Thursday, June 18, 2026. Chump goes deranged as his 'deal' is called out and mocked, Todd Blanche is the man with something to hide, most Americans see Chump as "a dangerous dictator," and much more.
Ben (MEIDASTOUCH NEWS) charts Chump's early morning dementia.
A
majority of Americans view President Donald Trump as a “dangerous
dictator” whose power should be constrained, according to a poll that
found a notable increase in that sentiment since March.
[. . .]
A
new Public Religion Research Institute (PRRI) poll of 5,469 adults
living across all 50 states found that 59 percent believe that Trump “is
a dangerous dictator whose power should be limited before he destroys
American democracy.”
Support for that view has
increased since March, when 52 percent of Americans agreed with the
statement. It also exceeds the 56 percent recorded in September 2025, when a majority of respondents similarly described Trump as a “dangerous dictator,” according to PRRI.
The
poll, which was conducted between May 1 and 18, has a margin of error
of plus or minus 1.53 percentage points. While the poll was being
conducted, headlines around the Trump administration included foreign
policy and the war with Iran, trade and tariff escalations with Europe,
and gas prices rising due to troubles in the Strait of Hormuz.
Dictator? Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan (NEW YORK TIMES) reported on
the Situation Room meetings of Todd Blanche, Pam Bondi, Susie Wiles, JD
Vance and other members of the administration to plot on how to deceive
the American people about Epstein and specifically Chump's closeness to
Epstein while also detailing the administration's discussions about implementing the Insurrectionist Act and suspending habeas corpus. The last two are why Democrats on the House Oversight Committee issued the following yesterday:
Washington, D.C. — Today, Rep. Robert Garcia, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, demanded
answers from White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles after recent
reporting revealed Deputy White House Chief of Staff Stephen Miller
pushed to suspend habeas corpus rights and Vice President J.D. Vance
pushed to invoke the Insurrection Act to suppress peaceful protests in
Minneapolis, Minnesota. Habeas corpus is a fundamental aspect of due
process, allowing people in the United States to contest the basis of
their detention.
“Donald Trump has worked to defy and undermine the Constitution to
push his bigoted mass deportation campaign. New reporting shows that top
White House officials openly planned to deny core constitutional
rights, and the Vice President’s support to use the military against
peaceful protests. Oversight Democrats will fully investigate this
outrageous attack on the Constitution and the rule of law. All those
responsible should be held accountable,” said Ranking Member Robert
Garcia.
In the letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, Ranking
Member Garcia wrote, “Oversight Democrats are investigating the
systematic violations of the Constitution by the Trump Administration
through its mass deportation campaign. The Administration’s willingness
to use violence against civilians, lack of oversight for violations of
civil rights, and violations of court orders are widely documented. New
reporting revealed that the Administration considered far more egregious
violations of the constitution, and that senior White House staff,
including Vice President J.D. Vance and Stephen Miller, advocated for
the illegal suspension of fundamental civil liberties as the
Administration considered suspending habeas corpus rights and invoking
the Insurrection Act to suppress peaceful protests in Minneapolis. In
light of this disclosure, we demand that you immediately provide records
and documents which outline a draft plan by senior members of the
Administration to effectively subvert the Constitution on a massive
scale.”
###
As Ruth noted "We still have not seen the
'deal,' 'cease-fire,' or 'memo of understanding.' Whatever you call it,
Convicted Felon Donald Chump continues to keep it under wraps." -- whatever it is, it's still unknown. But based upon Chump's incessant remarks and the sketch that's been discussed, people are forming opinions.
Toward
the end of the Obama administration’s negotiations over its Iran
nuclear deal in 2015, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump chimed in
with some advice from his book, “The Art of the Deal.”
“Message to Obama re: Iran: ‘The worst thing you can possibly do in a deal is seem desperate to make it,’” he posted on Twitter.
Trump and his administration are now committing this cardinal sin in their efforts to obtain their own nuclear deal with Iran.
In fact, it looks a lot like they’re giving up on even claiming their memorandum of understanding
(MOU) with Iran is a favorable document to the US. The Trump
administration is making it abundantly clear they just want out of this
war.
Trump’s overriding desire to extract himself
has been clear for a long time; he has repeatedly pulled back on his
threats, downplayed Iranian provocations and resisted a return to
large-scale hostilities.
