SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER

Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.

* indicates required
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Opinion
Climate
Economy
Politics
Rights & Justice
War & Peace
Journalist Anas Al-Sharif, murdered by Israel
Further

Until Our Last Breath

Israel has murdered Anas Al-Sharif, 28, a steadfast, well-known Al Jazeera correspondent called "the voice of Gaza to the world," in a targeted strike in Gaza City that also killed four other journalists. Long threatened by Israel for his relentless coverage of Israeli atrocities, Al-Sharif vowed to continue "every day and every hour to report what is happening - this is our cause." In a last message, Al-Sharif wrote, "I lived pain in all its details and I tasted loss and grief time and again...Do not forget Gaza."

Al-Sharif was among five Al Jazeera journalists killed in a clearly targeted strike on a tent housing them outside the main gate of al-Shifa Hospital late Sunday. The other victims were Al Jazeera correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh and camera operators Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal and Moamen Aliwa. In his last post before his death, al-Sharif said Israel had launched intense bombing, called "fire belts," on Gaza City; his final video showed the sky lit by orange flashes as loud booms sounded.

Calling Al-Sharif "one of Gaza's bravest journalists" - and one of the most prominent with over half a million followers online - Al Jazeera said he and his colleagues were among the last remaining voices in Gaza "conveying its tragic reality to the world." It accused Israel of waging a “campaign of incitement” against its journalists by repeatedly fabricating evidence seeking to link them to Hamas; in the last 22 months, the Israeli military has killed over 230 journalists, including multiple ones from Al Jazeera.

A U.N. rapporteur had earlier cited Israel's "repeated threats and accusations" against Al-Sharif, arguing, "Fears for (his) safety are well-founded." Last month, Israel claimed it had "unequivocal proof” he was a member of Hamas, and on Sunday they admitted to a deliberate strike against Al-Sharif, "the head of a terrorist cell." Colleagues dismissed the claim as propaganda, with "zero evidence" to support it. Said a colleague of Al-Sharif's: "His entire daily routine was standing in front of a camera from morning to evening."

Other journalists also charge Israel is waging "a deliberate war on journalists" purely for their willingness to risk their lives to document Israel's genocidal crimes, from mass bombardment to mass starvation. “Israel’s strategy is clear: Silence the truth by murdering those who report it," said The Palestine Chronicle's Ramzi Baroud, who mourned having to lose so many journalists solely for their "commitment to the truth." Still, he insisted, "Their deaths will not bury the Palestinian story."

Al-Sharif had earlier written that, "despite all (the) difficulties and tragic circumstances" he and his colleagues had faced over the last brutal year and a half, he held to his belief that "it is the duty of the world to see and witness what we are documenting...This drives us to continue in our coverage to our last breath." Still, he knew death likely awaited. "This is my will and final message," he wrote in April. "If these words reach you, know that Israel has succeeded in killing me and silencing my voice."

"First, peace and God’s mercy and blessings be upon you," he wrote in the translated post published by his family. "God knows I have given all my effort and strength to be a support and a voice for my people since I opened my eyes to life in the alleys and streets of Jabalia Refugee Camp. My hope was that God would grant me life so I could return with my family and loved ones to our original town of Ashkelon (Al-Majdal), now occupied. But God’s will was swifter, and His judgment is inevitable."

Berating "those who remained silent, who accepted our killing," he goes on to entrust those reading "with Palestine, the jewel of the Muslim crown and the heartbeat of every free person in this world...with its people and its innocent children who were not granted a lifetime to dream or live in safety and peace," and with his wife and two children he did not live to see grow. "I die steadfast in my principles," he writes. "Forgive me if I have fallen short, and pray for mercy for me, for I have kept my promise...Do not forget Gaza."

"I lost my voice screaming, 'Massacre, massacre,' hoping that the world takes action. But it is an unjust world." - Anas Jamal Al-Sharif.

