SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Latest News
US Taxpayer Coalition Urges ICC to Issue Arrest Warrants for Trump, Rubio Over Gaza Genocide
"Let us be clear: The genocide of the Palestinian people would not have been possible without the unwavering support of the United States."
Nov 11, 2026
A coalition of American taxpayers, including human rights lawyers and activists, formally submitted video footage, firsthand eyewitness accounts, and other evidence to the International Criminal Court on Wednesday, making the case that the tribunal should issue arrest warrants for US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio for aiding Israel's genocidal assault on Gaza.
The evidence submission was organized by the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide (TAAG), which recently secured a preliminary court decision that blocked a Trump executive order sanctioning human rights groups and others who work with the ICC—an institution that the Trump administration is actively working to dismantle.
The 28-page document includes detailed accounts of Trump and Rubio's actions in support of the Israeli government's devastating and ongoing attacks on Gaza and the illegally occupied West Bank.
Trump, the submission states, "personally authorized and facilitated the release of approximately 1,800 previously withheld 2,000-pound MK-84 bombs" to the Israeli military and "rescinded West Bank sanctions on individuals and entities the United States had formally determined were involved in violence and dispossession."
"These acts of material assistance had a substantial effect on Israel’s ability to carry out military operations in Gaza and on the ability of sanctioned actors to continue violence in the West Bank," the document argues.
As for Rubio, "the evidence records State Department and [Defense Security Cooperation Agency] approvals of major arms sales to Israel after February 2025, including Hellfire missiles, munitions, guidance kits, fuses, munitions support, and large quantities of 2,000-pound bomb bodies and penetrator warheads."
"The [ICC] prosecutor should investigate whether Secretary Rubio approved or expedited the same categories of munitions whose prior use had generated known civilian harm and concerns about violations of international humanitarian law," the document states.
Seth Donnelly, a cofounder of TAAG, said at a press conference in The Hague on Wednesday, "We urge the office of the prosecutor to act quickly on this evidence."
"The evidence includes sworn affidavits from doctors who worked in Gaza, firsthand eyewitness accounts, whistleblower testimony, videos, and extensive documentation concerning US political, military, diplomatic, and financial support for Israel," said Donnelly.
Joining the delegation behind the ICC submission were human rights attorney Huwaida Arraf, Palestinian American author Susan Abulhawa, and Dr. Feroze Sidhwa, a trauma surgeon who has served in Gaza.
"American airplanes burning American jet fuel are dropping American bombs, which are guided by American guidance systems on targets that were picked largely by software developed in the United States," said Sidhwa. "I hope these attempts at reestablishing—or maybe establishing—the rule of law in the international system, these attempts to hold the powerful accountable, something that we unfortunately have failed to do in our own society, can be an effective resistance to the fascist forces that are spreading throughout the world now."
Francesca Albanese, the United Nations special rapporteur on the occupied Palestinian territories, applauded the delegation's submission, saying at Wednesday's press conference that "international law remains the last peaceful instrument we possess to confront injustice and pave the way forward."
"The legal tools are there. They are not the only ones, but they are peaceful tools," said Albanese. "What is missing is the political courage to use them. That political courage is [what] the Taxpayer Alliance Against Genocide is showing. And this is why today's gathering matters."
"The United States continues to arm Israel, protect those responsible for its crimes, and enable individuals and companies to profit from their commission," she added. "So let us be clear: The genocide of the Palestinian people would not have been possible without the unwavering support of the United States."
Keep ReadingShow Less
'A Mobilization That No One Imagined': Furious Over Housing Costs, Millions Join General Strike in Spain
"The 11N is not only a labor strike or a strike of tenants," its organizers said, "it is a general strike for housing and against the cost of living."
Nov 11, 2026
Spain was rocked by its first general strike in years on Wednesday, as millions of housing rights defenders, students, and workers took to the streets in a nationwide revolt against an affordability crisis and a housing system that critics say prioritizes enriching property investors and landlords over providing homes for people.
The 24-hour walkout, known as the 11N, disrupted transportation, schools, businesses, ports, and industrial production, with demonstrations and picket lines reported in Madrid, Barcelona, and dozens of other cities.
Organized by a coalition of labor unions and tenant organizations, the unprecedented mobilization sought to unite historically separate struggles. The Madrid Tenants' Union said that, despite autumn storms throughout much of Spain, as many as 4 million people took part in the day of action.
"It's time to change the rules of the game. We must end a housing system based on speculation and create a rights-based system," 11N organizers said. "The 11N is not only a labor strike or a strike of tenants, it is a general strike for housing and against the cost of living."
The immediate trigger of the 11N strike was the September eviction of María del Carmen Abascal—popularly known as Maricarmen—an 87-year-old woman who had lived in her Madrid apartment for seven decades. The investment fund that bought her building jacked up her monthly rent by more than 400% from €500 to €2,650 a month—an amount far exceeding her modest pension.
Despite previous legal efforts to prevent her eviction, Maricarmen was forcibly removed from her home and taken away on a stretcher before a deal was reached amid mass protests and she was allowed to return. However, she died in a hospital two weeks later.
Millions of people in Spain who work full-time increasingly cannot afford a decent place to live. Average rents have nearly doubled over the past decade, while housing prices have risen substantially faster than wages.
According to Spain's central bank, the country faces a housing deficit of approximately 750,000 homes, potentially exceeding one million by 2028. Publicly owned rental housing accounts for less than 2% of the country's housing supply, compared with a European Union average of around 8%.
