Two special elections in PA won by Democrats yesterday. One in Allegheny County that hasn't voted for a Dem since the 1980s! Maybe a sign that the tide is turning.
I wrote postcards for the other PA race in the heavily Democratic district. But you can never be too sure of yourself! So I was happy to help make it a blowout for Dem. Dan Goughnour.
I read in this post about the PA upset race that the GOP candidate failed to show up at a recent candidate forum—the same mistake that the Republican candidate had made in the Iowa race earlier this year.
As part of his attack on America, Donald Trump has made a mockery of job experience when picking his cabinet and national security leadership. The classified data, casually exposed on Signal, is the result.
In normal times, heads would role. In times when loyalty to the leader is paramount, we the people need to stop the madness. Many of us will be joining protest marches on April 5. We need to convert these into a national strike ASAP.
Add the 5 Calls script to an online fax tool and send it to your reps. They have to print it (which takes time) and file it away (keeping long term documentation on each issue). FaxZero and Dropbox Fax allow for free sends each day.
Damn, I love living in DC but right now, with no voting reps, it really hurts. I know I know there's other things I can do...I just wish this were one of them!
just a note that leaving a comment on the regulations.gov site is a little tricky (no surprise there!) and took me about 10 minutes. Worth it, of course, but make sure you have time.
Agreed. Here was my comment. Don't know if it's any good, but maybe it will help someone else...
My comment is regarding file code CMS-9884-P, specifically, the proposal to "prohibit issuers of coverage subject to EHB requirements from providing coverage for sex-trait modification as an EHB." I strongly oppose this proposal. The proposed change would negatively impact consumers (and not just those seeking this category of care). Gender-affirming medical care IS an EHB and deserves to be covered. Moreover, it is commonly covered in employer plans. Source: https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/new-rule-proposes-changes-to-aca-coverage-of-gender-affirming-care-potentially-increasing-costs-for-consumers/. Do not make this rule change. Thank you.
Also: An excerpt from Robert Hubbell’s newsletter (note the penalty of 10 years in prison);
“The lies, disinformation, and slander employed by Trump and the GOP to deflect from the scandal of Signal-Gate
At various points in Tuesday’s news cycle, Trump and his supporters resorted to the following falsehoods [in bullets]to distract from the grievous lapse of security in the Signal text chain forwarded to The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg:
• The text chain did not contain “classified information.”
Demonstrably false and semantic gamesmanship. The texts contained non-public, sensitive information that was undeniably “national defense information”—which is the information protected from unauthorized disclosure by statute.
This claim is especially dangerous and short-sighted because it suggests that the information in the texts can and should be disclosed. When the US military is given a chance to weigh in, they will vigorously assert that operational details of a missile strike is highly sensitive national defense information that must be protected at all costs.
• Use of the Signal app was approved or appropriate.
That claim is demonstrably false. DoD policy specifically prohibits use of the Signal app. Indeed, the DoD issued an updated alert on March 18, 2025—only a week ago—warning that users of Signal were “common targets of surveillance and espionage activity [that] has made the [Signal] application a high-value target to intercept sensitive information."
• The Signal app is widely used throughout the administration, including the CIA.
While it may be true that Signal is used throughout the administration, if it is used for government communications, such use is illegal on many levels. It is no defense to the nation’s most senior officers using it to plan a missile strike against the Houthis.
It is critically important to make a distinction between using a Signal on a government phone to communicate about information that does not qualify as national defense information (“I’ll meet you at the Capitol Grill at 6 PM) vs. national defense information (“We will bomb the Houthis tomorrow at 10 AM.) While the former may be permissible, the latter IS NOT. CIA Director John Ratcliffe tried to play fast and loose with that distinction during his testimony, but had to finally admit that classified systems must be used for national defense information.
• The White House Counsel told the participants in the text chain that it was okay to use Signal.
Wait, what? Federal statutes and regulations require the use of classified communications systems to transmit national defense secrets. No lawyer in the White House has the authority to override those statutes and regulations. Indeed, Trump does not have the authority to override the statutes and regulations. (Do not get confused over Trump's power to “declassify” material, which is discussed below.) Trump cannot override federal statutes requiring that national defense information be held confidential.
And again, there is a difference between using Signal for personal communications on a government device versus communicating about national defense information.
• The distinction between “classified” information and “national defense information” is critical.
The administration spent a lot of time saying that “no classified information” was included in the text chat. That is beside the point and an attempt to mislead.
👉The relevant statutes prohibit the unauthorized sharing of “national defense information.” See, e.g., 18 USC § 793 (f), imposing up to ten years in prison for anyone who
being entrusted with . . . information relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed. . . .
