ACLU: Hard-Fought Grace: Bearing Witness to Richard Tabler’s Execution

Hard-Fought Grace: Bearing Witness to Richard Tabler’s Execution

EDITORS NOTE: Claudia Van Wyk is a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. She spent 14 years with the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia, where she met Richard Tabler, who had been convicted of murder and was challenging a death sentence. At the ACLU, Claudia continued to work on Richard’s legal appeals, including a petition in October 2024 asking the Supreme Court to review Richard’s case.

On February 13, 2025, I traveled to Texas’s death row at the Polunksy Unit in Livingston, Texas, to perform my last service for my client, Richard Tabler: helping him to die.

I’ve spent more than four decades working on death penalty cases, supporting people through the hardest and darkest times of their lives. Still, nothing is quite like the surreal experience of saying goodbye to someone who is perfectly healthy but preparing to die at the hands of the state.

That morning, my colleague Quinton and I arrived early at the Polunsky Unit. Richard had asked his family to say goodbye at 11 because he didn’t want them to see him led away for the last time at noon. We watched from the car as a guard escorted his family out. Then it was our turn.

Quinton had seen Richard for an hour the day before, so this was mostly my half-hour to say goodbye. Just as I would do in preparing to argue an appeal before a court, I picked the three most important things I wanted to say to Richard ahead of time. First, I conveyed love and support from various people we’d heard from. Richard always loved sending and receiving messages to and from absent people at every visit or call. Today was no different.

Second, I asked the officer to take photos of us.

Credit: Claudia Van Wyk

Last, with Richard’s consent, I recited the Litany at the Time of Death from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. He met my eyes intently and seemed moved, although those who knew Richard will find it amusing that he was also mentally checking each of the very conventional Christian petitions against his own theology, giving a little surprised nod each time. He seemed surprised, too, that I can recite the Lord’s Prayer from memory without looking at the page. I have always stayed very general with Richard and other clients about my faith—earning their trust in my common human empathy and legal skill and zeal can get complicated enough without wading into theological disputes. In any case, I think it gave him some comfort to share prayer with me. It comforted me, anyway.

Richard looked terrible, like he hadn’t slept all night, and didn’t want to eat or drink anything. But somehow he seemed almost upbeat and laughed his high-pitched laugh a few times. We had a few minutes left after I had finished my three-item agenda, but Richard asked us to leave early of our own accord rather than wait for our escort to come and make us do it. I could appreciate that sentiment. All three of us put our hands to the glass. I blew a kiss and then waved as we rounded the corner with heads high. And that was it.

An officer walked us out of the prison and all the way to our car. The officer instructed us to leave, so we set off for Huntsville prison, where the execution would take place.

We spent the afternoon at Hospitality House, a nonprofit almost across the street from the prison. It is affiliated with the Baptist church and offers free housing on weekends to family members who come to visit incarcerated people. On the day of an execution, which always happens during the week, they make their space available to family and legal team members of the condemned person while they wait for the 6 p.m. execution.

The warmth of the space stood in sharp contrast to the grim reality that had brought us there. It was full of upbeat touches: cute decals on the bathroom doors, cheery handmade quilts on the beds for the weekend family visitors, a room full of children’s toys, a hand-made rocking horse and rocking Harley-Davidson motorcycle, a small pantry stocked with canned goods like Campbell’s soup and LeSeur peas, and art by incarcerated people on the walls. At several points that afternoon, I felt overwhelmed by the incongruous contrast between the décor and the situation. At one point, the prison allowed Richard to make final calls to loved ones. We passed around the phone and said our goodbyes.

Shortly after 5 p.m., the chaplains gathered up those who would witness the execution—Richard’s family, a lawyer and a paralegal, and his spiritual adviser Jay Dan Gumm—and they left for the prison. Those of us left behind valiantly continued chatting. At 6 p.m., when we knew the execution drugs would start flowing, Quinton and I found our way to the small chapel, where I settled into a cozy rocking chair and sobbed for a bit about the cruel, ridiculous waste of capital punishment and tragedy of Richard’s life and death.

Later that night, we all gathered at a funeral home that had agreed to dress Richard in the suit his mom had brought, lend a coffin for a celebration of life, and later cremate his remains for the family. A number of community people from different Texas prison ministries who knew Richard attended. Four “Bikers for Christ,” who I think ride up from Galveston every month to visit the Polunsky Unit, sat in their embroidered biker jackets in the third row.

Jay Dan played a piece of music that he thought embodied Richard’s spirit, “Hard-Fought Grace.” That seemed about right to me. He and David, one of Richard’s lawyers, both spoke about Richard’s anguished remorse and dramatic personal growth over the years. I tried to describe in a few words how “hard fought” his legal fight was, and to express my gratitude that he liked me enough to give me nicknames: Short Stuff and My Little Friend. In a move unique in my experience of funerals, Jay Dan read a pre-written message from Richard. Mostly he voiced his spiritual hope and faith, but he also told David that from his vantage above in heaven he could see the bald spot on the top of David’s head. He thanked his mom for the warm socks he was wearing in his coffin.