The consequences are particularly severe for younger workers. The Spanish Youth Council estimates that the average monthly rent of €1,176 consumes approximately 98.7% of a young person's average monthly salary.
"I doubt I'll ever be able to own a home, let alone have a family like my parents could have at my age," Elena Carmona, a young bookstore employee participating in the strike in Madrid, told Público.
Pablo Pérez, a spokesperson for the Madrid Tenants' Union, told Público that "what is at stake is who keeps the wealth we produce and who has the power to decide over our lives."
"This is a strike of everyone who is fed up with working so that others can enrich themselves at their expense," he continued. "It can't be that we work harder and harder and that much of our salary ends up directly in the pocket of those who live in our homes."
"What began with the fight against the eviction of Maricarmen has triggered a mobilization that no one imagined," Pérez added.
Anti-capitalist activist Beatriz Payo, 26, said Maricarmen's eviction marked a turning point for her. She described witnessing firsthand "the level of violence and injustice behind a system that makes business out of such basic necessities as housing."
That violence was on display Tuesday as police in cities across Spain attacked protesters with batons and pepper spray. At least four people were hospitalized in the capital, according to the Madrid Tenants' Union. Officers also assaulted some of the demonstrators who blocked the M-30 highway in Madrid's Vallecas neighborhood.
Video footage recorded in Granada also showed police literally beating back strikers.
LGBTQ+ activist Samantha Hudson said police pepper-sprayed her and other protesters including actress Laura Weissmahr and journalist María Barrier, in the face during a demonstration on Madrid's Gran Vía.
“Does it bother them that much that we exercise this basic, fundamental right?" Hudson asked after the assault. "A boy’s head has been split open. I’m having a terrible panic attack."
Amnesty International Spain said, "We are documenting concerning police conduct in Madrid, Alicante, Castellón, Vitoria, Valencia, Málaga, Granada, and Santiago."
"Force must be a last resort and can only be used proportionately," Amnesty asserted. "Blows to the head must be avoided because of the risk of serious injury, and police batons and pepper spray must only be used against people who are being violent. They must not be used indiscriminately against protests or to disperse peaceful demonstrations."
"We call on the authorities to guarantee the right to protest at this afternoon’s demonstrations, to ensure that officers visibly display their identification numbers, to ensure that pepper spray is not used and that police do not charge peaceful demonstrators, and to investigate the excessive use of force," the group added.
Despite police repression and stormy weather in many cities, the strike caused significant disruptions. Organizers reported 90% participation in the automotive and port sectors, with complete stoppages at Volkswagen and SEAT factories. There were also widespread shutdowns in waste collection, meat processing, and energy sectors.
“The strike has exceeded the labor unions’ expectations,” Workers' Commissions secretary-general Unai Sordo told The Associated Press. “It has been a success in terms of turnout.”
Following the protests sparked by Maricarmen's eviction, social-democratic Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez called an early election on November 29 in a bid to secure four more years of rule for his leftist coalition government.
However, last month's high-speed train collision in Toledo province that killed 69 people—the second major rail disaster in the country this year—has complicated Sánchez's strategy.
“The Socialists need for the strike to be a success and for there not to be any violence so that the election campaign can swing back to being about housing,” Autonomous University of Barcelona political science professor Oriol Bartomeus told the AP.
Meanwhile on the right, the Popular Party and far-right Vox "both want the strike to be a flop and to end in scenes of burning dumpsters and shattered shop windows,” Bartomeus said, so that “they can say, ‘This is chaos, and we are coming to establish order.’”
Pepe Álvarez, general secretary of the General Union of Workers, told El Diaro that, after Wednesday's strike, “whoever governs, no matter what happens on the 29th, they will have to listen to the street."
N11 organizers expressed similar sentiments.
"Whoever governs," they said, "we will conquer the right to housing."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Lawyers Mocked Over 'Pathetic' Effort to Intimidate Congressional Investigators
US Rep. Robert Garcia vowed he and his colleagues "will not be deterred by baseless threats... from the president's lawyers."
Nov 11, 2026
Legal experts openly ridiculed White House counsel William Scharf on Wednesday after he sent a letter threatening congressional Democrats who are preparing to investigate the Trump administration.
In the letter, which was first obtained by Punchbowl News, Scharf warned Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), who is in line to become the next chairman of the House Oversight Committee, that his office is monitoring "the abusive and capricious threats" from Democrats "who seek to abuse the legislative process to intimidate and interfere with the lawful functioning of government."
"You and your congressional colleagues have asserted they will issue subpoenas to harass, threaten, and deter dedicated members of the administration from further service," Scharf wrote. "Several have compared their subpoena pledges to handing out 'candy.'"
Scharf further warned that "threats to executive branch officials designed to deter them from public service... may cross the line into blatant criminality" that could warrant prosecution.
Garcia responded to Scharf's letter with a statement asserting Congress' role as a co-equal branch of government with "wide latitude to conduct investigations and oversight" under Article I of the US Constitution.
Garcia further vowed that he and his colleagues "will not be deterred by baseless threats from a weaponized [US Department of Justice] or from the president's lawyers."
Some legal experts expressed bewilderment at Scharf's arguments that conducting congressional oversight could warrant criminal charges.
"The letter from Scharf threatening Garcia with criminal prosecution is a total bluff," wrote former federal prosecutor Harry Litman in a social media post. "The only requirement he cites is a valid legislative purpose, which the Dems have for miles. It's telling that the letter comes from the White House counsel and not the DOJ. And a threat prosecution is non-starter."