SEE ALL
Underserved Communities In California Receive No-Cost Solar Energy Installation
News

Trump EPA Moves to Cancel $7 Billion in Solar Grants for Low- and Middle-Income Households

In a move denounced by climate and environmental justice defenders, the Trump administration is planning to claw back $7 billion in federal grants for low- and middle-income households to install rooftop solar panels, people briefed on the matter told The New York Times on Tuesday.

According to the Times, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is drafting termination letters to the 60 state agencies, nonprofit groups, and Indigenous tribes that received the grants under the Solar for All program. The move is part of the Trump administration's efforts to cancel billions of dollars in climate- and environment-oriented grants included in former President Joe Biden's landmark Inflation Reduction Act, signed in 2022.

Solar for All was launched by the Biden administration in 2023 in conjunction with Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). The program aimed to "develop long-lasting solar programs that enable low-income and disadvantaged communities to deploy and benefit from distributed residential solar, lowering energy costs for families, creating good-quality jobs in communities that have been left behind, advancing environmental justice, and tackling climate change."

The program was meant to help around 900,000 low- and middle-income households go solar.

Ripping away the Solar for All program means more families paying more on their bills—because God forbid people actually save money. www.nytimes.com/2025/08/05/c...

[image or embed]
— Climate Power (@climatepower.bsky.social) August 5, 2025 at 10:57 AM

The Trump administration froze Solar for All funding in February after President Donald Trump issued a day one executive order mandating a review of all Biden-era climate spending. The funds were reinstated in early March after EPA "worked expeditiously to enable payment accounts," according to the agency.

Responding to the Times report, Sanders said in a statement: "I introduced the Solar for All program to slash electric bills for working families by up to 80%—putting money back in the pockets of ordinary Americans, not fossil fuel billionaires. Now, Donald Trump wants to illegally kill this program to protect the obscene profits of his friends in the oil and gas industry. That is outrageous."

"Solar for All means lower utility bills, many thousands of good-paying jobs, and real action to address the existential threat of climate change," Sanders continued. "At a time when working families are getting crushed by skyrocketing energy costs and the planet is literally burning, sabotaging this program isn't just wrong—it's absolutely insane."

"We will fight back to preserve this enormously important program," he added.

Other Solar for All proponents also slammed the reported EPA move.

"Canceling these investments makes no sense," Adam Kent, green finance director amt the Natural Resources Defense Council, said in a statement reported by The Washington Post. "Every investment will save families at least 20% on their energy bills. Members of Congress need to step up and defend a program that focused on lowering energy bills for hardworking Americans."

"The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise."

Kyle Wallace, vice president of public policy and government affairs at the solar company PosiGen, said on social media: "This would be a shocking and harmful action that will hurt vulnerable families who are struggling with rising energy costs. The Solar for All program has been embraced by both red and blue states and has so much promise. EPA should not do this."

Solar for All defenders vowed to fight the EPA's move.

"If leaders in the Trump administration move forward with this unlawful attempt to strip critical funding from communities across the United States, we will see them in court," Kym Meyer, litigation director at the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center, told the Times.

SEE ALL
Donald Trump Coin -  Cryptocracy - Photo Illustration
News

Most of Trump's Net Worth Comes From 'Crypto Empire': Report

Over his nearly seven months as president, the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has been taking a sledgehammer to regulations on cryptocurrency. A new report sheds further light on the reasons why.

The president may be profiting far more from his "rapidly-growing crypto empire" than was previously known and has used it to dramatically increase his net worth, according to an investigation released Thursday by the anti-corruption group Accountable.US.

While a report from Bloomberg on July 2 estimated the billionaire president's crypto holdings to total about $620 million of his nearly $7 billion net worth, Accountable examined other investments that had not previously been reported.

"President Trump's net worth," the group estimated, "could roughly be $15.9 billion, with about $11.6 billion in uncounted crypto assets." This would mean crypto accounts for 73% of his net worth.

Accountable reached this number by including investments that either had not yet occurred or were not public at the time of previous reporting.

These included roughly 22.5 billion tokens issued by Trump-owned WorldLiberty Financial Inc., which are estimated to be worth about $2 billion in value, but had not yet become tradable.

