Texas Senator Ted Cruz has proposed legislation to halt the use of preferred names or pronouns for transgender individuals, despite the fact that he himself uses a preferred name. While his legal name is Rafael Edward Cruz, the senator has been known by his preferred name, Ted, for an extended period.

Teaming up with Representative Andy Ogles from Tennessee, Cruz introduced the Safeguarding Honest Speech Act in November. The bill seeks to prevent the allocation of funds for any regulations or policies mandating federal entities or employees to address individuals by their preferred pronouns or any name other than their legal name.

The legislation was prompted by the introduction of the “Gender Identity Non-Discrimination and Inclusion Policy for Employees and Applicants” by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in October. The HHS policy advocates addressing all employees by the names and pronouns they use to describe themselves.

Cruz contends that the HHS policy infringes upon the First Amendment by compelling government employees to affirm a person’s gender identity independently of their biological sex. He also argues that the policy violates the rights of individuals with “religious convictions” differing from those of the health department, who might be compelled to publicly deny their faith.

In a statement on November 17, Cruz asserted, “Forcing anyone to use pronouns that don’t accord with a person’s biological sex is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment. The government has no business compelling anyone to use pronouns that contradict biological reality.” The proposed bill empowers courts to grant damages and attorney fees of up to $100,000.

Critics and advocates have strongly condemned Cruz’s legislation, highlighting the inconsistency in his stance. Sarah Kate Ellis, president and CEO of GLAAD, stated in response to the bill, “This latest attempt by Senator Cruz, who does not go by his own legal name, to prohibit the federal government, the nation’s largest employer, from respecting employees’ authentic name and pronouns, is not only dangerous and demeaning, it’s hypocritical.”

Former President Donald Trump’s legal team argued in an Atlanta court on Friday that his indictment in Georgia for election subversion should be dismissed, claiming it infringes on free speech rights. During the all-day hearing before Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee, Trump’s lawyers contended that the charges, including racketeering, criminalize protected political activity under the First Amendment. The legal team emphasized that if Trump were to win the 2024 election, the trial should be postponed until after his potential second presidential term.

The hearing, which addressed pretrial motions on the trial date, attempts to dismiss charges, and discovery matters, featured arguments from attorneys representing the 14 co-defendants in addition to Trump. Despite the six-hour proceedings, Judge McAfee did not issue any immediate rulings.

This marked the first in-court appearance for Trump’s legal team in the Georgia case, where the former president and others face state charges related to their efforts to overturn the 2020 election. All defendants, including Trump, have pleaded not guilty.

Trump’s lawyer, Steven Sadow, argued that the indictment violated First Amendment rights, stating, “it violates free speech, freedom of petitioning, all the expressions that the First Amendment is designed to protect, and therefore the indictment needs to be dismissed.”

If the motions to dismiss are unsuccessful, Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis intends to consolidate the 15 defendants into one large trial. While a trial date has not been set, state prosecutors aim for an August 2024 start, a timeline Trump opposes, citing his potential presidential campaign.

Sadow highlighted the possibility of Trump running for president again and expressed the preference that the trial not coincide with the campaign. In response to McAfee’s query about the trial’s status if Trump wins the 2024 election, Sadow invoked the Supremacy Clause, suggesting the trial wouldn’t take place until after Trump completes his term, presenting a unique challenge for the justice system and the nation.

Fulton County prosecutors refuted claims that the indictment aimed to influence the 2024 election, emphasizing their commitment to advancing the case. Prosecutor Nathan Wade asserted that Willis’s sole purpose was to move the case forward and not interfere in the presidential election.

On Friday, the House made the historic decision to expel Representative George Santos, marking the end of the New York Republican’s tumultuous tenure in Congress. Santos now holds the dubious distinction of being the sixth lawmaker ever to be ousted from the lower chamber, a move not witnessed in the past two decades. This unprecedented action, which required three attempts over six months and broad bipartisan support, reached the two-thirds majority needed to expel a sitting member, with a final tally of 311-114-2. The vote reflected the significant dissatisfaction with Santos, who faced federal indictment on 23 counts of wire fraud, identity theft, and other campaign finance charges.

Notably, this expulsion, coming just 11 months into Santos’s term, underscored the growing divisions within the Republican conference. Despite initial recognition as a GOP trailblazer, Santos became a liability for the party, particularly as he faced serious legal troubles. The expulsion also posed immediate challenges for Speaker Mike Johnson and his leadership team, as their slim majority in the House narrowed further.

During the vote, only two Democrats, Reps. Bobby Scott and Nikema Williams, opposed the expulsion, while Reps. Al Green and Jonathan Jackson voted present. Speaker Johnson, presiding over the historic moment, expressed reservations about removing Santos before the resolution of his criminal cases. However, his stance did not sway the majority of Republicans who supported expulsion.

The process to remove Santos began following revelations of fabrications in his campaign biography, accelerated by criminal indictments, and culminated with a damning report from the House Ethics Committee, stating that Santos had violated federal criminal laws. Despite Santos’s persistent claims of innocence, the expulsion vote signaled the severity of the allegations.

Santos’s departure raised questions about the precedent for expulsion, as he pointed out that he had only been charged and not convicted. Critics argued that the serious findings against him, documented in a 56-page Ethics Committee report, justified both his removal and the establishment of a higher standard for congressional members.

While Santos maintained his innocence and criticized the process as setting a dangerous precedent, he acknowledged the likelihood of the end of his congressional career. Facing a legal battle with 23 criminal counts, including charges of misleading donors and unauthorized credit card charges, Santos expressed concern about potential jail time. Despite these challenges, he reflected on his 11-month tenure, expressing pride in his accomplishments while acknowledging regrets about associations during his political journey. As Santos’s legal troubles continue, the race to fill his seat has already intensified, with over a dozen candidates vying for the opportunity.