Deborah Pearlstein, director of the Princeton Program in Law and Public Policy, argued that the letter is "worth the paper it’s written on, not more."
"This strikes me as a particularly ham-fisted stab at intimidation," Pearlstein explained, "driven by fear and an attempt to appease wealthy friends of the president who benefited from the grift and now may be on the receiving end of a congressional inquiry."
Lee Kovarsky, a law professor at the University of Texas, offered a pithy dismissal of Scharf's letter: "Get D-team lawyers, win D-team prizes."
Ryan Goodman, a professor at the New York University School of Law, described the letter as a "legally repsulive" document that ignores the US Constitution's Speech or Debate clause, which provides lawmakers with broad protections from arrest for carrying out their official duties.
Goodman added that the Scharf letter is "also a self-own" that "will very likely damage the Trump administration in any litigation that Congress pursues in courts."
Goodman's analysis of the letter was echoed by Politico legal reporter Kyle Cheney, who argued that it "plays right into Dems’ hands."
"Threatening criminal process for oversight gives them ammo to go straight to subpoenas," he explained, "and tell a court, 'What’s the point of lengthy negotiations with a White House trying to criminalize congressional scrutiny?'"
Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council, said the Scharf letter is "a very clear sign of weakness" that "will be Exhibit 1" used by lawmakers' defense attorneys should the DOJ decide to bring any politically motivated criminal charges against them.
Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.), a member of the House Oversight Committee, said the Trump White House's "continued threats and attempts to intimidate have become pathetic," adding that "I pay them no mind whatsoever."
"Congress’ authority to conduct oversight and investigations comes from the Constitution, and a letter from the Trump Administration has no bearing on that authority," Walkinshaw said. "We will do what the voters demanded: root out corruption and put in place reforms so the widespread graft and self-enrichment characterizing this Administration can never happen again."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Rousing COP31 Address, UN Chief Blasts Big Oil for ‘Making a Killing While Killing Our Planet’
“Fossil fuels must go the way of the dinosaurs, but that won’t happen on its own. The dinosaurs did not have a lobby, but fossil fuels do,” said UN Secretary-General António Guterres.
Nov 11, 2026
At his last United Nations Climate Change Conference as secretary-general, António Guterres on Wednesday emphasized that he "will not stop telling the truth" about how the fossil fuel industry and the wealthy governments that continue to hand out oil and gas subsidies are allowing the sector to reap massive profits while people around the world suffer from the worsening impacts of the climate emergency.
“The last four years were the hottest ever, and fossil fuel interests keep making a killing while killing our planet," the secretary-general said bluntly.
"Climate disasters are pounding lives, livelihoods, and economies across the globe," he added. "This is the path to mutually assured destruction."
Guterres spoke two days after the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) released its "State of the Climate" report at the conference, known as COP31, which is being hosted by the Turkish government in Antalya this year. The report warned that while the past 12 years have been the Earth's warmest on record, the trend has particularly accelerated since 2022.
The impacts have been brutal, with more than 1,500 people killed this year in Nepal and Tibet after a glacier collapsed and caused sudden catastrophic flooding, an estimated 200,000 people killed across Europe by extreme heat over the past years, and tens of thousands of acres scorched by wildfires across Europe and in the COP31 host country this summer.
Last month, the UN released a report finding that avoiding a global temperature rise over 1.5°C above preindustrial temperatures is no longer possible. Experts now say governments must work toward a goal of ensuring that the overshoot is only temporary, just over a decade after the warming limit was agreed to in the Paris Agreement at COP21.
On Wednesday, Guterres emphasized that the failure to avoid passing the 1.5°C limit comes as planet-warming emissions from the oil, gas, and coal industries have continued climbing—and as already wealthy companies' profits have soared.
Meanwhile, those same companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying in an effort to delay a transition away from fossil fuels and toward renewable energy sources.
“The brutal truth is that the climate crisis is outrunning us," said Guterres Wednesday. "Emissions in 2025 reached all-time highs. Heat records keep shattering."
“Fossil fuels must go the way of the dinosaurs," he added. "And that won’t happen on its own. The dinosaurs did not have a lobby. Fossil fuels do. And their strategy is simple: Distort the science. Delay policy. Delay action. Delay accountability.”
Guterres called on governments to tax oil and gas companies' windfall profits, like those the industry has reported since US President Donald Trump joined Israel in launching an illegal war in Iran. Since the conflict began in February, global energy prices have soared.
Last month, ExxonMobil reported $17.5 billion in adjusted earnings for the third quarter of 2026, while Chevron reported $10.4 billion. British company Shell earned $10.8 billion from July-September, and the French firm TotalEnergies brought in $9.1 billion.
The companies have reaped profits while the global Loss and Damage Fund, which experts and developing countries say needs about $400 billion annually from wealthier governments in order to help poorer countries adapt to emergency and repair damages, is woefully underfunded.
“Those who profit most from fossil fuels must help foot the bill for the damage they have caused," said Guterres. "In the last quarter alone, the nine largest oil companies pocketed $95 billion in profits. Meanwhile, the Loss and Damage Fund has received around $600 million. That is what these companies made in about 14 hours. It’s time for governments to tax these windfall profits—and use them to help vulnerable countries recover. Polluters must pay.”
David Tong, industry campaign manager for the global group Oil Change International (OCI), said in a statement that "trusting big oil to solve the climate crisis is like trusting big tobacco to cure lung cancer."