The words “classified information” does not appear in the statute that criminalizes the unauthorized disclosure of “national defense information.”
What is “national defense” information? 18 USC § 793(a) defines it as information that the person possessing the information has
reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . .
Obviously, anyone with advance information about plans to attack Houthi rebels has reason to believe the information—if leaked—could be “used to the injury of the United States” or “to the advantage of any foreign nation.”
When I went to the link to comment on the proposed change re transgender healthcare, I saw it also includes removing “lawfully present” designation from DACA recipients. Jessica can you (or any lawyer/immigrant specialists in the feed) explain what this means?
And all sorts of other stuff like changing the enrollment period and changing the benefit evaluation. All around bad stuff. Pretty sure the "lawfully present" change would mean DACA recipients would no longer qualify for any subsidies for healthcare, it could be further reaching, but I am not a lawyer.
Families USA is doing work on this. I’m not sure if they have a publicly available template, but I recommend signing up for their updates: https://familiesusa.org
Other orgs doing good work and getting a lot of info out about health care advocacy are National Health Law Program (NHeLP) and Community Catalyst.
If I see a publicly available template, I’ll share it. Comments are very important for many reasons, including building a record for potential litigation.
Here was my comment. Don't know if it's any good, but maybe it will help you...
My comment is regarding file code CMS-9884-P, specifically, the proposal to "prohibit issuers of coverage subject to EHB requirements from providing coverage for sex-trait modification as an EHB." I strongly oppose this proposal. The proposed change would negatively impact consumers (and not just those seeking this category of care). Gender-affirming medical care IS an EHB and deserves to be covered. Moreover, it is commonly covered in employer plans. Source: https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/new-rule-proposes-changes-to-aca-coverage-of-gender-affirming-care-potentially-increasing-costs-for-consumers/. Do not make this rule change. Thank you.
Similar to Kate’s comment, I waded into the link to the trans health care policy change. It was too long and dense to read. Are we objecting to all of it, or just the trans health section. Some guidance on what kind of comments to make would be very helpful.
PLEASE READ LAST NIGHTS BROKERED PEACE DEAL out of Saudi ...IT IS NOT ONE !!!!!!! There are two drafts !! One for Ukraine and another for Russia which has sanctions lifted ( tactfully at first ) Diabolical as per usual now
It's a complete betrayal negotiated behind Ukraine’s back when Ukraine has declared its willingness for a complete ceasefire. Basically Russians continue to do what they had been doing for the last 3 years plus receive a bonus in lifting sanctions while Ukraine has to stop the deep strikes on their oil depots
Why is no one even questioning why the USA needed to bomb the Houthis in Yemen in the first place? Vance at least asked why the hurry and then acquiesced. National Emergency? The Saudis have been bombing them for 3 years without serious effect, even on American public opinion. (Where is Yemen anyway?)
I will tell you why. This Regime is rejoicing in its own arrogance and omnipotence and has yet to find its limit. Amateur hour.
On a positive note, I have been phone banking for Gay Valimont and have had several older women tell me that their republican husbands are voting democrat! They are so proud to share that news. So cute and gives me hope!
I read through the ACA changes document you linked us to. Could not find the trans gender treatment rule changes. I did find that they want to shorten the open enrollment period again from 76 days to 45 days ( done under Trump before). I entered a comment on both issues and sent the following message to all three of my federal reps. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. “ Hi, the ACA rules are being discussed for change and now is a commenting time. I left two comments, please support my concerns as you can. 1) open enrollment period should not be shortened to 45 days. It is presently at 76 days. The open enrollment period should be 76 days or more and should not change, accept to lengthen it, under various administrations. 2) the minimum coverage requirements for trans gender people is to be cut back. Transgender minimum coverage medical support should stay as it is or be enhanced, not be cut back. Thanks, please do what you can to help keeping ACA rules as is…or enhanced not cut. ”
Two special elections in PA won by Democrats yesterday. One in Allegheny County that hasn't voted for a Dem since the 1980s! Maybe a sign that the tide is turning.
Yes! That flip was a huge deal!
I wrote postcards for the other PA race in the heavily Democratic district. But you can never be too sure of yourself! So I was happy to help make it a blowout for Dem. Dan Goughnour.
I read in this post about the PA upset race that the GOP candidate failed to show up at a recent candidate forum—the same mistake that the Republican candidate had made in the Iowa race earlier this year.
https://www.the-downballot.com/p/breaking-democrats-flip-deep-red?r=1aiy5t&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Woot woot!