We flew out of Texas the next day exhausted, grieving, and angry, but proud for Richard’s sake. First, his anguished statement of remorse carried conviction. In his final statement, he told the victims’ families, "There is not a day that goes by that I don't regret my actions. . . And if you feel that this is what you need to get you closure, I pray it helps you have that closure. I am deeply sorry.” While of course no words can ever atone for a murder or satisfy the victims’ loved ones, Richard seems to have touched at least one family member. The Associated Press published a story that included a quote from a victim family member who seemed convinced of his sincerity. I think Richard would have taken some comfort in that.

Second, in the last weeks before the execution, Richard’s team struggled with whether to challenge his ability to make a rational choice to forgo some remaining avenues of litigation. His long history of severe mental illness, which had him repeatedly changing his mind about “waiving,” made deciding what to do very hard.  Ultimately we concluded that fighting his wishes at the very end would have almost no chance of succeeding and jeopardize our ability to support his hard work of preparing to die a good death.  And, beginning with the Supreme Court’s denial of review, he remained firm to the end about what he wanted, and did die a good death.

It was an honor to support him and remains an honor to carry on the fight against the death penalty in memory of Richard and so many others.

Published October 10, 2025 at 06:25PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/lNhJT2j

ACLU: Hard-Fought Grace: Bearing Witness to Richard Tabler’s Execution

Hard-Fought Grace: Bearing Witness to Richard Tabler’s Execution

EDITORS NOTE: Claudia Van Wyk is a senior staff attorney with the ACLU Capital Punishment Project. She spent 14 years with the Capital Habeas Unit of the Federal Community Defender Office in Philadelphia, where she met Richard Tabler, who had been convicted of murder and was challenging a death sentence. At the ACLU, Claudia continued to work on Richard’s legal appeals, including a petition in October 2024 asking the Supreme Court to review Richard’s case.

On February 13, 2025, I traveled to Texas’s death row at the Polunksy Unit in Livingston, Texas, to perform my last service for my client, Richard Tabler: helping him to die.

I’ve spent more than four decades working on death penalty cases, supporting people through the hardest and darkest times of their lives. Still, nothing is quite like the surreal experience of saying goodbye to someone who is perfectly healthy but preparing to die at the hands of the state.

That morning, my colleague Quinton and I arrived early at the Polunsky Unit. Richard had asked his family to say goodbye at 11 because he didn’t want them to see him led away for the last time at noon. We watched from the car as a guard escorted his family out. Then it was our turn.

Quinton had seen Richard for an hour the day before, so this was mostly my half-hour to say goodbye. Just as I would do in preparing to argue an appeal before a court, I picked the three most important things I wanted to say to Richard ahead of time. First, I conveyed love and support from various people we’d heard from. Richard always loved sending and receiving messages to and from absent people at every visit or call. Today was no different.

Second, I asked the officer to take photos of us.

Credit: Claudia Van Wyk

Last, with Richard’s consent, I recited the Litany at the Time of Death from the Episcopal Book of Common Prayer. He met my eyes intently and seemed moved, although those who knew Richard will find it amusing that he was also mentally checking each of the very conventional Christian petitions against his own theology, giving a little surprised nod each time. He seemed surprised, too, that I can recite the Lord’s Prayer from memory without looking at the page. I have always stayed very general with Richard and other clients about my faith—earning their trust in my common human empathy and legal skill and zeal can get complicated enough without wading into theological disputes. In any case, I think it gave him some comfort to share prayer with me. It comforted me, anyway.

Richard looked terrible, like he hadn’t slept all night, and didn’t want to eat or drink anything. But somehow he seemed almost upbeat and laughed his high-pitched laugh a few times. We had a few minutes left after I had finished my three-item agenda, but Richard asked us to leave early of our own accord rather than wait for our escort to come and make us do it. I could appreciate that sentiment. All three of us put our hands to the glass. I blew a kiss and then waved as we rounded the corner with heads high. And that was it.

An officer walked us out of the prison and all the way to our car. The officer instructed us to leave, so we set off for Huntsville prison, where the execution would take place.

We spent the afternoon at Hospitality House, a nonprofit almost across the street from the prison. It is affiliated with the Baptist church and offers free housing on weekends to family members who come to visit incarcerated people. On the day of an execution, which always happens during the week, they make their space available to family and legal team members of the condemned person while they wait for the 6 p.m. execution.

The warmth of the space stood in sharp contrast to the grim reality that had brought us there. It was full of upbeat touches: cute decals on the bathroom doors, cheery handmade quilts on the beds for the weekend family visitors, a room full of children’s toys, a hand-made rocking horse and rocking Harley-Davidson motorcycle, a small pantry stocked with canned goods like Campbell’s soup and LeSeur peas, and art by incarcerated people on the walls. At several points that afternoon, I felt overwhelmed by the incongruous contrast between the décor and the situation. At one point, the prison allowed Richard to make final calls to loved ones. We passed around the phone and said our goodbyes.