"Fossil fuel companies actively undermine a renewable energy future while trying to wring as much profits as possible out of fossil fuels while cashing in on conflict," said Tong. "It’s time to tax fossil fuel companies’ superprofits to pay for a transition to publicly owned renewable energy, governments must cut ties with fossil fuel companies and limit their influence on politics, and we must hold polluters accountable—legally and otherwise—for the damages they cause.”
OCI noted that Guterres' speech came shortly after YouGov released new polling that showed significant support in countries with large fossil fuel industries—the US, the UK, and France—for laws to phase out oil, gas, and coal production.
The climate action group 350.org said world leaders at COP31 must "turn growing international support for moving away from fossil fuels into a clear commitment at COP31."
Türkiye and Australia, which is serving as co-president of COP31, "will be to blame if this opportunity is allowed to slip away," said 350.org.
On Tuesday, said the group, attendees took part in "high-level events on roadmaps for transitioning away from fossil fuels," which "saw strong support from countries across negotiating blocs, alongside UN Secretary-General António Guterres, former COP presidents and ministers, for continuing the initiative launched by Brazil's COP30 Presidency in Belém last year."
"While Türkiye indicated it was open to considering the initiative, Australia offered no clear pathway for taking it forward," the organization continued.
Fenton Lutunatabua, Pacific and Caribbean program manager at 350.org, said that "the political mandate for a just and equitable transition away from fossil fuels is there."
"The world cannot afford another COP where governments acknowledge the need to move beyond fossil fuels but fail to agree on how to make it happen," said Lutunatabua. “If Australia is unwilling to advance this agenda, Türkiye must lead rather than allow one of the world's most fossil-fuel-dependent governments to hold back progress. The political support is there. What is missing is the leadership to turn it into action.”
This year's UN conference marks the second consecutive year without an official delegation from the US, the largest historic emitter of greenhouse gases, as Trump has refused to participate.
French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, and Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi are also skipping the summit, leaving UK Prime Minister Andy Burnham the only G7 leader attending.
“It really is a disgrace,” Mohamed Adow, the director of Power Shift Africa, told The New York Times of the absences. “The world’s biggest economies should be leading the response to the climate crisis, not leaving it to others.”
But Guterres stressed that despite the absence of leadership from the world's wealthiest economies, "science is not telling us to surrender. It is telling us to fight harder.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
Lawmakers Report That Some Democrats Missed Hegseth Impeachment Vote to Attend Event for ‘AIPAC Front Group’
The event was hosted by the group Elect Democratic Women, which funneled nearly $2.4 million from AIPAC into congressional races this cycle.
Nov 11, 2026
Some of the 11 Democrats who missed Tuesday’s vote to advance the impeachment of Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth were reportedly attending an event hosted by a “front group” for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, commonly known as AIPAC.
The vote, which would have prevented Republicans from killing efforts to impeach Hegseth over his launching of an unauthorized war against Iran, extrajudicial killings of sailors in the Caribbean and Pacific, kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and other actions, fell short by just seven votes.
The absent Democrats—Reps. Julia Brownley (D-Calif.), Lou Correa (D-Calif.), Laura Gillen (D-NY), Steven Horsford (D-Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (D-Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (D-Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (D-NM), Haley Stevens (D-Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (D-Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (D-Fla.)—could have changed the outcome.
Andrew Solender, a congressional reporter for Axios, shed new light on why some of them may have missed the crucial vote.
Citing several lawmakers, he posted on social media:
Some of the House Democrats who missed the Hegseth impeachment vote were on their way back from an Elect Democratic Women event at a venue about 1.5 miles down Pennsylvania Avenue but got caught in a bumper-to-bumper traffic jam on Independence Avenue (the road on the House side of the Capitol complex).
Drop Site News co-founder Ryan Grim noted that EDW was one of many groups that served as a "pass-through" for AIPAC funds in Democratic primaries during the 2026 election cycle.
As The Lever reported last month, AIPAC's super political action committee (PAC), the United Democracy Project, donated nearly $2.4 million to the group's political arm, EDW Action, while Democratic Majority for Israel donated another $140,000. Those funds made up nearly half the money the group subsequently spent in elections during the 2026 cycle, including against Democratic primary candidates critical of Israel, such as Reps.-elect Melat Kiros (D-Colo.) and Amish Shah (D-Ariz.).
EDW, which was founded in 2018 but did not start receiving AIPAC dollars through its action fund until 2024, was one of several innocuous-sounding groups—with names like "Affordable Chicago Now" and "BOLD America"—that acted as conduits for AIPAC dollars as the group's support came to be viewed as toxic among Democratic voters who were outraged by Israel's genocide in Gaza, ethnic cleansing in the West Bank, and push for Trump to launch a war with Iran.
Drop Site's congressional reporter Julian Andreone found that all eight of the women who missed the vote have some connection to EDW: Brownley is listed as a founding member and current executive board member, while Stansbury has been an at-large board member since 2025. Gillen is listed as a "frontline member" supported by the group.
The group provided support to Wilson, Stevens, Strickland, and Pettersen during the past election cycle. Pelosi, who has helped EDW raise money for years, missed Tuesday's impeachment vote because she was attending a veterans event in San Francisco.
According to an online post, EDW was holding a "new member reception" from 4:30 to 6:30 ET Tuesday at The Roost food hall at 1401 Pennsylvania Ave. SE, during the impeachment vote, which was scheduled for 5:30 ET.
Solender did not clarify which Democrats missed the vote because of their attendance at the EDW event. But at least five members have blamed traffic for their absence: Gillen, Jackson, Stansbury, Strickland, and Pettersen.