But over the last 24 hours, this attitude has moved from the subtext to the text.
The administration has repeatedly suggested that its handling of the MOU is about catering to Iran.
Perhaps most striking were comments the administration made without attribution.
“The
consensus of the team was we want to get this thing over with, and the
deal is the way to do it in a way that maximizes our upside and
minimizes our downside,” an administration official directly involved in
the talks told CNN’s Alayna Treene.
If
you’d like to know how Donald Trump’s closing speech at the G7 went,
it’s probably best to start at the part where he asked Scott Bessent
whether the stock market was smarter than his Treasury secretary.
“No,
sir,” Bessent dutifully replied. He was disagreeing with a notion Trump
had just posited, but it was clear from his tone of voice that he
didn’t mean to disagree. He was simply trying to make real-time sense of
what his boss had just said, which happened to be the semi-coherent and
utterly baffling: “The stock market is more brilliant than anybody
there is, including people on this stage, apart from me. What do you
think, Scott, is the stock market more brilliant than you?”
Yeganeh Torbati (NEW YORK TIMES) states, "The agreement
lifts the U.S.-imposed naval blockade of Iranian ports and, most
crucially, grants Iran waivers to begin exporting its oil even before
the negotiation of a final agreement on its nuclear program. That will
give Iran a critical economic lifeline. In recent years, its economy has
been in a tailspin, with a collapsing currency and sky-high inflation." The paper's David E. Sanger reminds:
It was less than 15 weeks ago when
President Trump, at the height of his bravado about how the war with
Iran would end, declared “there will be no deal with Iran except
UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER.”
When the text of the deal
intended to wind down the conflict was finally released on Wednesday,
read aloud paragraph by paragraph by a senior administration official
who stopped to defend each section, it read nothing like a surrender
document. Instead, the Iranians emerged from a confrontation with the
world’s most powerful military having not only survived, but with much
to celebrate.
It starts with the
resumption of Tehran’s ability to reap billions of dollars in oil sales,
lifting pressure on the struggling regime even as negotiators prepare
to begin haggling over a far more lengthy and critical document: the one
Mr. Trump insisted in an interview on Sunday will arrest Iran’s nuclear
program for the next 15 or 20 years.
For
a president who prizes leverage above all else, that decision is just
another mystery of the war. But the wording of the “Memorandum of
Understanding” also suggests that, over time, Iran may negotiate some
permanent way to exercise sovereignty over the Strait of Hormuz. That
seems in contradiction to Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s declarations
just a few weeks ago that anything other than the kind of free passage
through the strait that the world knew before the war was “not
acceptable” and “cannot happen.”
Republican
Sen. Bill Cassidy (La.) on Wednesday slammed the deal between the Trump
administration and Iran, two days before the two sides are set to sign
it.
“The details that I’ve seen so far look …
awful. This will go down as a tremendous foreign policy blunder,”
Cassidy told Nexstar’s Reshad Hudson on Capitol Hill.
Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA) is not mincing words when it comes to President Donald Trump’s newly-announced deal with Iran.
“Worst foreign policy blunder in decades,” Cassidy said.
In
a post to X on Wednesday, the exiting Louisiana senator — who was
defeated in a primary race in May, after President Trump endorsed one of
his opponents — sounded off on the deal, which he believes is a massive
win for Iran.
“Reagan is rolling over in his
grave,” Cassidy wrote. “Iran’s nuclear ambitions were not curbed, and
they have learned that threatening the Strait of Hormuz works and will
undoubtedly leverage it in the future. Now, Iran gets to build brand-new
infrastructure under this deal.”
He added,
“Before the war, the strait was open, Iran was being crushed by
sanctions, and 13 service members were still alive. Now, 13 Americans
are dead, families have paid billions at the pump, sanctions will be
lifted, and the bombing has stopped. This is the worst foreign policy
blunder in decades.”
President Trump’s agreement with Iran
opened new fissures in his party on Wednesday, with Republicans on
Capitol Hill and beyond questioning whether his administration had
secured adequate concessions from Iranian leaders after months of a
costly and unpopular war.