Shortly after 5 p.m., the chaplains gathered up those who would witness the execution—Richard’s family, a lawyer and a paralegal, and his spiritual adviser Jay Dan Gumm—and they left for the prison. Those of us left behind valiantly continued chatting. At 6 p.m., when we knew the execution drugs would start flowing, Quinton and I found our way to the small chapel, where I settled into a cozy rocking chair and sobbed for a bit about the cruel, ridiculous waste of capital punishment and tragedy of Richard’s life and death.

Later that night, we all gathered at a funeral home that had agreed to dress Richard in the suit his mom had brought, lend a coffin for a celebration of life, and later cremate his remains for the family. A number of community people from different Texas prison ministries who knew Richard attended. Four “Bikers for Christ,” who I think ride up from Galveston every month to visit the Polunsky Unit, sat in their embroidered biker jackets in the third row.

Jay Dan played a piece of music that he thought embodied Richard’s spirit, “Hard-Fought Grace.” That seemed about right to me. He and David, one of Richard’s lawyers, both spoke about Richard’s anguished remorse and dramatic personal growth over the years. I tried to describe in a few words how “hard fought” his legal fight was, and to express my gratitude that he liked me enough to give me nicknames: Short Stuff and My Little Friend. In a move unique in my experience of funerals, Jay Dan read a pre-written message from Richard. Mostly he voiced his spiritual hope and faith, but he also told David that from his vantage above in heaven he could see the bald spot on the top of David’s head. He thanked his mom for the warm socks he was wearing in his coffin.

We flew out of Texas the next day exhausted, grieving, and angry, but proud for Richard’s sake. First, his anguished statement of remorse carried conviction. In his final statement, he told the victims’ families, "There is not a day that goes by that I don't regret my actions. . . And if you feel that this is what you need to get you closure, I pray it helps you have that closure. I am deeply sorry.” While of course no words can ever atone for a murder or satisfy the victims’ loved ones, Richard seems to have touched at least one family member. The Associated Press published a story that included a quote from a victim family member who seemed convinced of his sincerity. I think Richard would have taken some comfort in that.

Second, in the last weeks before the execution, Richard’s team struggled with whether to challenge his ability to make a rational choice to forgo some remaining avenues of litigation. His long history of severe mental illness, which had him repeatedly changing his mind about “waiving,” made deciding what to do very hard.  Ultimately we concluded that fighting his wishes at the very end would have almost no chance of succeeding and jeopardize our ability to support his hard work of preparing to die a good death.  And, beginning with the Supreme Court’s denial of review, he remained firm to the end about what he wanted, and did die a good death.

It was an honor to support him and remains an honor to carry on the fight against the death penalty in memory of Richard and so many others.

Published October 10, 2025 at 01:55PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/VxUuBDK

ACLU: Your Questions Answered: How to Push Back on Abuses of Power

Your Questions Answered: How to Push Back on Abuses of Power

In his first 10 months back in office, President Donald Trump has abused his power to attack our neighbors and communities, suppress free speech, and create a climate of fear. The president has deployed military troops and federal agents into our cities. He has threatened nonprofit organizations, universities, and political opponents who don’t conform to his dangerous agenda. He has targeted journalists, entertainers, and talk show hosts to quell criticism. These actions are designed to intimidate and silence opposition so he can expand his power by any means necessary.

With such a constant deluge of attacks on our rights —and on our communities—it can feel difficult to stay hopeful and engaged. But our history shows that when people organize, protest, and demand justice, we can disrupt abuses of power, and build collective power in response.

​​So how exactly do we show up at this moment to defend our freedoms? Below, you’ll find answers to five of the most pressing questions we’ve received about how to push back against the Trump administration’s abuses of power. This is the third in our ongoing series, “Your Questions Answered,” where we bring your questions directly to ACLU experts.

With all these attacks on our fundamental rights, where do we even start? What actions can make a real difference?

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed and wonder where to even start, but I’ve seen firsthand how powerful it is when millions take action together. The first “No Kings” mobilization proved that. From my vantage point on the core organizing team, I watched in awe as millions filled the streets in one of the largest demonstrations in modern memory. More than 2,000 events—from major cities to small towns where half the community turned out—sent one clear message: we, the people, reject abuses of power and will defend our communities. Being part of the team that helped support that day was one of the proudest moments of my life. But the real power came from everyone who marched, proudly asserted their free speech rights even in the face of intimidation, and showed that our communities are strongest when we stand together.

That’s why I’m so excited for the next “No Kings” rally on October 18. “No Kings” isn’t just another protest— it’s a bold and joyful assertion of our rights. A reminder of what we can do, and who we can be, when we defend our communities against abuses of power.