Jackson said, “A traffic incident and a police-escorted bus caused a delay.” He and Stansbury entered statements in the Congressional Record opposing the referral motion after arriving too late to vote. Strickland also blamed a motorcade for her absence, with her chief of staff saying she missed the vote by just one minute; she said she also would have voted to advance the impeachment effort.
A spokesperson for Pettersen accused Republicans of having "cynically closed the vote early" when several Democratic members were stuck in traffic. In a statement posted to social media, Brownley said she and her colleagues were "rushing to the floor" when House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) closed the vote.
Correa has said he missed the vote due to a medical procedure in California. Horsford's office said he missed the vote due to an unspecified "personal emergency."
As of Wednesday morning, Stevens and Wilson had not provided an explanation for why they missed the vote.
Reports that members of Congress were attending an event hosted by a group linked to AIPAC—which has cheered President Donald Trump's attack on Iran—immediately fueled speculation that their absences from the vote may not have been entirely accidental.
Journalist and AIPAC critic Adam Johnson mocked their explanations in a post on social media: "'I was stuck in traffic after attending an event for an AIPAC front group so I couldn’t (accidentally, and in good faith) vote to impeach the person prosecuting the war AIPAC enthusiastically supports,'” he wrote. "OK. If you say so."
The lawmakers who said they missed the vote due to traffic have not responded to questions from Common Dreams regarding whether they were returning from EDW’s event when the vote took place.
Common Dreams has also asked other members who have not explained their absences why they missed the vote. Those lawmakers have also not responded to the requests for comment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
In New Poll, Over 80% of MoveOn Members Say They Oppose Schumer for Senate Majority Leader
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership."
Nov 11, 2026
A survey of progressive activists released on Wednesday shows an overwhelming demand for new leadership among Democrats in the US Senate.
The poll, which was conducted by MoveOn Civic Action, finds that 82% of MoveOn members who took part in the survey do not support Schumer becoming Senate majority leader next year when Democrats assume control of both chambers of the US Congress. MoveOn said it received more than 10,000 responses to the member poll.
MoveOn members also overwhelmingly say the new Senate leader should "use all their power" to reverse Republicans policies, and they list ending President Donald Trump's illegal war with Iran, overturning his tariffs, and repealing cuts to federal healthcare programs as their biggest priorities.
"Our members are tired of politicians content with incrementalism—they want bold, creative leadership that will help Democrats usher in affordability and accountability without delay or compromise in the next Congress," said Joel Payne, executive director of MoveOn. "We welcome and will support any potential Senate leader willing to meet the moment."
The MoveOn poll is the second survey released in the last week showing progressives overwhelmingly want an alternative to Schumer as Senate majority leader.
A poll of over 4,300 progressive activists released by Our Revolution on Monday found that 72% of respondents want a different leader than Schumer, compared to just 5% who say they support him, and 22% who say they’re willing to see what he delivers.
So far, no other Democrats have stepped forward to officially challenge either Schumer or Jeffries. According to a Monday report in Punchbowl News, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) is open to challenging Schumer for Senate leadership after having "received an outpouring of calls" urging him to do so.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Not in the US Interest': Van Hollen Leads Effort to Prevent Deeper Integration With Israeli Military
"Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare."
Nov 11, 2026
Sen. Chris Van Hollen, who is considering a bid for Senate majority leader against Sen. Chuck Schumer, led a group of Democratic lawmakers on Tuesday in demanding that congressional leaders scrap a bipartisan effort to more closely integrate the American and Israeli militaries, warning the initiative would threaten US national security and risk further complicity in Israeli atrocities.
In a letter to Democratic and Republican congressional leaders, Van Hollen (D-Md.) and 11 other members of the Senate Democratic caucus demanded exclusion of three specific provisions from the Fiscal Year 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), warning they would "constrain the administration’s ability to independently determine how best to protect US national security and would lock in long-term commitments despite our serious concerns with the Israeli government’s actions in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region." Schumer did not sign the new letter.
Two of the provisions raised in the letter—Section 1217 of the Senate-passed NDAA and Section 219 of the House version of the bill—would establish a "United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative" aimed at accelerating "bilateral defense technology research, development, testing, evaluation, coordination, and industrial cooperation."
Lawmakers from both chambers must reconcile the differences between the House and Senate NDAAs before final passage, creating another opportunity for opponents of US-Israel military integration to strip out the provisions.
The senators warned in their Tuesday letter that the "agreements and projects these provisions envision threaten U.S. national security interests by handing Israel leverage over American weapons systems and military technology."
"Should these provisions be enacted, it would further increase Israel’s leverage over the United States through some of the most sensitive technologies in warfare. That is not in the US interest," the lawmakers wrote. "If enacted, these agreements would create long-term dependencies by embedding Israeli technology into the US defense industrial base that could make future policy changes costly or difficult to implement."
"We do not share, let alone co-produce, many of these sensitive technologies even with our closest partners, including NATO or other treaty allies," they added. "To do so in this instance would be unwise, especially as the government of Israel continues to pursue policies in Gaza, the West Bank, and other parts of the region that are inconsistent with US interests and values."
The lawmakers also warned against passage of Section 618 of the Fiscal Year 2027 Intelligence Authorization Act (IAA), which would require the executive branch to "expand and enhance intelligence sharing with the government of Israel." The IAA is usually included in the NDAA.
"The provision would tie the president’s hands from limiting intelligence sharing with Israel, even when doing so may be necessary to protect US national security," the senators wrote. "That would be irresponsible and especially troubling given public reports that the Defense Intelligence Agency recently raised the counterintelligence threat from Israel to its highest level."