Other analyses, it said, also excluded the $7 billion in value of the new $TRUMP memecoins released in late July 2025.

"Two Trump-affiliated companies owned 80% of the $TRUMP venture as of May 2025 and were estimated to have collected over $324 million just in fees since January 2025," the report said.

Accountable also factored the holdings of Trump Media—the company that owns the president's social media app Truth Social. In July, the company bought $2 billion in Bitcoin and reserved another $300 million for Bitcoin options, and also announced the launch of its own set of NFTs.

As part of what they called "Crypto Week," Republicans passed multiple industry-friendly pieces of crypto legislation in July, the GENIUS Act and the CLARITY Act, which Accountable says allow Trump to directly profit.

The GENIUS Act purported to create a regulatory framework for so-called "stablecoins," which are pegged to existing financial assets like the U.S. dollar and are poised to become part of the portfolios of increasing numbers of companies. However, as Nikki McCann Ramirez wrote for Rolling Stone in June:

One of Trump's priorities has been the normalization of these so-called stablecoins — a type of asset that his family is now hawking.

Despite the moniker, stablecoins can be extremely unstable. A 2023 study published by the Bank for International Settlements found that of 60 stablecoins analyzed in their review, all of them had become de-pegged from their underlying asset at least once.

The 2022 crypto crash was triggered by the failure of Terraform Lab's Terra/Luna "algorithmic" stablecoin—the collapse of which saw $45 billion erased in the span of a week.

The bill places only very light regulations on stablecoins, and Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) has warned that since he controls such a large percentage of the stablecoin market, their uptake into the broader economy could "create a superhighway for Donald Trump's corruption."

"As soon as the players understand that Trump's intervention is a real possibility, then the stablecoin market is no longer about a careful review of whether there are adequate dollars to back up a particular stablecoin, or whether the stablecoin issuer has an AAA rating," Warren said.

"Instead, the whole game becomes one of trying to engage the president to weigh the end and make one set of coins more valuable, and therefore another set of coins less valuable," she added. "It's corruption, but it's also a market manipulation that ultimately drains away any development...It undermines all the markets at that point."

But the CLARITY Act, which has been passed by the House and now awaits consideration in the Senate, is "the real prize" for the industry. It would dramatically narrow the Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) ability to regulate cryptocurrencies—most notably by recategorizing many assets as commodities instead of securities, which places them under the much smaller and less-resourced Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC).

Trump would be one of the foremost beneficiaries of this bill, which would exclude digital assets like his $TRUMP and $MELANIA "meme coins" from SEC regulation.

It would also likely affect the classification of Bitcoin, which Trump Media has explicitly acknowledged would benefit the president. "If Bitcoin is determined to constitute a security," the company said in a June SEC filing, it could "adversely affect" the price of Bitcoin and the price of Trump Media's holdings.

Not only does this benefit Trump, said Accountable.US executive director Tony Carrk, but the legitimization and entrenchment of these unstable assets has the potential to make the whole economy less stable.

"Eerily reminiscent of the risky behavior that gave us the 2008 financial collapse, Donald Trump is ushering in a new era of casino-like speculation on Wall Street with highly volatile crypto trading in retirement accounts," Carrk said.

"While the Trump family stands to win either way with crypto investment product fees," Carrk added, "throwing such a wild card into the financial system with little to no guardrails could lead to history repeating itself—with everyday Americans footing the bill when things inevitably go south."

SEE ALL
Bernie Sanders Visits "Special Report With Bret Baier"
News

Sanders Bill Would Fight Trump Effort to 'Dismantle Social Security'

U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders on Wednesday introduced the Keep Billionaires Out of Social Security Act, legislation intended to thwart President Donald Trump's attacks on the agency that administers benefits for millions of seniors and other Americans.

In a statement introducing his bill, Sanders (I-Vt.) called out not only Trump but also Elon Musk, who is the richest person on Earth and led the president's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) until he left the administration in May.