Whether you rally with your community, contact members of Congress, or display a sign in your front yard championing the principles of a free America, every action—big or small—contributes to the movement.

— Ellen Flenniken, campaign lead, Abuse of Power

Does contacting members of Congress actually work? How do we get them to pay attention to the issues we care about?

Contacting members of Congress works. I’ve seen it firsthand. I used to work in Congressional offices and was once the one helping organize in-district town halls, answering calls, and reading emails from constituents. In the offices I worked in, every message was logged and, when enough people reached out about an issue, it was noticed and noticed fast. In fact, it’s not uncommon for a point made in a constituent’s email or call to be used as part of a member’s argument for or against a policy. Many times I have seen personal stories shared by constituents end up in floor speech, mentioned in press conferences, or even featured in newsletters.

Lawmakers rely on constituent stories and perspectives, which shape the narrative and help ground policy in real impacts. There are so many ways you can reach out to your members:

• Sending an email or using a digital action tool like aclu.org/action
• Calling offices through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be connected to your representatives/senators
• Attending town halls or events
• Requesting meetings with staff

Your outreach matters and is so important—not just to inform and persuade, but also to hold elected officials accountable for the choices they make and votes they take.

—Elvia Montoya, senior advisor, Policy & Government Affairs

Beyond Congress, who should we be pressuring? Are local actions impactful? And if so, what are some ways I can get more involved in my local community?

Time and time again, it is the leadership of local and state leaders who uphold our civil rights and liberties. That’s why we have the mandate to meet this moment by standing with them and by partnering with them to pass responsive policies that protect all of our communities. It’s also why I’m so proud to be here at the ACLU, one of the few organizations designed to meet this moment, because of the incredible work of our 54 affiliates across the country. The Firewall for Freedom campaign has already led to dozens of actions being taken across this country. That includes mayors, city councils, state attorneys general, governors and state legislators. Each of us should join our affiliates in calling on officials to pass these Firewall measures to advance and protect our rights, especially in cases of federal overreach.

—Nahal Zamani, director of State Campaigns

It’s alarming to see the government censoring journalists, silencing talk show hosts, and deporting activists. How do we defend free speech when it’s under attack at every level?

The government’s actions are designed to instill fear in all of us because they know that the power of the people is stronger than the people in power. So, they want to silence us. But as we have seen again and again when we raise our voices, we create change. We have seen communities come together to speak up against the separation of families and the tearing apart of community members resulting in the release of mothers, children and students from immigration detention. We have seen how Jimmy Kimmel’s show returned to the air just hours after over 475 artists and 40,000 ACLU supporters signed a letter condemning the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel due to pressure from the administration.

I am proud to lead the ACLU’s Know Your Rights work to ensure that people know how the Constitution protects all of us regardless of immigration status. Just this year, we have empowered thousands of people with the information they need to protect themselves, their neighbors and their communities.

Sticking together works. Raising our voices works. Holding the government accountable works. This moment calls for all of us to do everything we can to protect each other, protect our democracy, and protect our rights.

—Maribel Hernández Rivera, national director of Immigrant Community Strategies

What gives the ACLU hope in this moment — hope that we can defend our neighbors, communities, and the future of democracy?

I remember hearing someone at the ACLU of Georgia say that “we’re not new to this— we’re true to this.” That really stuck with me: the fact that we’ve been here before. The ACLU has been in this fight for more than 100 years. That’s more than 100 years of resistance, resilience, and the relentless pursuit of justice. Our communities have faced attacks on civil liberties before, and we’ve never backed down. If we’ve made it this far, how can we give up now?

I draw strength from those who came before: the ancestors and organizers who dedicated their lives to move us forward. Their sacrifices remind me that this fight is not new, and it’s not any one person’s burden to bear alone. On our organizing team, we’re grounded in the truth that it takes all of us. Thousands of us are in this struggle, standing shoulder to shoulder and refusing to be silenced.

As the child of immigrants, I carry a profound belief in hope—the same hope that led my parents to this country, dreaming of a better life for their children. To give up now would betray that belief. So I won't. That’s what gives me hope: our history, our people, and the power of refusing to give up.

—Attiya Latif, senior digital organizer

Published October 10, 2025 at 01:46AM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/kzevK3X

ACLU: Your Questions Answered: How to Push Back on Abuses of Power

Your Questions Answered: How to Push Back on Abuses of Power

In his first 10 months back in office, President Donald Trump has abused his power to attack our neighbors and communities, suppress free speech, and create a climate of fear. The president has deployed military troops and federal agents into our cities. He has threatened nonprofit organizations, universities, and political opponents who don’t conform to his dangerous agenda. He has targeted journalists, entertainers, and talk show hosts to quell criticism. These actions are designed to intimidate and silence opposition so he can expand his power by any means necessary.