Has the State senate seat been called yet? Last time I checked the Dem was in the lead but AP hadn’t yet called it for him
As part of his attack on America, Donald Trump has made a mockery of job experience when picking his cabinet and national security leadership. The classified data, casually exposed on Signal, is the result.
In normal times, heads would role. In times when loyalty to the leader is paramount, we the people need to stop the madness. Many of us will be joining protest marches on April 5. We need to convert these into a national strike ASAP.
If you haven't found an event yfor Apr 5th yet, Check this out or plan your own!
https://handsoff2025.com/
I'll be there!
Add the 5 Calls script to an online fax tool and send it to your reps. They have to print it (which takes time) and file it away (keeping long term documentation on each issue). FaxZero and Dropbox Fax allow for free sends each day.
Great idea!
Damn, I love living in DC but right now, with no voting reps, it really hurts. I know I know there's other things I can do...I just wish this were one of them!
just a note that leaving a comment on the regulations.gov site is a little tricky (no surprise there!) and took me about 10 minutes. Worth it, of course, but make sure you have time.
Thanks for persisting!
Agreed. Here was my comment. Don't know if it's any good, but maybe it will help someone else...
My comment is regarding file code CMS-9884-P, specifically, the proposal to "prohibit issuers of coverage subject to EHB requirements from providing coverage for sex-trait modification as an EHB." I strongly oppose this proposal. The proposed change would negatively impact consumers (and not just those seeking this category of care). Gender-affirming medical care IS an EHB and deserves to be covered. Moreover, it is commonly covered in employer plans. Source: https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/new-rule-proposes-changes-to-aca-coverage-of-gender-affirming-care-potentially-increasing-costs-for-consumers/. Do not make this rule change. Thank you.
None of the links in the what you can do right now document worked for me?
You should get a prompt below it to go to a new page. It worked for me!
A WIN in PA!!
Also: An excerpt from Robert Hubbell’s newsletter (note the penalty of 10 years in prison);
“The lies, disinformation, and slander employed by Trump and the GOP to deflect from the scandal of Signal-Gate
At various points in Tuesday’s news cycle, Trump and his supporters resorted to the following falsehoods [in bullets]to distract from the grievous lapse of security in the Signal text chain forwarded to The Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg:
• The text chain did not contain “classified information.”
Demonstrably false and semantic gamesmanship. The texts contained non-public, sensitive information that was undeniably “national defense information”—which is the information protected from unauthorized disclosure by statute.
This claim is especially dangerous and short-sighted because it suggests that the information in the texts can and should be disclosed. When the US military is given a chance to weigh in, they will vigorously assert that operational details of a missile strike is highly sensitive national defense information that must be protected at all costs.
• Use of the Signal app was approved or appropriate.
That claim is demonstrably false. DoD policy specifically prohibits use of the Signal app. Indeed, the DoD issued an updated alert on March 18, 2025—only a week ago—warning that users of Signal were “common targets of surveillance and espionage activity [that] has made the [Signal] application a high-value target to intercept sensitive information."
• The Signal app is widely used throughout the administration, including the CIA.
While it may be true that Signal is used throughout the administration, if it is used for government communications, such use is illegal on many levels. It is no defense to the nation’s most senior officers using it to plan a missile strike against the Houthis.
It is critically important to make a distinction between using a Signal on a government phone to communicate about information that does not qualify as national defense information (“I’ll meet you at the Capitol Grill at 6 PM) vs. national defense information (“We will bomb the Houthis tomorrow at 10 AM.) While the former may be permissible, the latter IS NOT. CIA Director John Ratcliffe tried to play fast and loose with that distinction during his testimony, but had to finally admit that classified systems must be used for national defense information.
• The White House Counsel told the participants in the text chain that it was okay to use Signal.
Wait, what? Federal statutes and regulations require the use of classified communications systems to transmit national defense secrets. No lawyer in the White House has the authority to override those statutes and regulations. Indeed, Trump does not have the authority to override the statutes and regulations. (Do not get confused over Trump's power to “declassify” material, which is discussed below.) Trump cannot override federal statutes requiring that national defense information be held confidential.
And again, there is a difference between using Signal for personal communications on a government device versus communicating about national defense information.
• The distinction between “classified” information and “national defense information” is critical.
The administration spent a lot of time saying that “no classified information” was included in the text chat. That is beside the point and an attempt to mislead.
👉The relevant statutes prohibit the unauthorized sharing of “national defense information.” See, e.g., 18 USC § 793 (f), imposing up to ten years in prison for anyone who
being entrusted with . . . information relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed. . . .
The words “classified information” does not appear in the statute that criminalizes the unauthorized disclosure of “national defense information.”
