is just so important to the future security of the United States,” Wilson said.

“The countervailing argument is that they’re arresting the wrong people. This is a way to prove that you’re going after people who are actually illegal aliens. And so, to me, you can’t have the argument both ways.

“So I will be consistent and unequivocally support any and every technology to identify illegal aliens and remove them from the United States.”

‘Not their first attempt’

Democrats are questioning just how “consistent” their GOP counterparts are.

To many on the left, the fear goes beyond ICE and extends to how the federal government treats citizens’ data.

“It's horrible from any agency perspective whatsoever,” Ocasio-Cortez told Raw Story.

AOC Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) attends a House Oversight hearing. REUTERS/Kent Nishimura

“ICE, of course, is one of the most concerning, not just because it's an immigration thing, but because they have some of the least guardrails. They privately contract with Amazon, Microsoft, and so I think that from a privacy perspective for all of us, this is highly concerning. Highly concerning.”

Such concerns stem, in part, from how the government now surveils social media, tracks cell phone GPS data, utilizes public camera footage and more.

"I was surprised over the years having to realize how much of technology is developed first with the purpose of military uses and intelligence uses, and then it goes from there,” a veteran member of the House Intelligence Committee told Raw Story, speaking anonymously in order to discuss sensitive matters.

“And then even the companies that develop for consumer purposes or commercial purposes first, they start to draw towards getting contracts with the government and the military and the intel services.

"The military and intelligence sectors draw on the companies that have succeeded in the commercial sector. It's amazing to watch, like just to see it. I don't think most Americans realize the deep connection.”

The deep connection isn’t lost on members of Congress who represent migrant communities.

“This is not their first attempt” to use surveillance technology in immigration enforcement, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) told Raw Story.

“And from what I understand, they've been collecting DNA without any public knowledge.”

“How worrisome is that?” Raw Story pressed.

“It absolutely should be worrisome,” Tlaib said, “and I think it's important for people to understand our immigrant neighbors: these are human beings. They're not experiments for the tech world and all these folks that want to profit off of the federal government.

“They're not experiments and they're our loved ones, but also they always start with immigrants and then it will be us.”

“You think [use of such technology is] guaranteed to creep?” Raw Story pressed.

“It will be. Guaranteed,” Tlaib said. “They always start with those that are incarcerated, those that are in systems that are in custody of the government and we can't allow human rights violations for immigrants.

“It will trickle down to many other people so I think it's really important to understand it's all profit driven and it's really shameful.”

‘People in masks with guns’

The new surveillance state is coming as ICE agents from coast to coast are being recorded wearing masks on raids — an irony far from lost on critics.

"It's very ironic and hypocritical that the government is using facial recognition technology on Americans and at the same time insists that its agents not show their faces," Rep. Joaquin Castro (D-TX) told Raw Story.

"It's very un-American, and it feels like we're watching something happening in another country from the 1970s where, you know, you turn on the TV … and on the evening news they would have something going on in Nicaragua or somewhere around the world, and you have these people in masks with the guns, right? That's what it looks like."

'What happened to Thomas Massie?' MAGA super PAC goes after longtime Trump thorn

The Trump-affiliated Kentucky MAGA super PAC has unleashed its first round of attacks on GOP contrarian Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) after the lawmaker vehemently opposed the president's weekend strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities.

President Donald Trump's team was cobbling together the organization in the days before Massie joined with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA) to introduce a war powers resolution to prevent Trump from acting on his own against Iran, Axios reported Sunday. Trump ordered the strikes Saturday, before Congress could consider the resolution.

Massie, a deficit hawk who wears a "ticking debt clock" on his lapel, is also standing firm against Trump's megabill that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated would add more than $2.7 trillion to the deficit between 2025 and 2034.

Trump has called Massie a "grandstander" and vowed to back a primary challenger in next year's midterm elections.

Kentucky MAGA, which is headed by senior Trump advisers Tony Fabrizio and Chris LaCivita, released its first anti-Massie attack ad Friday that Newsmax reported will air on Fox News and broadcast TV stations in the Cincinnati and Louisville markets.

The ad opens with the question, "What happened to Thomas Massie?" then lists the ways the Kentucky Republican has defied Trump on a variety of issues.

"President Trump is banning sex changes on minors; Massie voted against it," the voiceover said while showing a split screen of Massie and a drag queen. "President Trump is cutting taxes and saving Kentucky families $10,000; Massie voted against it. President Trump is securing our border and deporting criminal aliens; Massie voted against Trump again. And after Trump obliterated Iran's nuclear weapons program, Massie sided with Democrats and the Ayatollah."

The ad superimposes Massie next to Iran's supreme leader, as well as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).

"Let's fire Thomas Massie," the ad concludes.

Massie responded to the ad on social media, writing, "The BBB now allows funding sex changes for minors! This ad slams me for voting against the BBB, but the Senate just stripped the 'ban on sex changes for minors' from the BBB. By the ads’ twisted logic, those who support the Senate’s edits now support sex changes for minors."

Watch below via MAGA Kentucky on YouTube.