With such a constant deluge of attacks on our rights —and on our communities—it can feel difficult to stay hopeful and engaged. But our history shows that when people organize, protest, and demand justice, we can disrupt abuses of power, and build collective power in response.

​​So how exactly do we show up at this moment to defend our freedoms? Below, you’ll find answers to five of the most pressing questions we’ve received about how to push back against the Trump administration’s abuses of power. This is the third in our ongoing series, “Your Questions Answered,” where we bring your questions directly to ACLU experts.

With all these attacks on our fundamental rights, where do we even start? What actions can make a real difference?

It’s easy to feel overwhelmed and wonder where to even start, but I’ve seen firsthand how powerful it is when millions take action together. The first “No Kings” mobilization proved that. From my vantage point on the core organizing team, I watched in awe as millions filled the streets in one of the largest demonstrations in modern memory. More than 2,000 events—from major cities to small towns where half the community turned out—sent one clear message: we, the people, reject abuses of power and will defend our communities. Being part of the team that helped support that day was one of the proudest moments of my life. But the real power came from everyone who marched, proudly asserted their free speech rights even in the face of intimidation, and showed that our communities are strongest when we stand together.

That’s why I’m so excited for the next “No Kings” rally on October 18. “No Kings” isn’t just another protest— it’s a bold and joyful assertion of our rights. A reminder of what we can do, and who we can be, when we defend our communities against abuses of power.

Whether you rally with your community, contact members of Congress, or display a sign in your front yard championing the principles of a free America, every action—big or small—contributes to the movement.

— Ellen Flenniken, campaign lead, Abuse of Power

Does contacting members of Congress actually work? How do we get them to pay attention to the issues we care about?

Contacting members of Congress works. I’ve seen it firsthand. I used to work in Congressional offices and was once the one helping organize in-district town halls, answering calls, and reading emails from constituents. In the offices I worked in, every message was logged and, when enough people reached out about an issue, it was noticed and noticed fast. In fact, it’s not uncommon for a point made in a constituent’s email or call to be used as part of a member’s argument for or against a policy. Many times I have seen personal stories shared by constituents end up in floor speech, mentioned in press conferences, or even featured in newsletters.

Lawmakers rely on constituent stories and perspectives, which shape the narrative and help ground policy in real impacts. There are so many ways you can reach out to your members:

• Sending an email or using a digital action tool like aclu.org/action
• Calling offices through the Capitol switchboard at (202) 224-3121 to be connected to your representatives/senators
• Attending town halls or events
• Requesting meetings with staff

Your outreach matters and is so important—not just to inform and persuade, but also to hold elected officials accountable for the choices they make and votes they take.

—Elvia Montoya, senior advisor, Policy & Government Affairs

Beyond Congress, who should we be pressuring? Are local actions impactful? And if so, what are some ways I can get more involved in my local community?

Time and time again, it is the leadership of local and state leaders who uphold our civil rights and liberties. That’s why we have the mandate to meet this moment by standing with them and by partnering with them to pass responsive policies that protect all of our communities. It’s also why I’m so proud to be here at the ACLU, one of the few organizations designed to meet this moment, because of the incredible work of our 54 affiliates across the country. The Firewall for Freedom campaign has already led to dozens of actions being taken across this country. That includes mayors, city councils, state attorneys general, governors and state legislators. Each of us should join our affiliates in calling on officials to pass these Firewall measures to advance and protect our rights, especially in cases of federal overreach.

—Nahal Zamani, director of State Campaigns

It’s alarming to see the government censoring journalists, silencing talk show hosts, and deporting activists. How do we defend free speech when it’s under attack at every level?

The government’s actions are designed to instill fear in all of us because they know that the power of the people is stronger than the people in power. So, they want to silence us. But as we have seen again and again when we raise our voices, we create change. We have seen communities come together to speak up against the separation of families and the tearing apart of community members resulting in the release of mothers, children and students from immigration detention. We have seen how Jimmy Kimmel’s show returned to the air just hours after over 475 artists and 40,000 ACLU supporters signed a letter condemning the suspension of Jimmy Kimmel due to pressure from the administration.

I am proud to lead the ACLU’s Know Your Rights work to ensure that people know how the Constitution protects all of us regardless of immigration status. Just this year, we have empowered thousands of people with the information they need to protect themselves, their neighbors and their communities.

Sticking together works. Raising our voices works. Holding the government accountable works. This moment calls for all of us to do everything we can to protect each other, protect our democracy, and protect our rights.

—Maribel Hernández Rivera, national director of Immigrant Community Strategies

What gives the ACLU hope in this moment — hope that we can defend our neighbors, communities, and the future of democracy?

I remember hearing someone at the ACLU of Georgia say that “we’re not new to this— we’re true to this.” That really stuck with me: the fact that we’ve been here before. The ACLU has been in this fight for more than 100 years. That’s more than 100 years of resistance, resilience, and the relentless pursuit of justice. Our communities have faced attacks on civil liberties before, and we’ve never backed down. If we’ve made it this far, how can we give up now?