What is “national defense” information? 18 USC § 793(a) defines it as information that the person possessing the information has
reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation . . . .
Obviously, anyone with advance information about plans to attack Houthi rebels has reason to believe the information—if leaked—could be “used to the injury of the United States” or “to the advantage of any foreign nation.”
https://open.substack.com/pub/roberthubbell/p/lessons-for-democrats-from-signal
When I went to the link to comment on the proposed change re transgender healthcare, I saw it also includes removing “lawfully present” designation from DACA recipients. Jessica can you (or any lawyer/immigrant specialists in the feed) explain what this means?
I can’t. Hopefully someone else can?
And all sorts of other stuff like changing the enrollment period and changing the benefit evaluation. All around bad stuff. Pretty sure the "lawfully present" change would mean DACA recipients would no longer qualify for any subsidies for healthcare, it could be further reaching, but I am not a lawyer.
Thanks for the clarification Victoria!
Here’s some more info from KFF about DACA and ACA. The proposed change would mean that DACA recipients would (to my understanding), once again, not be eligible for ACA coverage. https://www.kff.org/racial-equity-and-health-policy/issue-brief/overview-and-implications-of-the-aca-marketplace-expansion-to-daca-recipients/
Thank you for all you do Jessica!!
Is there a script for a public comment on the proposed change re transgender healthcare? Thanks.
Families USA is doing work on this. I’m not sure if they have a publicly available template, but I recommend signing up for their updates: https://familiesusa.org
Other orgs doing good work and getting a lot of info out about health care advocacy are National Health Law Program (NHeLP) and Community Catalyst.
If I see a publicly available template, I’ll share it. Comments are very important for many reasons, including building a record for potential litigation.
Here was my comment. Don't know if it's any good, but maybe it will help you...
My comment is regarding file code CMS-9884-P, specifically, the proposal to "prohibit issuers of coverage subject to EHB requirements from providing coverage for sex-trait modification as an EHB." I strongly oppose this proposal. The proposed change would negatively impact consumers (and not just those seeking this category of care). Gender-affirming medical care IS an EHB and deserves to be covered. Moreover, it is commonly covered in employer plans. Source: https://www.kff.org/private-insurance/issue-brief/new-rule-proposes-changes-to-aca-coverage-of-gender-affirming-care-potentially-increasing-costs-for-consumers/. Do not make this rule change. Thank you.
Similar to Kate’s comment, I waded into the link to the trans health care policy change. It was too long and dense to read. Are we objecting to all of it, or just the trans health section. Some guidance on what kind of comments to make would be very helpful.
Object to all of it, if you can. It’s all bad.
I objected to the trans health and DACA portions.
Thank you!
PLEASE READ LAST NIGHTS BROKERED PEACE DEAL out of Saudi ...IT IS NOT ONE !!!!!!! There are two drafts !! One for Ukraine and another for Russia which has sanctions lifted ( tactfully at first ) Diabolical as per usual now
It's a complete betrayal negotiated behind Ukraine’s back when Ukraine has declared its willingness for a complete ceasefire. Basically Russians continue to do what they had been doing for the last 3 years plus receive a bonus in lifting sanctions while Ukraine has to stop the deep strikes on their oil depots
Thanks for reminding me of the ways to resist, Jessica!
Why is no one even questioning why the USA needed to bomb the Houthis in Yemen in the first place? Vance at least asked why the hurry and then acquiesced. National Emergency? The Saudis have been bombing them for 3 years without serious effect, even on American public opinion. (Where is Yemen anyway?)
I will tell you why. This Regime is rejoicing in its own arrogance and omnipotence and has yet to find its limit. Amateur hour.
On a positive note, I have been phone banking for Gay Valimont and have had several older women tell me that their republican husbands are voting democrat! They are so proud to share that news. So cute and gives me hope!
I read through the ACA changes document you linked us to. Could not find the trans gender treatment rule changes. I did find that they want to shorten the open enrollment period again from 76 days to 45 days ( done under Trump before). I entered a comment on both issues and sent the following message to all three of my federal reps. Thanks for bringing this to our attention. “ Hi, the ACA rules are being discussed for change and now is a commenting time. I left two comments, please support my concerns as you can. 1) open enrollment period should not be shortened to 45 days. It is presently at 76 days. The open enrollment period should be 76 days or more and should not change, accept to lengthen it, under various administrations. 2) the minimum coverage requirements for trans gender people is to be cut back. Transgender minimum coverage medical support should stay as it is or be enhanced, not be cut back. Thanks, please do what you can to help keeping ACA rules as is…or enhanced not cut. ”