"I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill."
The senators' letter came a week after President Donald Trump declared on the day of the midterm elections that he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reached an agreement to end the roughly $4 billion in military assistance that the US provides to Israel each year.
"This is where Section 219 of the NDAA comes in," Drop Site reporter Julian Andreone wrote in response to the president's announcement, referring to the military integration provision. "They’re going to transfer all of the aid behind closed doors and cut it from the appropriations process."
Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) argued in a social media post earlier this week that removal of the military integration language from the NDAA "needs to be a top priority" in the lame-duck session of Congress.
"I am pushing every Democrat and our leadership to get Section 219 out of our defense bill," Khanna said.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Heartless and Cruel': New Trump Rule Would Take Food Aid From More Than 6 Million People
"The Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history."
Nov 11, 2026
The Trump administration on Tuesday rolled out a proposed rule that would further restrict access to the United States' largest and most effective anti-hunger program, taking benefits from more than 6 million people—including many children—as grocery prices continue to rise and food bank demand surges nationwide.
The US Department of Agriculture's proposal, published in the Federal Register on Tuesday, targets a policy known as broad-based categorical eligibility (BBCE), which allows states to deem recipients of other federal benefits eligible for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Experts say the policy reduces administrative burdens for states and individuals by streamlining the SNAP application process.
Under the new rule, households with annual gross incomes above 130 percent of the poverty line—roughly $35,500 per year for a family of three—would lose SNAP benefits, according to an analysis released Tuesday by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP), a liberal think tank.
"In the midterm elections, the public indicated they want their elected officials to focus on making life affordable. Yet the Trump administration is doubling down on making it harder for people to feed their families, after already enacting the deepest cuts to SNAP in history," said Ty Jones Cox, vice president for food assistance at CBPP. "These attacks are part of the administration’s broader policy agenda that has raised costs and made it harder for working families to afford their basic needs, all to partially pay for trillions of dollars in tax cuts heavily weighted to the wealthy and fund its extreme and aggressive immigration detention apparatus."
According to the Trump administration's own analysis, the proposed rule would strip SNAP benefits from 3.2 million households—or around 6.3 million individuals—in fiscal year 2029, the first year the rule would take full effect. The USDA's proposal is open to public comment for just 30 days.
The Food Research & Action Center (FRAC) warned in a statement Tuesday that the impact of the rule "could be far worse" than the administration's projection, pointing to the disastrous and ongoing effects of SNAP cuts enacted under the 2025 Trump-GOP budget law. An estimated 5.5 million people—including roughly 1.5 million children—have lost SNAP benefits since the budget law's enactment, an outcome that Trump administration officials have celebrated.
Condemning the new proposal as "unconscionable," FRAC warned the rule's impacts would extend beyond the SNAP program, including by reducing access to free school meals, "making children hungry at home and at school."
"Children who lose SNAP are no longer automatically eligible for free school meals. Some would no longer be eligible for free school meals; others would be at risk of falling through the cracks when they go through the school meal application process," the group said. "The proposed rule would also negatively affect babies and toddlers, and pregnant, postpartum, and breastfeeding parents who are automatically income eligible for the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC), because they participate in SNAP. This rule would make it more difficult for households that lose SNAP to apply for WIC. Losing both SNAP and WIC would harm hundreds of thousands of infants and young children during their initial stages of development."
BBCE has long been a target of right-wing policy architects and Republican lawmakers. Project 2025, the policy blueprint released by the conservative Heritage Foundation, called for reforming the policy.
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.), the top Democrat on the House Agriculture Committee, condemned the USDA's proposal as "heartless and cruel," warning it would make it harder for families "to meet basic needs" and undercut states' efforts to "streamline federal programs."
"SNAP is a highly effective and efficient program when it is allowed to work as designed," said Craig. "Unfortunately, the Trump administration and the outgoing Republican majority in Congress have undermined the program’s integrity at every turn, harming millions of vulnerable Americans in the process."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Jeffries Dragged for 'Serious Leadership Problem' as Hegseth Impeachment Bid Falls 7 Votes Short With 11 Dem No-Shows
"Jeffries didn't even whip the vote," one critic said about the House minority leader, who wants to be speaker. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Nov 10, 2026
As House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries seeks to become speaker when Democrats retake Congress in January, critics questioned his leadership Tuesday after the Republican-led lower chamber effectively blocked a bid to impeach Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth by just seven votes—an outcome that may have been averted if more Democrats showed up to vote.
The 211-204 procedural vote effectively torpedoed Congressman Thomas Massie's attempt to impeach Hegseth by sending the outgoing Kentucky Republican's resolution to the House Judiciary Committee, where it will likely gather dust during the remainder of the GOP-controlled congressional term.
The resolution seeks to impeach Hegseth for his role in waging President Donald Trump's war on Iran in contravention of the War Powers Act and apparent war crimes committed by US forces in the conflict, including the February massacre of 156 people, at least 120 of them children, in a missile strike on an elementary school in the southern city of Minab.
Massie's resolution also accuses Hegseth of "extrajudicial killings of at least 221 persons aboard seagoing vessels alleged to be smuggling narcotics in the Caribbean Sea and the Eastern Pacific Ocean, principally in international waters" as part of Trump's boat-bombing spree; the invasion of Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and his wife; waging an illegal war on Yemen that has killed hundreds of civilians; and suppressing free speech at the Pentagon.