I draw strength from those who came before: the ancestors and organizers who dedicated their lives to move us forward. Their sacrifices remind me that this fight is not new, and it’s not any one person’s burden to bear alone. On our organizing team, we’re grounded in the truth that it takes all of us. Thousands of us are in this struggle, standing shoulder to shoulder and refusing to be silenced.

As the child of immigrants, I carry a profound belief in hope—the same hope that led my parents to this country, dreaming of a better life for their children. To give up now would betray that belief. So I won't. That’s what gives me hope: our history, our people, and the power of refusing to give up.

—Attiya Latif, senior digital organizer

Published October 9, 2025 at 09:16PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/rDcVIpt

ACLU: Pete Hegseth Wants Women Out of the Military—and He's Not Hiding It

Pete Hegseth Wants Women Out of the Military—and He's Not Hiding It

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made headlines when he summoned hundreds of senior military leaders to a military base in Quantico, Virginia and made troubling comments about equity in the military. President Donald Trump’s address to the generals was also alarming, calling for troops to be deployed in U.S. cities as “training grounds” and to fight the “enemy within.” The ACLU has denounced such deployments as an unlawful abuse of power.

Hegseth’s remarks focused on stated plans to weaken servicemembers’ ability to lodge complaints about assault, bias, harassment, and other wrongdoing. He also spoke of a new policy prohibiting beards, despite federal courts upholding servicemembers’ right to wear facial hair for religious reasons, and the medical fact that many Black men need to forgo shaving because they are predisposed to develop a painful skin condition.

Among Hegseth’s pronouncements was that “each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat [military occupational specialty], for every designated combat arms position, returns to the highest male standard only, because this job is life or death, standards must be met, and not just met — at every level, we should seek to exceed the standard, to push the envelope, to compete.” Hegseth added, “If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.”

Hegseth’s directive has puzzled military observers, because all combat occupational specialties already impose gender-neutral physical requirements. That has been the case since the early 1990s, when some branches—notably the Navy—first began accepting women into certain combat roles. That means that the thousands of women now serving in artillery, infantry, armor, and combat engineer jobs, and the women who have entered special operations forces like Army Rangers and Green Berets—comprising 12 percent of those troops—are meeting the same standards as their male colleagues. Hegseth appeared to be conflating the rigorous, occupation-specific neutral standards with the overall branch-specific physical fitness tests that all servicemembers also must pass, which are less demanding and gender-normed.

Regardless of whether Hegseth’s misrepresentation of the current physical demands on women in combat was intentional or the product of ignorance, his purpose is unmistakable: smear women as unqualified while imposing physical fitness standards that he believes they cannot meet.

Hegseth has made no secret of his belief that women don’t belong in combat, though he walked back that message during his confirmation hearings. But his actions as defense secretary betray hostility to all servicewomen. He spent his first months in office firing numerous senior women leaders—purges that have been matched by his dismissals of Black senior officers and other leaders of color—and axing the Women, Peace and Security Program initiated during President Donald Trump’s first term.

The week before Hegseth’s Quantico appearance, his campaign to erase women in the military took an especially conspicuous, and troubling, turn when he eliminated the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. DACOWITS has been providing guidance to the secretary of defense for more than 70 years. Created in 1951 by then-Secretary of Defense General George Marshall, DACOWITS initially was charged with helping boost women’s military recruitment following the 1948 enactment of Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. Although women had been serving in the military since the Revolutionary War, the statute allowed women to be permanent members of all service branches’ peacetime forces (albeit with caps on their numbers and restrictions on their ability to serve in combat).

In a statement defending DACOWITS’s elimination, a Pentagon spokesperson characterized the committee as furthering a “divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness.” Not surprisingly, such rhetoric is belied by DACOWITS’s actual record. A non-partisan group composed of men and women, DACOWITS developed its recommendations by conducting annual visits to military installations and interviewing servicemembers of all genders. As women’s participation in the military has grown—women make up roughly 18 percent of all servicemembers—the issues on which DACOWITS provided guidance also multiplied. The committee has consulted on everything from women’s training opportunities and career advancement, to their need for family support like parental leave and childcare, to their distinct health care concerns like pregnancy. Workplace abuse, sexual harassment, and assault also have been a consistent concern.

As women began serving in combat roles—all restrictions on which were lifted in 2015, after the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit a lawsuit challenging them—DACOWITS has made recommendations to facilitate women’s integration, such as securing properly-fitting body armor, boots, and uniforms, proposing strategies for addressing gender bias, and, yes, assuring that women can meet applicable physical fitness standards.

Over the course of its history, spanning Republican as well as Democratic administrations, DACOWITS has made more than 1,000 recommendations to the Department of Defense. Ninety-eight percent of these efforts have been implemented in full or in part.