After the Trump administration released the text
of the arrangement on Wednesday, some Senate Republicans reacted with
fierce criticism, skepticism and alarm. Prominent members of the
G.O.P.’s old guard from outside Congress also sounded dubious notes. And
even some of the president’s allies in the conservative news media
voiced concern.
[. .]
The reactions underscore a challenge Mr. Trump faces five months ahead
of the midterm elections, as he works to free Republicans from the
political albatross of the war while navigating varying views about it
within his own party. While Mr. Trump has won praise for the deal from
some Republican allies, consolidating support in a party with competing
factions is proving to be a difficult task.
Retired
four-star Army Gen. Jack Keane on Wednesday said the tentative deal
between the U.S. and Iran is a “long way from accomplishing” President
Trump’s objectives in the Middle Eastern country.
Keane
told hosts John Catsimatidis and Rita Cosby on the “Cats and Cosby
Show” on WABC 770 AM that his “gut reaction” to the deal was “more about
what’s not in there than what’s in it,” referring to a lack of
restrictions on Iran’s missile capabilities and inspections of its
nuclear facilities.
“There's
concerns that [Israel Prime Minister] Bibi Netanyahu is going to try to
blow up this deal because it's so bad for Israel in the long term,”
Rohde explained before adding a curt, “It is.”
“I
was really expecting a little more meat on the bone,” he said. “We’re a
long way from accomplishing the objectives that the president wants to
accomplish here with the Iranians. … We’re at the beginning of a process
that’s going to take some time here for sure.”
Keane,
who served a stint as acting Army chief of staff in 1993, noted that
Iranian officials will look at the U.S. response to the deal as
“something of a victory for themselves because the war is not
continuing.”
“They got a ceasefire,” he told
Catsimatidis and Cosby. “Now they’re moving towards a final agreement.
And they’re going to delay that as much as possible, believing that the
closer we get to the midterms, the less likely the president will return
with military operations.”
He
has been all over the airwaves in the past few days trying to sell the
Iran deal that President Trump announced Sunday afternoon. In addition
to The View, he showed up on Megyn Kelly’s show. Kelly is a leading
conservative voice who has been sharply critical of the Iran war. Vance
calmly and persistently pushed back on hawkish conservative critics who
allege the White House is being duped by Iran.
“They
are proposing an endless conflict,” Vance said of the critics. “They
want this to go on until every bomb has been dropped or until every
Iranian is dead. That’s not what the President of the United States
wants.”
One challenge for Vance: No one has
seen the fine print on the deal, leading to screams from conservatives
that perhaps Trump has been duped (The WSJ reported Tuesday
that a draft of the deal would allow Iran to sell oil, and Iranian
tankers have already been permitted to depart through the U.S.
blockade).
Donald Trump pitted JD Vance against Marco Rubio during a private dinner, asking Rupert Murdoch to compare the 2028 Republican contenders while they sat at the same table.
The awkward exchange was detailed in an excerpt from Regime Change by Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, obtained by Axios.
The book about Trump’s second term, set for publication on June 23,
offers a glimpse into the 80-year-old president’s habit of holding
impromptu popularity contests among his allies.
Trump has long positioned
his vice president, 41, and secretary of state, 55, as potential rivals
in the 2028 presidential race. While he has not publicly endorsed
either, he has asked friends and advisers to compare the two.
According
to Haberman and Swan, Trump hosted Murdoch, Vance, Rubio, and several
White House aides at a private dinner on Oct. 16, 2025. During the
gathering, Trump turned to the 95-year-old conservative media mogul and
asked him to assess the two men widely viewed as leading candidates for
the 2028 Republican presidential nomination.
The president asked Murdoch whom he preferred, Vance or Rubio, while adding that he thinks “they’re both great.”
“What do you think of JD?” Trump asked.
Murdoch replied: “Well... I think JD has the potential to be great.”
“And what do you think of Marco?” Trump asked.
Murdoch answered immediately: “Marco is brilliant.”
“With
Vance and Rubio sitting awkwardly at the table, Murdoch was notably
more effusive about Rubio,” Haberman and Swan wrote, according to the
excerpt obtained by Axios.
President Donald Trump is trying to "get creative to avoid embarrassment" after one of his much-prized endorsements went down in flames in a key swing state, per a new analysis from MS NOW.