The 11 Democrats who were not present for the vote are: Julia Brownley (Calif.), Lou Correa (Calif.), Laura Gillen (NY), Steven Horsford (Nev.), Jonathan Jackson (Ill.), Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), Brittany Pettersen (Colo.), Melanie Stansbury (NM), Haley Stevens (Mich.), Marilyn Strickland (Wash.), and Frederica Wilson (Fla.). Correa is recovering from an undisclosed medical procedure and cannot travel.
Seven Republicans also did not vote. Observers noted there was a chance for Democrats to keep Massie's impeachment bid alive if more of them attended the session and voted.
Jeffries (D-NY)—who backs impeaching Hegseth—"didn’t think it was important to make sure 11 Democrats didn’t skip the Hegseth impeachment vote," author Jared Yates Sexton wrote on Bluesky.
Migrant Insider editor Pablo Manríquez accused Democrats of having "a serious leadership problem."
Zeteo reporter Prem Thakker wrote on social media that Jeffries "is arguing that he should be the leader of the Democrats—and then, as the current leader, he couldn’t get enough Democrats to show up to impeach Pete Hegseth."
On Tuesday morning, Hegseth brushed off the impeachment attempt as a "farce" and "political spectacle."
"None of these are high crimes or misdemeanors," he said of the allegations against him. "They're partisan policy disagreements from people who want to politicize our military."
Hegseth also said he "stand[s] behind every one of" the massacres and killings listed in the resolution, and that he "was proud to execute them, and... would do it again tomorrow.”
Asked by Politico's Riley Rogerson about the 11 Democrats' absence, Jeffries said: "I haven't had a conversation with anyone on the floor team about what may or may not have happened in terms of the Hegseth resolution, but this is not the end of it. It's just the beginning."
While numerous Democrats said they would renew efforts to impeach Hegseth once they're in control of Congress, many observers pointed to Tuesday's vote as further evidence that new party leadership is needed.
"Jeffries didn’t even whip the vote. He told people to 'vote their conscience,' and 11 members of his caucus didn’t show up," writer Laura Bassett wrote on social media. "This is why people want a stronger leader."
Similar sentiment is dogging Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), whose bid to become majority leader is opposed by a growing number of his colleagues. On Tuesday, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who asserted that the midterm election "was about change," and that "people want new leadership here in the Senate, so I will not be supporting Chuck.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
World's Richest Person Elon Musk Seeks Corporate Welfare for Texas Data Center
"I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," Democratic Texas Gov.-elect Gina Hinojosa said of AI companies' proliferating data centers.
Nov 10, 2026
Elon Musk, the world's wealthiest person, is seeking a property tax break for a proposed $24 billion SpaceX data center and gas-fired power plant in South Texas, where residents are mobilizing against the multicentibillionaire's expanding industrial footprint.
Politico reported Tuesday that commissioners in the border town of Starbase—which has around 500 residents and was incorporated in 2021 via a petition from SpaceX employees—is set to consider a proposed property tax abatement and economic development agreement for the company's facilities during a December 9 meeting. Two of the town's three commissioners are also SpaceX employees.
The data center and power plant project would occupy more than 400 acres near the Port of Brownsville, on land that the city of Brownsville agreed to de-annex in August at SpaceX's request.
In that deal, Brownsville agreed to remove 444.45 acres from its jurisdiction in exchange for SpaceX contributing up to $220 million toward regional water and wastewater infrastructure. The deal includes an initial $40 million payment and six subsequent quarterly payouts of $30 million.
Disannexation became a critical issue following Brownsville commissioners' unanimous vote last week in favor of a 90-day moratorium on permits for data center construction.
According to KRGV, SpaceX vice president Sheila McCorkle told Brownsville's six commissioners the company wanted the land removed from the city's jurisdiction to allow infrastructure development "quicker and more economically" than if it remained part of Brownsville. McCorkle also touted the move as an opportunity to boost growth and help the water supply in the Lower Rio Grande Valley, a semi-arid region suffering a severe water crisis.
That crisis is largely due to overconsumption of water—a resource data centers require in massive quantities. SpaceX has projected that its Starbase operations will eventually require approximately 2 million gallons of water per day.
Many local residents oppose both the proposed tax break and the data center/power plant project.
"Please pass a full 180-day data center moratorium. And please remember that this is supposed to be a community-led environmental task force," South Texas Environmental Justice Center co-founder Bekah Hinojosa told commissioners during a November 4 Brownsville City Commission meeting.
"You need to make sure that you're taking every possible step to ensure meaningful public input throughout this data center moratorium," she continued. "We don't know what SpaceX is building on the 444 acres. It's frankly terrifying."
Attorney Jacqueline Morales told the commissioners: "The moratorium will not make us forget that you de-annexed 444 acres of land to SpaceX, which is now building a data center. This community has been sounding the alarm for months, only for this commission to ignore us and pretend like it knows better."
"You either work to protect residents of Brownsville or you don't," Morales added. "There is no middle ground here."
The Brownsville dispute is part of the nationwide backlash against data centers, which consume enormous quantities of electricity and water while frequently seeking taxpayer-funded incentives.
Musk has met similar resistance in Louisiana, where Republican Gov. Jeff Landry's administration has offered SpaceX an estimated $27.5 billion incentive package to construct a massive launch facility on 125,000 acres of coastal land in Vermilion Parish. According to the Louisiana Illuminator, nearly $24 billion of the package consists of a 25-year property tax exemption.