"Since Trump has been in office, he has been working overtime with the wealthiest man in the world, Elon Musk, to dismantle Social Security and undermine the faith that the American people have in this vitally important program," Sanders said. "Thousands of Social Security staff have lost their jobs, seniors and people with disabilities are having a much harder time receiving the benefits they have earned, field offices have been shut down, and the 1-800 number is a mess."

"That is beyond unacceptable," the senator declared, just days before a key milestone for the law that led to the Social Security Administration (SSA). "On the 90th anniversary of Social Security, our job must be to reverse these disastrous cuts, expand Social Security, and make it easier, not harder, for Americans to receive the benefits they have earned and deserve. That's precisely what this legislation will do."

As Sanders' office summarized, the bill aims to defend Americans and their benefits by:

  • Protecting and improving Americans' access to Social Security offices—prohibiting closures, relocations, and service reductions, reversing Trump's layoffs, and ensuring Americans can speak to real people to get their benefits;
  • Increasing funding by $5 billion to improve customer service, modernize technology, and reduce backlogs;
  • Restoring assistance for vulnerable and disabled people to access their benefits;
  • Safeguarding Americans' data and stopping Trump's politicization of Social Security; and
  • Removing DOGE's authority and calling for an independent investigation into DOGE's actions at SSA.

The bill is backed by 20 other members of the Senate Democratic Caucus, including Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), and several organizations, including Social Security Works, Alliance for Retired Americans, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, and the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees.

Sanders introduced the bill on the same day that he joined former Social Security Commissioner Martin O'Malley, U.S. Reps. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) and John Larson (D-Conn.), and Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.)—a co-sponsor of the new legislation—for a Protect Our Checks town hall, hosted by Unrig Our Economy, Social Security Works, and the Center for American Progress Action Fund.

Late last month, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent "openly bragged about plans to use a back door to privatize Social Security and hand the benefits of working families over to those folks on Wall Street," Wyden pointed out. "Trump's so-called promise to protect Social Security, in my view, is about as real as his promise to protect Medicaid—no substance, big consequences for American seniors and families walking on an economic tightrope."

The so-called One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans passed and the president signed in July is expected to strip Medicaid and other key assistance, including food stamps, from millions of Americans in the next decade.

Wednesday's town hall also featured testimony from Social Security recipients, including Judith Brown, who explained that "at 37, I became disabled. It was devastating, because I was a young mother to two sons [that] are on the autism spectrum."

"When my sons needed additional medical support, I was able to get care for them because of their Social Security benefits. Without those benefits, we would have been homeless on the street," Brown continued. "Social Security has always been there for us over all these years. Right now, this administration is bent on stripping us of our benefits that we paid into during our working years... We cannot allow this to happen. Social Security must be protected and expanded. Our entire existence is on the line, and we must fight to protect Social Security."

Unrig Our Economy spokesperson Saryn Francis said that "Republican tariffs are driving up prices at the grocery store, their bills are raising the cost of healthcare and electricity, and they've even found time to hand out more tax breaks to billionaires, and now they want to mess with Social Security, and we are not going to let them take that away from us."

Francis noted that "this weekend, with over 50 events across the country, Americans are rallying in a massive effort to support Social Security and calling on congressional Republicans to stop threatening what hardworking people have earned and need to survive."

SEE ALL
Trump Plan to Deploy National Guard in DC Called 'Giant, Red Trial Balloon'
News

Trump Plan to Deploy National Guard in DC Called 'Giant, Red Trial Balloon'

U.S. President Donald Trump is planning to send up to 1,000 members of the National Guard to patrol the streets of Washington, D.C. this week in a move that critics are warning is another step toward authoritarian rule.

In a post on his Truth Social page on Monday morning, Trump framed the decision to deploy the National Guard as necessary to combat crime in the nation's capital.

"Washington, D.C. will be LIBERATED today!" Trump claimed. "Crime, Savagery, Filth, and Scum will DISAPPEAR. I will, MAKE OUR CAPITAL GREAT AGAIN! The days of ruthlessly killing, or hurting, innocent people, are OVER!"