Trump built up a notable win-streak of 2026 midterm endorsements in recent weeks, costing numerous state and federal lawmakers their reelection bids in retaliation for standing up to him. However, as the weeks have gone by, his endorsements have proven to be far from bulletproof, most recently when the Trump-backed Georgia Lt. Gov. Burt Jones lost his gubernatorial bid to businessman and healthcare executive Rick Jackson, sending him into the general election to face Democrat Keisha Lance Bottoms in the crucial battleground state.
Despite Trump's endorsement, Jones ended up five points behind Jackson when all was said and done.
Two weeks ago, in Iowa’s gubernatorial race, Trump threw his support behind Rep. Randy Feenstra, who narrowly lost his Republican primary to Zach Lahn. This week, it happened again. MS NOW reported:
Healthcare executive Rick Jackson clinched the Republican gubernatorial nomination on Tuesday, pulling off a win over Lt. Gov. Burt Jones and securing a spot in the November election against Democratic nominee Keisha Lance Bottoms. […]
Jackson, a businessman who entered politics as an outsider candidate, sought to position himself as an alternative to career politicians.
Trump endorsed Jones, the incumbent lieutenant governor, who ended up losing his primary bid by roughly 5 points.
Yes, sir? No, sir? What, sir? It was clear at that point, just a couple of minutes in, that nobody — including his own team, or perhaps especially his own team — had any idea what Trump was talking about.
This was probably the most alarming Trump appearance to date. He was breathless and incoherent, ill-seeming and off-piste. He spent 32 minutes justifying his deal with Iran to the world before mentioning a single discussion that had taken place among the G7 countries at the summit, and the justifications spoke for themselves.
"This wasn't a three-month deal," he declared. "This was years in the making. You know why? Because I was the one who killed General Soleimani."
Soleimani, who has been dead since 2020, enjoyed repeated cameos throughout the proceedings. Trump called him "a mad genius" and "the boss of Iran," returning to him again and again like an aging musician who keeps bringing audiences back to his biggest hit because the new material isn't getting much applause. The implication, of course, was that Soleimani represented a job well done to Trump himself. This deal? Not so much.
Turning to Toad Blanche, acting Attorney General. Chump has nominated him to be the next Attorney General. Thomas Kika reports Toad is facing some harsh winds:
President
Donald Trump is keen to get his newest judicial attack dog properly
installed at the top of the Justice Department, but according to a new report from The Hill, he has run into a serious wall of Republican "skepticism" in Congress.
Todd Blanche, who previously served as Trump's personal attorney, was promoted to acting Attorney General following the departure of Pam Bondi.
Since then, he has wasted little time attempting to rack up "wins" in
order to endear himself further to the president and audition for the
proper AG job. It seems to have worked out for him, as Trump nominated
him for the position earlier this month.
However,
he now faces considerable pushback from Republicans in the Senate who
will have to confirm his appointment, The Hill reported on Wednesday,
much of it stemming from his involvement in the settlement of Trump's IRS lawsuit.
"Acting
Attorney General Todd Blanche is headed for a rocky Senate confirmation
process to take on the role permanently as several Republican senators
raise concerns about his credibility and independence from President
Trump," The Hill reported. "Blanche faced withering criticism from
Senate Republicans during a private meeting last month at which more
than 20 GOP lawmakers vented their frustrations with the administration
and panned the proposal he rolled out to establish a $1.8 billion 'anti-weaponization' fund."
It continued: "Blanche on Tuesday assured GOP senators in at least two private meetings that the fund is dead
and he won’t support it if Trump tries to revive the idea in the
future. But he still faces skepticism over the fund and other issues,
including an agreement that Trump reached with his administration to
shield himself and his family from IRS audits of past tax returns."
Hanging
over Blanche’s confirmation hearings are damaging new revelations about
the Justice Department’s handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case. No
senator will be able to cast a vote for him without either embracing or
forgiving his cynical politicization of the Epstein matter.
,
Maggie Haberman and Jonathan Swan, in new reporting
for the New York Times excerpted from their forthcoming book, Regime
Change: Inside the Imperial Presidency of Donald Trump, offer
astonishing insights into the dishonesty and incompetency of the leaders
overseeing the bungled Epstein response. And Blanche stands
inextricably at the center of it all.