Given that women in combat jobs already must satisfy stringent gender-neutral physical requirements, Hegseth’s muddled new directive about fitness standards likely won’t dramatically reduce women’s numbers in those roles. Eliminating DACOWITS, however, does deliberate, incalculable harm to all servicewomen’s ability to thrive in their careers, and does risk driving women out of the military—as well as deterring others from enlisting altogether.

For a secretary of defense fixated on promoting the “lethality” of U.S. forces, scrapping a venerable advisory body relied upon by the Pentagon for decades to maximize our troops’ readiness does nothing to promote our national security—and everything to advance Hegseth’s personal extreme views about women’s right to serve their country.

Published October 8, 2025 at 10:19PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/m2CEp4l

ACLU: Pete Hegseth Wants Women Out of the Military—and He's Not Hiding It

Pete Hegseth Wants Women Out of the Military—and He's Not Hiding It

Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth made headlines when he summoned hundreds of senior military leaders to a military base in Quantico, Virginia and made troubling comments about equity in the military. President Donald Trump’s address to the generals was also alarming, calling for troops to be deployed in U.S. cities as “training grounds” and to fight the “enemy within.” The ACLU has denounced such deployments as an unlawful abuse of power.

Hegseth’s remarks focused on stated plans to weaken servicemembers’ ability to lodge complaints about assault, bias, harassment, and other wrongdoing. He also spoke of a new policy prohibiting beards, despite federal courts upholding servicemembers’ right to wear facial hair for religious reasons, and the medical fact that many Black men need to forgo shaving because they are predisposed to develop a painful skin condition.

Among Hegseth’s pronouncements was that “each service will ensure that every requirement for every combat [military occupational specialty], for every designated combat arms position, returns to the highest male standard only, because this job is life or death, standards must be met, and not just met — at every level, we should seek to exceed the standard, to push the envelope, to compete.” Hegseth added, “If women can make it, excellent. If not, it is what it is.”

Hegseth’s directive has puzzled military observers, because all combat occupational specialties already impose gender-neutral physical requirements. That has been the case since the early 1990s, when some branches—notably the Navy—first began accepting women into certain combat roles. That means that the thousands of women now serving in artillery, infantry, armor, and combat engineer jobs, and the women who have entered special operations forces like Army Rangers and Green Berets—comprising 12 percent of those troops—are meeting the same standards as their male colleagues. Hegseth appeared to be conflating the rigorous, occupation-specific neutral standards with the overall branch-specific physical fitness tests that all servicemembers also must pass, which are less demanding and gender-normed.

Regardless of whether Hegseth’s misrepresentation of the current physical demands on women in combat was intentional or the product of ignorance, his purpose is unmistakable: smear women as unqualified while imposing physical fitness standards that he believes they cannot meet.

Hegseth has made no secret of his belief that women don’t belong in combat, though he walked back that message during his confirmation hearings. But his actions as defense secretary betray hostility to all servicewomen. He spent his first months in office firing numerous senior women leaders—purges that have been matched by his dismissals of Black senior officers and other leaders of color—and axing the Women, Peace and Security Program initiated during President Donald Trump’s first term.

The week before Hegseth’s Quantico appearance, his campaign to erase women in the military took an especially conspicuous, and troubling, turn when he eliminated the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services. DACOWITS has been providing guidance to the secretary of defense for more than 70 years. Created in 1951 by then-Secretary of Defense General George Marshall, DACOWITS initially was charged with helping boost women’s military recruitment following the 1948 enactment of Women’s Armed Services Integration Act. Although women had been serving in the military since the Revolutionary War, the statute allowed women to be permanent members of all service branches’ peacetime forces (albeit with caps on their numbers and restrictions on their ability to serve in combat).

In a statement defending DACOWITS’s elimination, a Pentagon spokesperson characterized the committee as furthering a “divisive feminist agenda that hurts combat readiness.” Not surprisingly, such rhetoric is belied by DACOWITS’s actual record. A non-partisan group composed of men and women, DACOWITS developed its recommendations by conducting annual visits to military installations and interviewing servicemembers of all genders. As women’s participation in the military has grown—women make up roughly 18 percent of all servicemembers—the issues on which DACOWITS provided guidance also multiplied. The committee has consulted on everything from women’s training opportunities and career advancement, to their need for family support like parental leave and childcare, to their distinct health care concerns like pregnancy. Workplace abuse, sexual harassment, and assault also have been a consistent concern.

As women began serving in combat roles—all restrictions on which were lifted in 2015, after the ACLU Women’s Rights Project and ACLU of Northern California filed a lawsuit a lawsuit challenging them—DACOWITS has made recommendations to facilitate women’s integration, such as securing properly-fitting body armor, boots, and uniforms, proposing strategies for addressing gender bias, and, yes, assuring that women can meet applicable physical fitness standards.