However, the president's claim that the National Guard is needed to protect Washington, D.C. residents from purportedly unprecedented criminal violence does not hold water given that the city has seen a dramatic fall in crime recently. As noted by CBS News reporter Scott MacFarlane, violent crime in Washington, D.C. has fallen by 26% over the last year, highlighted by total homicides declining by 12% year-over-year.

In analyzing the news, some legal analysts were quick to label Trump's latest move a power grab that was wholly unjustified by the facts on the ground.

Joyce Vance, the former United States attorney for the Northern District of Alabama, argued on her Substack page that Trump's decision to plow ahead with deploying the National Guard in Washington, D.C. shows he "is going full bore to push the power of the presidency, even if it means ignoring actual statistics on crime that contradict his stated justification for acting in the nation's capital."

Vance added that Trump's actions in this instance also need to be understood as part of a broad sweep by the president to seize more power for the executive branch.

"In case you're wondering, just six months into his second term, Trump holds a commanding lead in the number of executive orders issued," she wrote. "These statistics from The American Presidency Project at the University of California at Santa Barbara show the totals for each president in light blue, so, in the first six months of his second term, Trump has signed 186 orders, compared to a four-year total of 162 for Joe Biden."

Georgetown University law professor Steve Vladeck explained on his own Substack page that Trump does have some significant powers when it comes to deploying the D.C. National Guard in the nation's capital, although he said that the law clearly prevents him from "federalizing" the city as he has threatened to do in the past.

"The president does have two important authorities when it comes to 'local' law enforcement in the District of Columbia: He can use the (small) D.C. National Guard in circumstances in which he probably couldn't use any other military personnel; and he can require the use of [the Metropolitan Police Department] 'for federal purposes' for up to 30 days," he wrote. "That's not nothing, but it also isn't anything close to some kind of federal takeover of the nation's capital."

To actually do a federal takeover of Washington, D.C., Vladeck continued, the president would need to get an act passed through Congress that would almost certainly be filibustered in the U.S. Senate.

Legal experts weren't the only ones alarmed by the planned Trump National Guard deployment.

Karen Attiah, a columnist for The Washington Post, warned her Bluesky followers against writing off the deployment as an effort by the president to distract from his administration's handling of the Jeffrey Epstein scandal.

"Threats of the militarization of cities—including D.C., which has been fighting for self determination for generations—isn't a 'distraction,'" she said. "It's a massive, giant, red trial balloon for what an American president can do [in] YOUR city... I need people to wake up."

Kat Abughazaleh, a Democratic candidate for Congress in Illinois, similarly warned that Trump's National Guard deployment could be a blueprint for the rest of America.

"Trump's move to mobilize the National Guard against Americans in D.C. is another telltale sign of his authoritarian ambitions," she wrote on Bluesky. "But at some point signs of authoritarianism stop being signs and become symptoms of an autocratic regime. We're far past that point now."

SEE ALL
Mourners Gather for Funeral of Palestinians Killed in Israeli Strike in Gaza City
News

Top Journalism Watchdog Rebukes International Community for Silence on Israeli 'War Crime'

Nearly two years into Israel's assault on Gaza, the Israel Defense Forces' killing of six journalists this week provoked worldwide outrage—but a leading press freedom advocate said Wednesday that the slaughter of the Palestinian reporters can "hardly" be called surprising, considering the international community's refusal to stop Israel from killing hundreds of journalists and tens of thousands of other civilians in Gaza since October 2023.

Israel claimed without evidence that Anas al-Sharif, a prominent Al Jazeera journalist who was killed in an airstrike Sunday along with four of his colleagues at the network and a freelance reporter, was the leader of a Hamas cell—an allegation Al Jazeera, the United Nations, and rights groups vehemently denied.

Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, wrote in The Guardian that al-Sharif was one of at least 26 Palestinian reporters that Israel has admitted to deliberately targeting while presenting "no independently verifiable evidence" that they were militants or involved in hostilities in any way.

Israel did not publish the "current intelligence" it claimed to have showing al-Sharif was a Hamas operative, and Ginsberg outlined how the IDF appeared to target al-Sharif after he drew attention to the starvation of Palestinians—which human rights groups and experts have said is the direct result of Israel's near-total blockade on humanitarian aid.