,
Most
fundamentally, Haberman and Swan expose that Blanche and Justice
Department leadership handled the Epstein case as a matter of politics,
not prosecution. Their reporting flatly discredits Blanche’s
self-congratulatory refrain that, under his watch, the Justice
Department stands above and beyond political concerns. At his
confirmation hearing for the deputy-AG position, for example, Blanche
declared, “Politics would play no role in my decisions as deputy
attorney general.” And when asked in December 2025 if political
motivations influenced redactions from the Epstein files, he fired back,
“Absolutely, positively not.”
Turns out, that was bulls[**]t.
,
In
fact, Haberman and Swan report in detail how key decisions around the
Epstein files were made by Blanche and other DoJ leaders who worked
intensively with (and at times took direction from) top White House
officials. Unsurprisingly for a Justice Department that now hangs on its
headquarters a massive banner of Donald Trump’s glowering face, the
DoJ’s priority was not to pursue criminals, to protect victims, or to
inform the public but to minimize political damage to the president and
his administration.
,
The
panic level around the unfolding public-relations crisis was so intense
that Blanche reportedly met with White House brass in the Situation
Room — the same ultrasecure facility used during national-security
crucibles from the Cuban Missile Crisis to 9/11 to COVID. The
decision-making that came out of those meetings was questionable at
best. At times, Blanche vouched for desperate measures intended to
mitigate individual brushfires, only to accelerate the larger
conflagration.
For example, as
public confidence collapsed around the DoJ’s vexing and often
self-contradictory messaging, Blanche devised an underhanded ploy to
create an illusion of transparency. Haberman and Swan report
that he suggested prosecutors could formally ask judges to unseal
secret grand-jury records relating to the investigations of Epstein and
Ghislaine Maxwell. But, as Blanche understood based on his own
prosecutorial experience, the judges likely would deny the motions
(which they all eventually did). And even if by some fluke a judge
granted the DoJ’s disingenuous request, Blanche knew the grand-jury
records would contain nothing new or interesting. He believed it would
be a win-win; either way, Justice Department leaders would look like
they tried, and nothing damaging would be revealed.
When
that gambit satisfied precisely nobody, Blanche tried something even
more desperate. He flew to Florida and interviewed Maxwell face to face
with the expectation that the convicted child sex trafficker — who
actively solicited a presidential pardon — would clear Trump of
wrongdoing. Haberman and Swan report that Vice-President J.D. Vance (who
“appeared panicked” over the right-wing response to the Epstein mess)
initially proposed that carnival barker Tucker Carlson do the dirty
work, meet with Maxwell behind bars, and tell his audience that all was
well. The plan fell through, and Blanche emerged as Carlson’s understudy
— not exactly a sparkling résumé item for an aspiring attorney general.
Buried in the Department of Justice’s massive trove of files on Epstein, an interview
conducted by the FBI on June 19, 2020, included allegations that the
president had previously used Trump Tower as a hunting ground for young
women, RawStory reported Wednesday.
In
the early 1990s, the woman worked at a luxury shoe store near Trump
Tower, and would study in the building’s public atrium during her lunch
breaks. One day, she met a colleague at the atrium who pointed out two
men lurking nearby.
“[She] described one of the
men was dark haired and looked like Antonio Banderas, while the other
man was blonde and looked like the surfer type,” the FBI report stated.
“Her colleague told her that the men constantly picked up [redacted]
women.”
The woman was then approached by the
dark-haired man, who struck up a conversation with her. “He asked if she
knew who Donald Trump was and told her he was meeting people that day,”
the report stated.
“[She] told the man that
she knew who Trump was. The man asked if she wanted to meet Trump and
told her that she did not need to work so hard to go to school,” the
report stated. “The man winked and said he could do whatever she liked.”
“[She]
felt that it was clear that sex was on the table, even though the man
never mentioned sex,” the report stated. “[She] felt these men were
playing the role of recruiters for Trump.”
“The
man told her that if she did not want to meet Trump right then, she
could go to a party. The man told her that she could bring a friend if
the friend looked like her, but she could not bring a guy,” the report
stated. The invitation for the party had Epstein’s address on it, the
woman told the FBI.
When she declined the
invites, she said she began receiving death threats. “The threats
consisted of the men saying that they knew where she worked and could
find her. [She] never told the police because she did not think they
would believe her,” the report stated. They never approached her again.
Let's wind down with this from Senator Patty Murray's office:
The Children Harmed in
Life-threatening or Dangerous (CHILD) Labor Act would strengthen labor
law, give Department of Labor greater enforcement power
“In fiscal year 2025, more cases of
federal child labor violations were uncovered than during any other
year since the Great Recession, and hazardous work violations ticked up
again after declining in the year prior.” – MORE from the Economic Policy Institute
Murray and DeLauro’s legislation is
more urgent than ever as child labor law violations spike and the Trump
administration has undermined existing enforcement efforts while
Republicans push for even weaker standards
Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Senator Patty Murray,
former chair and senior member of the Senate Committee on Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), and U.S. Representative Rosa
DeLauro (D-CT-03), Ranking Member of the House Appropriations Committee
and Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education reintroduced legislation to protect children from exploitative
child labor practices and hold the companies and individuals who take
advantage of them accountable. The Children Harmed in Life-threatening or Dangerous(CHILD) Labor Act strengthens
our ability to combat child labor by cracking down on employers who
violate child labor laws with stronger penalties and allowing children
who have been seriously injured to sue their employers. The bill also
expands child labor provisions to hold suppliers and subcontractors
throughout the supply chain responsible.
According to recent reporting,
the number of child labor violations has risen fivefold in the last 10
years and Republican-led state legislatures are continuing to propose
and pass legislation at the state level that rolls back child labor
regulations with the goal of eroding federal standards–as outlined in Project 2025.
“It should never be cheaper for a company to break child
labor laws than to follow them—but right now, it is. Violations are at
their highest level in years, Republicans are gutting protections in
state after state, and the Trump administration has all but stopped
enforcing the laws on the books,” said Senator Murray. “Children
should not be subjected to abusive and dangerous work environments—they
should not be working the night shift operating heavy equipment and in
unsafe conditions with no consequences. My bill would deliver real
penalties, real accountability for giant corporations, and real recourse
for kids who get hurt.”
“No child should have to risk their life or their future because of a job,” said Congresswoman DeLauro.
“Yet across this country, children are being put to work in dangerous
jobs that threaten that future while companies reap massive profits from
their labor, and this Administration weakens the
agencies responsible for enforcing labor laws and protecting children
from abusive labor practices. Corporations cannot cut corners –
especially not when it comes to our children. The CHILD Labor act will
put a stop to this by holding companies accountable and ensuring our
children’s futures are protected.”
The CHILD Labor Act would protect children by enhancing the Fair Labor Standards Act to
hold liable contractors or subcontractors for child labor violations in
the same manner as the employer who employs the child in oppressive
child labor; increase the civil penalty amount for child labor
violations from $16,000 to $160,350—or 10 times the inflation-adjusted
amount; increase the criminal penalty fine from $10,000 to $750,000;
require any person who violates child labor provisions to be liable to
each employee affected by the violation in an amount no less than
$75,000; and require federal contracts to contain child labor provisions
that prohibit the use of oppressive child labor.
The legislation would also require the Secretary to report to
Congress data and recommendations concerning overall trends for
work-related injuries, illnesses, or deaths to Congress on an annual
basis.
In the Senate, the legislation is cosponsored by Senators Tammy
Duckworth (D-IL), John Fetterman (D-PA), Ed Markey (D-MA), Chris Murphy
(D-CT), Alex Padilla (D-CA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Bernie Sanders (I-VT),
Tina Smith (D-MN), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).
In the House, the legislation is cosponsored by Representatives Alma
Adams (D-NC-12), Judy Chu (D-CA-28), Danny Davis (D-IL-7), Mark
DeSaulnier (D-CA-10), Dan Goldman (D-NY-10), Eleanor Holmes Norton
(D-DC), Zoe Lofgren (D-CA-18), Seth Magaziner (D-RI-2), Jim McGovern
(D-MA-2), Mark Pocan (D-WI-2), Jan Schakowsky (D-IL-9), Shri Thanedar
(D-MI-13), Jill Tokuda (D-HI-2), and Lauren Underwood (D-IL-14).
The legislation is endorsed by the National Employment Law Project, and the Center for Law and Social Policy.