Over the course of its history, spanning Republican as well as Democratic administrations, DACOWITS has made more than 1,000 recommendations to the Department of Defense. Ninety-eight percent of these efforts have been implemented in full or in part.

Given that women in combat jobs already must satisfy stringent gender-neutral physical requirements, Hegseth’s muddled new directive about fitness standards likely won’t dramatically reduce women’s numbers in those roles. Eliminating DACOWITS, however, does deliberate, incalculable harm to all servicewomen’s ability to thrive in their careers, and does risk driving women out of the military—as well as deterring others from enlisting altogether.

For a secretary of defense fixated on promoting the “lethality” of U.S. forces, scrapping a venerable advisory body relied upon by the Pentagon for decades to maximize our troops’ readiness does nothing to promote our national security—and everything to advance Hegseth’s personal extreme views about women’s right to serve their country.

Published October 8, 2025 at 05:49PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/qUWDJNy

ACLU: Trump Is Weaponizing the USCIS for the First Time in the Agency’s History

Trump Is Weaponizing the USCIS for the First Time in the Agency’s History

In an effort to weaponize an agency that provides pathways to legal immigration, the Trump administration is arming the United States Citizenship Immigration Services (USCIS) for the first time since the agency was created.

Under new regulations published in September, USCIS special agents will be allowed to make arrests, carry firearms, and execute search and arrest warrants. This is the latest effort in Donald Trump’s agenda to systematically restrict legal immigration and strip people of their legal status. The administration’s goal is to redeploy as many parts of the federal government as possible to serve a mass deportation system that will detain and remove as many people as possible.

USCIS is Not an Immigration Enforcement Agency

USCIS is a federal agency that oversees lawful immigration. It decides whether to grant immigration applications and petitions, including applications for green cards, work authorization, asylum, citizenship, and more.

Before USCIS was created, one agency was responsible for most aspects of U.S. immigration law, including carrying out immigration enforcement and deciding immigration benefits. When Congress passed the Homeland Security Act of 2002, it separated these duties into three separate agencies: USCIS was created to focus exclusively on deciding immigration benefits, while U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) were charged with law enforcement duties. Congress deliberately separated these functions to allow USCIS to more efficiently and effectively adjudicate immigration benefits, stating that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) could not recombine these functions in one agency.

Keeping USCIS separate from ICE and CBP also helped to ensure that people felt comfortable coming forward and applying for immigration benefits. By blurring these lines, the Trump administration is hoping to make it harder and more intimidating for people to apply for and obtain benefits that they are eligible for under U.S. law. This move will also redirect USCIS resources away from deciding whether to grant immigration benefits, and towards supporting ICE. Applications and petitions will languish and processing times will increase. All of this is by design—this administration intentionally keeps immigrants in more vulnerable immigration statuses to limit their rights and make it easier to deport them.

Trump Weaponizes Federal Agencies for Mass Deportations

The Trump administration is using this new rule to bypass Congress and turn USCIS into another arm of ICE. It goes hand-in-hand with other recently announced USCIS policies that seek to restrict access to immigration benefits and undermine legal immigration. For example, USCIS has announced several new policies that, if implemented, will make it harder for qualified immigrants to access citizenship and may stall naturalizations on a large scale. The agency has also instituted hurdles for naturalized citizens seeking to register to vote. Under another new policy, USCIS will deny benefits to people it decides may support “anti-American” ideologies or activities.

Trump’s Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller has weaponized agency after agency to carry out his mass deportation agenda. For example, the Department of Justice stated it would prioritize stripping citizenship from naturalized Americans. The administration has co-opted the military: Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has deployed members of the military and used Department of Defense resources for immigration enforcement. ICE has aggressively recruited local police and sheriffs, convincing over one thousand department leaders to forgo local safety priorities and become an arm of its deportation machine. DHS has even deputized Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officers to help immigration enforcement, and attempted to force the IRS as well as Medicare and Medicaid to share information with DHS for immigration enforcement purposes.

USCIS Policy Changes Undermines Citizenship and Silences Immigrants

Turning USCIS into an enforcement agency is another blatant attempt to stigmatize and harm people who are immigrants—including long-time residents who are American in every way, but on paper. USCIS’s recent policy changes undermine the very bedrock of our democracy by keeping people from seeking legal status and citizenship. If immigrants cannot access citizenship and other immigration benefits, we risk having an underclass of people subject to the whims of this administration’s loyalty tests and able to be exploited. Just look at Miller’s plans to deprive noncitizen children of education and deny citizenship to American-born children.

The Trump administration is erasing our history as a nation of immigrants and attempting to rewrite what it means to be an American by intimidating immigrants, pushing them into the shadows, and silencing dissenters.

These attacks are a reminder that our undocumented neighbors and loved ones deserve a path to citizenship. They are raising families, paying taxes, and working to make our nation thrive. They should not have to live in fear of deportation.

Published October 7, 2025 at 08:57PM
via ACLU https://ift.tt/m4KLjhW