"The Committee to Protect Journalists had seen this playbook from Israel before: a pattern in which journalists are accused by Israel of being terrorists with no credible evidence," wrote Ginsberg, noting the CPJ demanded al-Sharif's protection last month as Israel's attacks intensified.

The five other journalists who were killed when the IDF struck a press tent in Gaza City were not accused of being militants.

The IDF "has not said what crime it believes the others have committed that would justify killing them," wrote Ginsberg. "The laws of war are clear: Journalists are civilians. To target them deliberately in war is to commit a war crime."

"It is hardly surprising that Israel believes it can get away with murder. In the two decades preceding October, Israeli forces killed 20 journalists."

Just as weapons have continued flowing from the United States and other Western countries to Israel despite its killing of at least 242 Palestinian journalists and more than 61,000 other civilians since October 2023, Ginsberg noted, Israel had reason to believe it could target reporters even before the IDF began its current assault on Gaza.

"It is hardly surprising that Israel believes it can get away with murder," wrote Ginsberg. "In the two decades preceding October, Israeli forces killed 20 journalists. No one has ever been held accountable for any of those deaths, including that of the Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh, whose killing in 2022 sent shock waves through the region."

The reaction to the killing of the six journalists this week from the Trump administration—the largest international funder of the Israeli military—and the corporate media in the U.S. has exemplified what Ginsberg called the global community's "woeful" response to the slaughter of journalists by Israel, which has long boasted of its supposed status as a bastion of press freedom in the Middle East.

As Middle East Eye reported Tuesday, at the first U.S. State Department briefing since al-Sharif and his colleagues were killed, spokesperson Tammy Bruce said the airstrike targeting journalists was a legitimate attack by "a nation fighting a war" and repeated Israel's unsubstantiated claims about al-Sharif.

"I will remind you again that we're dealing with a complicated, horrible situation," she told a reporter from Al Jazeera Arabic. "We refer you to Israel. Israel has released evidence al-Sharif was part of Hamas and was supportive of the Hamas attack on October 7. They're the ones who have the evidence."

A CNN anchor also echoed Israel's allegations of terrorism in an interview with Foreign Press Association president Ian Williams, prompting the press freedom advocate to issue a reminder that—even if Israel's claims were true—journalists are civilians under international law, regardless of their political beliefs and affiliations.

"Frankly, I don't care whether al-Sharif was in Hamas or not," said Williams. "We don't kill journalists for being Republicans or Democrats or, in Britain, Labour Party."

Ginsberg warned that even "our own journalism community" across the world has thus far failed reporters in Gaza—now the deadliest war for journalists that CPJ has ever documented—compared to how it has approached other conflicts.

"Whereas the Committee to Protect Journalists received significant offers of support and solidarity when journalists were being killed in Ukraine at the start of Russia's full-scale invasion, the reaction from international media over the killings of our journalist colleagues in Gaza at the start of the war was muted at best," said Ginsberg.

International condemnation has "grown more vocal" following the killing of al-Sharif and his colleagues, including Mohammed Qreiqeh, Ibrahim Zaher, Mohammed Noufal, Moamen Aliwa, and Mohammad al-Khaldi, said Ginsberg.

"But it is hard to see," she said, "if Israel can wipe out an entire news crew without the international community so much as batting an eye, what will stop further attacks on reporters."

Three U.N. experts on Tuesday demanded an immediate independent investigation into the journalists' killing, saying that a refusal from Israel to allow such a probe would "reconfirm its own culpability and cover-up of the genocide."

"Journalism is not terrorism. Israel has provided no credible evidence of the latter against any of the journalists that it has targeted and killed with impunity," said the experts, including Francesca Albanese, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967.

"These are acts of an arrogant army that believes itself to be impune, no matter the gravity of the crimes it commits," they said. "The impunity must end. The states that continue to support Israel must now place tough sanctions against its government in order to end the killings, the atrocities, and the mass starvation."

SEE ALL