The proposed deal has outraged many local residents, more than 1,000 of whom submitted comments to the Federal Aviation Administration expressing concerns about the project's environmental consequences, including damage to fragile wetlands, wildlife habitats, and the rapidly eroding Louisiana coastline.
"I'm not anti-SpaceX," small farmer Karol Bourque told The Current in September. "It's all the secrecy, the NDAs, the laws protecting all these powerful people and companies."
Ironically, Musk relocated SpaceX and other companies from California to Texas in recent years, seeking lower taxes and less regulation. During the 2026 midterm election cycle, he reportedly spent around $224 million supporting Texas Republican candidates and political committees, including Ken Paxton for the US Senate and Greg Abbott for governor.
Both lost amid Democrats' historic "blue tsunami." Democratic Sen.-elect James Talarico has explicitly targeted Musk's extreme wealth.
"We should tax trillionaires out of existence," he declared last year, warning that "the reason poverty exists in the wealthiest country on earth isn't because we can't feed the poor—it's because we can't satisfy the rich."
Abbott was beaten by Democrat Gina Hinojosa, who has called for a moratorium on new data center approvals and has pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"When I am governor I will issue a moratorium—a ban—on all data center approvals until laws can be passed by the Legislature to protect Texans," Hinojosa said in October.
She also pledged to end the enormous tax giveaways offered to the artificial intelligence industry.
"It is not that I hate data centers. I hate the way they are taking advantage of Texas, and that stops when I'm governor," she said.
Democrats also won control of the Texas House of Representatives. But even before the "blue tsunami," momentum was building in Austin to reverse the state’s formerly welcoming approach to AI data centers. Republican and Democratic lawmakers alike have signaled support for rolling back tax breaks for the industry in the upcoming legislative session. Monday marked the opening of the bill-filing period ahead of the session, which is scheduled to begin on January 12.
Among the proposals, state Sen. Judith Zaffirini (D-21) introduced legislation barring counties and other local governments from granting property tax abatements to data center operators. Two additional bills filed in the Texas House would eliminate sales tax exemptions on electricity consumed by data centers and restrict counties’ ability to enter into nondisclosure agreements with the companies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Your Victory Is Fleeting': After California Measure Falls Short, Sanders Threatens Billionaires With Federal Wealth Tax
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," said economist Gabriel Zucman, who led the charge for California's failed proposal.
Nov 10, 2026
California's wealth tax proposal has fallen just short after the state's richest residents spent hundreds of millions of dollars to mobilize voters against it. But Sen. Bernie Sanders is warning them not to get too comfortable.
Sanders (I-Vt.) argued that Proposition 40, which would have used revenue from a one-time 5% tax on billionaire residents to fund the state’s healthcare system, performed quite well given the resources that powerful tech barons like Google co-founder Sergey Brin and its former CEO Eric Schmidt deployed to fight it.
"Oligarchs spent $425 million against California's billionaire wealth tax—outraising supporters 250 to 1 on ads," Sanders wrote on social media. "The result: They got a 'whopping' 52% [of the vote]."
"I've got bad news for these oligarchs," Sanders continued. "Your victory is fleeting. We will pass a federal billionaire wealth tax and end your greed."
Many of the wealthiest Americans pay lower effective tax rates than ordinary workers because much of their wealth is held in stocks, whose gains are generally untaxed until sold—and can be taxed at lower rates than wages when realized.
Polls show that overwhelming majorities of Americans support a federal tax on the wealth of the superrich—including most Republicans.
One February poll by the University of Maryland's Program for Public Consultation found that 80% of Americans, including 72% of Republicans and 88% of Democrats, supported the idea of a federal tax of 2% on fortunes over $50 million and a 3% tax on those over $1 billion.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), who has called for a wealth tax for years and made it central to her 2020 presidential bid, has argued that "the best way to do a wealth tax is to do a national wealth tax."
In January, she told The New Republic that a federal proposal would avoid some of the pitfalls the rich used to fearmonger about California’s proposal, such as the possibility of simply fleeing across state lines to avoid paying it.
Escaping a national tax, she said, would mean having to “give up your US citizenship, and forfeit your passport.”
French economist Gabriel Zucman, who helped lead the push for California’s ballot measure, said he was “not surprised” by its defeat.
"The money spent by the billionaires was critical," he told NPR. "Anyone who lives in California has been carpet-bombed by a deluge of ads. One can easily see how this could be pivotal in such a closely contested ballot."
But he said that last week's midterm elections, which saw Democrats swept into power on a wave of anti-billionaire anger, showed that the fight over a wealth tax was not something that could easily be ignored.
"With the blue wave nationally, the billionaire tax is going to be front and center in the new Congress," Zucman said. "Many of the newly elected Democratic senators have been campaigning on curbing the power and influence of billionaires. One can reasonably expect to see significant progress in the next two years."
Sanders, who introduced a 5% annual wealth tax on those worth $1 billion or more with Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) in March, renewed his call to pass the bill after the elections.
Another proposal, which would impose an annual 2% tax on net worth above $50 million, increasing to 3% on wealth above $1 billion, has gained the support of 63 Democrats, including Warren, Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY).
Van Hollen, who has suggested he may challenge Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) to become Senate majority leader when Democrats retake the chamber, told Politico last week that he thinks there’s “growing support” in the Democratic caucus for a tax on the ultrarich.
“People are recognizing that we have a tax system that allows individuals to accumulate huge amounts of wealth," he said.
“It is essential that we show the American people where we stand,” Van Hollen added. “If [President Donald Trump] vetoes it, it will just show people that he’s on the side of billionaires.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
See More
Most Popular
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy